# ובחבורתו (Isaiah 53:5)



## mrsonic

isaiah 53: 5

וּבַחֲבֻרָתֹ֖ו

in the context of isaiah 53 :5 how is this word used? 

is the item bruised?
wounded?
in the context of isiah 53:5 does it have anything to do with piercing flesh?


----------



## origumi

Bruise, stripe, wound, blow (H2250, also מצודות and others). No piercing flesh, no wooden cross, no magi.


----------



## mrsonic

> No piercing flesh, no wooden cross, no magi.




i thought that too.


----------



## origumi

In other places חבורה is compared to פצע. While פצע is a "wound made by sword which pierces the flesh", חבורה is "a wound in which the blood is amassed under the skin" (מלבי"ם for Isaiah 1:6).

The Isaiah chapter you're reading is regarded sometimes as sensitive and therefore open to propaganda as much as to honest interpretation. Yet for this specific word, the Jewish tradition is in agreement with the scientific linguistic view, so should be more convincing, I think, than unidirectional theological reading. And nevertheless, those who look for pierced flesh can find it in other places, as the example above.


----------



## mrsonic

> In other places חבורה is compared to פצע. While פצע is a "wound made by sword which pierces the flesh", חבורה is "a wound in which the *blood is amassed under the skin*" (מלבי"ם for Isaiah 1:6).





if the person in isaiah 53:5 is said to have been diseased , then is it logical to assume that the wounds don't require an object to pierce the flesh or blood collecting under the skin ? 

when the verse says " by his bruises we were healed" 
this can't be talking about blood healing/atoning , right?


----------



## trigel

> The Isaiah chapter you're reading is regarded sometimes as sensitive and therefore open to propaganda as much as to honest interpretation. Yet for this specific word, the Jewish tradition is in agreement with the scientific linguistic view, so should be more convincing, I think, than unidirectional theological reading. And nevertheless, those who look for pierced flesh can find it in other places, as the example above.​



IMHO as a former Christian, the Christological reading of Isaiah 53 is just about latching on to themes of so-called "substitutionary atonement", our sins being forgiven by a third party bearing the punishment for our sins. Though Isaiah 53 says nothing about our sins being _forgiven_ to begin with!


----------



## origumi

mrsonic said:


> this can't be talking about blood healing/atoning , right?





trigel said:


> Though Isaiah 53 says nothing about our sins being _forgiven_ to begin with!


No pierced flesh and shedding blood, and nevertheless there's a motive of atonement. Not only as the Christian substitutionary atonement, also according to the Jewish tradition for this verse.

רש"י says: באו עליו יסורי השלום שהיה לנו שהוא היה מיוסר להיות שלום לכל העולם
מצודות says: היסורין הראויים לבוא עלינו למרק העון להתמיד שלומנו הנה באו עליו

(both in regard to מוסר שלומנו עליו, I guess we can assume that ובחברתו נרפא לנו has an equivalent meaning).

The similarity of this prophecy of Isaiah to the Jesus story is not a challenge for the Jewish belief, remembering that the messianic nature of Jesus was constructed according to this prophecy (among other), so does not strengthen (in Jewish eyes) the view of Jesus as the Messiah foretold by Isaiah. And in spite of this, the chapter was and should be handled with extra caution, even in regard to the literal meaning of each word, as it became a weapon in the hands of some.


----------



## trigel

origumi said:


> No pierced flesh and shedding blood, and nevertheless there's a motive of atonement. Not only as the Christian substitutionary atonement, also according to the Jewish tradition for this verse.
> 
> רש"י says: באו עליו יסורי השלום שהיה לנו שהוא היה מיוסר להיות שלום לכל העולם
> מצודות says: היסורין הראויים לבוא עלינו למרק העון להתמיד שלומנו הנה באו עליו
> 
> (both in regard to מוסר שלומנו עליו, I guess we can assume that ובחברתו נרפא לנו has an equivalent meaning).
> 
> The similarity of this prophecy of Isaiah to the Jesus story is not a challenge for the Jewish belief, remembering that the messianic nature of Jesus was constructed according to this prophecy (among other), so does not strengthen (in Jewish eyes) the view of Jesus as the Messiah foretold by Isaiah. And in spite of this, the chapter was and should be handled with extra caution, even in regard to the literal meaning of each word, as it became a weapon in the hands of some.



OK, that's very interesting! Perhaps/probably there is a motive of atonement. Does Jewish tradition say more about who this figure is? Is he the Jewish Messiah or not?


----------



## mrsonic

origumi, isaac fried from the university of bostom said ,



The root XLL is a member of the root family GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL,
all meaning in essence 'pile up up'. The letter G of, the typical,
GLL is the single-literal root appearing in full as the three-literal
root G)H, 'rise', see Exodus15:1, Ezekiel 47:5 and Job 8:11. The
letter L is the single-literal root appearing in full as the three-
literal root (LH, 'elevate', see Exodus 19:3, Joshua 2:8 and Proverbs
30:4. Thus GLL = G)H-(LH-(LH.
*
<<< snipped >>>*

do you agree with isaac fried?


----------



## Drink

This gets deep into the largely speculative field of Proto-Semitic linguists, which I think is mostly irrelevant to understanding the meanings of words in the Bible. The most it could explain is the historical _reason_ behind the meaning.


----------



## origumi

mrsonic said:


> origumi, isaac fried from the university of bostom said ,
> ...


Fried's comments appears here. I guess you quoted him because he deals with root חלל, as in מְחֹלָל that appears earlier in Isaiah 53:5 (this is not וחבורתו of the thread title).

* As Drink said, Fried deals with pre-Hebrew (or at least pre-Biblical-Hebrew) development of some roots
* What he says looks speculative, I am not sure mainstream linguists would agree with this roots aggregation
* He claims that חלל = to be empty, hollow = to include, enclose ... I fail to understand the logic behind it
* He does not suggest at all the idea of חלל = dead due to pierced flesh, for him it "may mean 'rolled or bent over' or 'drained of life' ".

So Fried doesn't really help us. And yet: your question (if I understands it correctly), whether Hebrew  וְהוּא מְחֹלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ can mean "and he's pierced due to our  crime", is legit.

Meanings of words based on root חלל are: cavity /  space / hollow, dead person, deprived of priesthood (חלל כהונה), outer space (modern Hebrew), flute (חליל, because it's hollow?), something forbidden (חלילה, as suggested here), desecrate, cause to happen / generate, fear (חיל, חלחלה), and apparently some more.

The meaning חלל = dead person is explained by some as "died by sword that pierced the body", e.g. Strong's H2491  and Gesenius. This is the reason, I guess, that Christian translations of מחולל in Isaiah 53:1 often take it as "pierced". I don't know whether this is true etymology or (1) a conjecture trying to explain how the word for cavity also means a dead  person, (2) retrospective prejudiced interpretation according to Christian theological ideas. All appearances of  חלל = dead that I could see in the Bible  provide no apparent reason to assume that the death is due to pierced  flesh. Also, חלל = dead is used in the Bible as a noun while verbs of  root חלל (like our מחולל) are for other meanings (as far as I could see).

Traditional Jewish readings of מחולל in Isaiah 53:5 are "full of fear"  (מצודת דוד, מצודת ציון) or "sick" (מלבי"ם, of root חלה?). I am not sure to what  level these are robust linguistically.


----------

