Who buried with whom? Isaiah 53:9

[ThomasDGW]

"And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." King James Version
"And they (literally 'he') made His grave with the wicked- But with the rich at His death." The New King James Version
"And He put with the wicked His grave and with a rich (man) in His death." The Interlinear Bible, translated by Jay P. Green, Sr
"His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death." New American Standard Version
"And they made his grave with the wicked and in his deaths among the rich," Unknown version quoted by Michoel Drazin
"And his grave was set among the wicked, And with the rich, in his death (with footnote I can't find)" translation from sefaria.org
"And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death," translation from chabad.org

The basic meaning is clear, his grave was made, put, set with, or given to the wicked, and in his death, he was with a rich man, or simply among the rich. There is a question about the word "deaths" in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew and can't explain why the Christian, Jay Green, and other translators put it as singular, if it is supposed to be plural.  I take that seriously and I am not amenable to say, "Oh, it doesn't have to be exactly right." I plan to deal with that later.

But first, who was buried with the wicked and also was with the rich in death? Three of the Christian translations capitalize the "He", indicating that this is a divine person, but I ignore that as the opinion of the translator. I already knew that the majority consensus of Jewish scholars seems to be that this is the nation Israel. I have already read a couple explanations of this, but I ask the Jews here to go ahead and explain how Israel fulfilled this passage.

[rosends]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

[ThomasDGW]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

What is that a translation of?

Rashi says that being buried with the wicked means being subject to being buried however the heathen wicked decree, such as being buried like a donkey. I see no explanation for how Israel was with the rich in his deaths.

Ibn Ezra says that Israel was so maltreated that he longed to die with the rich heathen nations that oppressed him.

Radak was all in Hebrew, so I pasted it into Google Translate and got this:
"They would have killed him in exile as the wicked kill for their wickedness and he did not do Hams or anything deceitful with his mouth and they would have killed him as if he had done evil and they would have numbered him with wicked people and taste and let him have put himself to death because they would have fired him if he had apostatized from his Torah and returned to their Torah and he would have put himself to death to death and will not be frostbitten in his Torah, and he also said that we have been killed for you all day long, and the rich man will taste his death, because the rich man is also killed for his tithe and he was killed not because of the evil that was in him but because of the wealth that he had, and he tasted his deaths, many people say that many deaths will be done to him some of them They are burned and some of them are killed and some of them are stoned and all of them give themselves to the Oneness of Hashem:"

Of course the translation is not very good, but it seems to make sense overall. I understand that Radak is saying that being buried with the wicked means that the wicked kill him as if he had done evil, and being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money. The plural deaths refer to the many ways that people of Israel will be put to death.

this last idea was echoed by Michoel Drazin in his article https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant

Did I get the right idea of the explanations?

[rosends]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

What is that a translation of?

Rashi says that being buried with the wicked means being subject to being buried however the heathen wicked decree, such as being buried like a donkey. I see no explanation for how Israel was with the rich in his deaths.

Ibn Ezra says that Israel was so maltreated that he longed to die with the rich heathen nations that oppressed him.

Radak was all in Hebrew, so I pasted it into Google Translate and got this:
"They would have killed him in exile as the wicked kill for their wickedness and he did not do Hams or anything deceitful with his mouth and they would have killed him as if he had done evil and they would have numbered him with wicked people and taste and let him have put himself to death because they would have fired him if he had apostatized from his Torah and returned to their Torah and he would have put himself to death to death and will not be frostbitten in his Torah, and he also said that we have been killed for you all day long, and the rich man will taste his death, because the rich man is also killed for his tithe and he was killed not because of the evil that was in him but because of the wealth that he had, and he tasted his deaths, many people say that many deaths will be done to him some of them They are burned and some of them are killed and some of them are stoned and all of them give themselves to the Oneness of Hashem:"

Of course the translation is not very good, but it seems to make sense overall. I understand that Radak is saying that being buried with the wicked means that the wicked kill him as if he had done evil, and being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money. The plural deaths refer to the many ways that people of Israel will be put to death.

this last idea was echoed by Michoel Drazin in his article https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant

Did I get the right idea of the explanations?

the general idea a a start. Now you only have miles and miles to go.

[ThomasDGW]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

What is that a translation of?

Rashi says that being buried with the wicked means being subject to being buried however the heathen wicked decree, such as being buried like a donkey. I see no explanation for how Israel was with the rich in his deaths.

Ibn Ezra says that Israel was so maltreated that he longed to die with the rich heathen nations that oppressed him.

Radak was all in Hebrew, so I pasted it into Google Translate and got this:
"They would have killed him in exile as the wicked kill for their wickedness and he did not do Hams or anything deceitful with his mouth and they would have killed him as if he had done evil and they would have numbered him with wicked people and taste and let him have put himself to death because they would have fired him if he had apostatized from his Torah and returned to their Torah and he would have put himself to death to death and will not be frostbitten in his Torah, and he also said that we have been killed for you all day long, and the rich man will taste his death, because the rich man is also killed for his tithe and he was killed not because of the evil that was in him but because of the wealth that he had, and he tasted his deaths, many people say that many deaths will be done to him some of them They are burned and some of them are killed and some of them are stoned and all of them give themselves to the Oneness of Hashem:"

Of course the translation is not very good, but it seems to make sense overall. I understand that Radak is saying that being buried with the wicked means that the wicked kill him as if he had done evil, and being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money. The plural deaths refer to the many ways that people of Israel will be put to death.

this last idea was echoed by Michoel Drazin in his article https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant

Did I get the right idea of the explanations?

the general idea a a start. Now you only have miles and miles to go.

So, with this general idea, I have some observations:

(1) I don't see an explicit fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 in the nation Israel, that is, Israelites are not sharing graves with wicked people. I'm not saying that a figurative meaning is impossible, where the wicked defining the death and method of burial of the Israelites is equivalent to them sharing a grave. But you did say that the explicit meaning is to be preferred. Also, when Christian apologists protested that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to actually share the same grave with the wicked, that being buried in the same neighborhood was close enough to fulfill the prophecy, the counter-missionaries countered that if they claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy, it has to be all correct, no "close enough" stuff. I agreed with that, but here it looks like Judaism is resorting to even more figurative interpretations than Jesus being buried within walking distance of the wicked whom he died with.

(2) Couldn't these explanations of how Israel "gave his grave to the wicked" apply to other nations? I am not intending to belittle the mistreatment that Jews have received, but there are other people besides Jews that have been killed unjustly, given wicked burials, or have been killed for their money. By making the fulfillment spread out over many individuals, it seems to me to lose its impact. Really, what nation on earth has not had some of its individuals subjected to these wicked deaths? On the other hand, one man who fulfilled making his grave with the wicked AND with the rich in his deaths, would be very remarkable.

(3) I just noticed something else. If "deaths" is plural, to indicate that this singular servant is actually a composite of many individuals, why is "grave" singular?

[rosends]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

What is that a translation of?

Rashi says that being buried with the wicked means being subject to being buried however the heathen wicked decree, such as being buried like a donkey. I see no explanation for how Israel was with the rich in his deaths.

Ibn Ezra says that Israel was so maltreated that he longed to die with the rich heathen nations that oppressed him.

Radak was all in Hebrew, so I pasted it into Google Translate and got this:
"They would have killed him in exile as the wicked kill for their wickedness and he did not do Hams or anything deceitful with his mouth and they would have killed him as if he had done evil and they would have numbered him with wicked people and taste and let him have put himself to death because they would have fired him if he had apostatized from his Torah and returned to their Torah and he would have put himself to death to death and will not be frostbitten in his Torah, and he also said that we have been killed for you all day long, and the rich man will taste his death, because the rich man is also killed for his tithe and he was killed not because of the evil that was in him but because of the wealth that he had, and he tasted his deaths, many people say that many deaths will be done to him some of them They are burned and some of them are killed and some of them are stoned and all of them give themselves to the Oneness of Hashem:"

Of course the translation is not very good, but it seems to make sense overall. I understand that Radak is saying that being buried with the wicked means that the wicked kill him as if he had done evil, and being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money. The plural deaths refer to the many ways that people of Israel will be put to death.

this last idea was echoed by Michoel Drazin in his article https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant

Did I get the right idea of the explanations?

the general idea a a start. Now you only have miles and miles to go.

So, with this general idea, I have some observations:

(1) I don't see an explicit fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 in the nation Israel, that is, Israelites are not sharing graves with wicked people. I'm not saying that a figurative meaning is impossible, where the wicked defining the death and method of burial of the Israelites is equivalent to them sharing a grave. But you did say that the explicit meaning is to be preferred. Also, when Christian apologists protested that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to actually share the same grave with the wicked, that being buried in the same neighborhood was close enough to fulfill the prophecy, the counter-missionaries countered that if they claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy, it has to be all correct, no "close enough" stuff. I agreed with that, but here it looks like Judaism is resorting to even more figurative interpretations than Jesus being buried within walking distance of the wicked whom he died with.

(2) Couldn't these explanations of how Israel "gave his grave to the wicked" apply to other nations? I am not intending to belittle the mistreatment that Jews have received, but there are other people besides Jews that have been killed unjustly, given wicked burials, or have been killed for their money. By making the fulfillment spread out over many individuals, it seems to me to lose its impact. Really, what nation on earth has not had some of its individuals subjected to these wicked deaths? On the other hand, one man who fulfilled making his grave with the wicked AND with the rich in his deaths, would be very remarkable.

(3) I just noticed something else. If "deaths" is plural, to indicate that this singular servant is actually a composite of many individuals, why is "grave" singular?

1 -- you don't really understand what the "explicit" meaning is, you are forgetting who is talking, and you are missing that this is a future prophecy, not one that was fulfilled already, so complaining that you don't see a fulfillment is silly. No where in the verse is the word "with" -- that's a matter of interpretation. So already, you are working with interpretation and your further extension into "share a grave" is your interpretation of an interpretation (and "walking distance" would then be an even further distanced interpretation).

2 -- you want to apply it to someone else not listed in the text? Fine, have fun with that. It could refer to King Kong, I guess. I'll stick with what the text says -- it identifies its speakers and subject.

3 -- much of this is in the singular. Cf Hoshea 11:1. I'm not sure why you say the word is "deaths" in the plural (not everyone explains it to refer to death, actually). But those who see the plural "deaths" explain it as the proof that this is talking about a group (many different types of death) and not an individual.

[ThomasDGW]

another translation to consider is
"And he shall deliver the wicked into hell, and the riches of treasures which they got by violence unto the death of Abaddon, that they who commit sin shall not remain, and that they should not speak folly with their mouth."

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...i&lang2=en
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...a&lang2=en

though the Radak has a more elegant explanation
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.9?lang...k&lang2=en

What is that a translation of?

Rashi says that being buried with the wicked means being subject to being buried however the heathen wicked decree, such as being buried like a donkey. I see no explanation for how Israel was with the rich in his deaths.

Ibn Ezra says that Israel was so maltreated that he longed to die with the rich heathen nations that oppressed him.

Radak was all in Hebrew, so I pasted it into Google Translate and got this:
"They would have killed him in exile as the wicked kill for their wickedness and he did not do Hams or anything deceitful with his mouth and they would have killed him as if he had done evil and they would have numbered him with wicked people and taste and let him have put himself to death because they would have fired him if he had apostatized from his Torah and returned to their Torah and he would have put himself to death to death and will not be frostbitten in his Torah, and he also said that we have been killed for you all day long, and the rich man will taste his death, because the rich man is also killed for his tithe and he was killed not because of the evil that was in him but because of the wealth that he had, and he tasted his deaths, many people say that many deaths will be done to him some of them They are burned and some of them are killed and some of them are stoned and all of them give themselves to the Oneness of Hashem:"

Of course the translation is not very good, but it seems to make sense overall. I understand that Radak is saying that being buried with the wicked means that the wicked kill him as if he had done evil, and being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money. The plural deaths refer to the many ways that people of Israel will be put to death.

this last idea was echoed by Michoel Drazin in his article https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant

Did I get the right idea of the explanations?

the general idea a a start. Now you only have miles and miles to go.

So, with this general idea, I have some observations:

(1) I don't see an explicit fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 in the nation Israel, that is, Israelites are not sharing graves with wicked people. I'm not saying that a figurative meaning is impossible, where the wicked defining the death and method of burial of the Israelites is equivalent to them sharing a grave. But you did say that the explicit meaning is to be preferred. Also, when Christian apologists protested that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to actually share the same grave with the wicked, that being buried in the same neighborhood was close enough to fulfill the prophecy, the counter-missionaries countered that if they claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy, it has to be all correct, no "close enough" stuff. I agreed with that, but here it looks like Judaism is resorting to even more figurative interpretations than Jesus being buried within walking distance of the wicked whom he died with.

(2) Couldn't these explanations of how Israel "gave his grave to the wicked" apply to other nations? I am not intending to belittle the mistreatment that Jews have received, but there are other people besides Jews that have been killed unjustly, given wicked burials, or have been killed for their money. By making the fulfillment spread out over many individuals, it seems to me to lose its impact. Really, what nation on earth has not had some of its individuals subjected to these wicked deaths? On the other hand, one man who fulfilled making his grave with the wicked AND with the rich in his deaths, would be very remarkable.

(3) I just noticed something else. If "deaths" is plural, to indicate that this singular servant is actually a composite of many individuals, why is "grave" singular?

1 -- you don't really understand what the "explicit" meaning is, you are forgetting who is talking, and you are missing that this is a future prophecy, not one that was fulfilled already, so complaining that you don't see a fulfillment is silly. No where in the verse is the word "with" -- that's a matter of interpretation. So already, you are working with interpretation and your further extension into "share a grave" is your interpretation of an interpretation (and "walking distance" would then be an even further distanced interpretation).

2 -- you want to apply it to someone else not listed in the text? Fine, have fun with that. It could refer to King Kong, I guess. I'll stick with what the text says -- it identifies its speakers and subject.

3 -- much of this is in the singular. Cf Hoshea 11:1. I'm not sure why you say the word is "deaths" in the plural (not everyone explains it to refer to death, actually). But those who see the plural "deaths" explain it as the proof that this is talking about a group (many different types of death) and not an individual.

1: The debate pushed by counter-missionaries is about who is talking about whom in Isaiah 53, and when and how it was/will be fulfilled, and I am examining evidence for the various claims.  They are challenging those of other faiths to defend their position. Do you expect me to just believe and remember a conclusion that I am not convinced of yet, just because rabbis know Hebrew better than I do?

In Isaiah 53:9, the Hebrew word Aleph-Thau is found twice and as far as I can see it always has the meaning of a close association. The closest association between the servant's grave and the wicked and the rich would appear to be to have the grave shared. That exactly was what the counter-missionaries were insisting that Jesus would have to do (among other things, of course) to qualify to be the servant of the passage. They, not I, were insisting on this, and I am saying that there is apparently a double standard being used in the counter-missionary movement.  THEY SAID that Jesus couldn't flex the interpretation of Aleph-Thau enough to be buried within walking distance, but YOU SAY that Aleph-Thau is so flexible that it can mean that some Israelites got killed in a robbery.

What do I say? I SAY that Jesus actually did share a grave with the wicked, and I can show why I say that. I hadn't gotten to that yet, but you were very quick to interpret my remarks as my own beliefs.

2: If you just stick with the text, it does not state who is speaking. The text mentions Isaiah, daughter of the Chaldeans, Jerusalem, Israel, kings shutting their mouth, "my servant", and God, and others. Which of those could be speaking regarding whom in which passages is what people have decided based on the content of each passage. How do you know that God is speaking in verse 11, for example? It isn't because the text says, "Thus says God..." but because the content says "my righteous servant" and we know that it is God's servant.  Why did you decide that the speakers in verse 3, for example, are the kings referring to Israel? Not because it says, "Thus say the kings..." but because you believe that you know that Israel is despised by the kings and no one else fits that content.

3: Hosea 11 is an interesting example, because after referring to Israel in the singular, it then begins to refer to Ephraim in the plural, then in verse 5, back to the singular.  I never have denied that the singular servant could refer to the nation Israel. I am just asking you to look at the content and see if that interpretation is justified. I used the spelling "deaths" because that is what the counter-missionaries used. It seems that you are saying that the counter-missionaries are cherry-picking interpretations that will give missionaries the hardest time and hiding the fact that there are other interpretations.

In fact, Jesus did die more than one death, and I can show this, too.

[rosends]

1: The debate pushed by counter-missionaries is about who is talking about whom in Isaiah 53, and when and how it was/will be fulfilled, and I am examining evidence for the various claims.  They are challenging those of other faiths to defend their position. Do you expect me to just believe and remember a conclusion that I am not convinced of yet, just because rabbis know Hebrew better than I do?

1 -- Yes. You should defer to experts who have been studying a text for thousands of years in the original language and context.

In Isaiah 53:9, the Hebrew word Aleph-Thau is found twice and as far as I can see it always has the meaning of a close association.

 -- The word has no actual definition in Hebrew but is used as a variety of things. None of them is "walking distance." I never mentioned a robbery.

2: If you just stick with the text, it does not state who is speaking. The text mentions Isaiah, daughter of the Chaldeans, Jerusalem, Israel, kings shutting their mouth, "my servant", and God, and others. Which of those could be speaking regarding whom in which passages is what people have decided based on the content of each passage. How do you know that God is speaking in verse 11, for example? It isn't because the text says, "Thus says God..." but because the content says "my righteous servant" and we know that it is God's servant.  Why did you decide that the speakers in verse 3, for example, are the kings referring to Israel? Not because it says, "Thus say the kings..." but because you believe that you know that Israel is despised by the kings and no one else fits that content.

2 -- Actually, it has to do with the grammar, the words and the syntax of the text. Understanding that comes from study in the original and in context. But, hey, if you just want to innovate a new reading because it makes more sense to you, have fun. That will have no bearing on what the text actually means. The Drazin book is one place that goes through teh chapter and shows how it can't apply to Jesus but does to Israel. There are other sites that break down the phrases and explain them. If you wanted to look for all sorts of explanations that you can reject because they don't agree with your beliefs, you can do that also.

3: Hosea 11 is an interesting example, because after referring to Israel in the singular, it then begins to refer to Ephraim in the plural, then in verse 5, back to the singular.  I never have denied that the singular servant could refer to the nation Israel. I am just asking you to look at the content and see if that interpretation is justified. I used the spelling "deaths" because that is what the counter-missionaries used. It seems that you are saying that the counter-missionaries are cherry-picking interpretations that will give missionaries the hardest time and hiding the fact that there are other interpretations.

3 -- to a degree, that is a possibility. By pointing out the complexities of explanations it can be shown that the parameters of meaning can't include Jesus. But no one is hiding anything. Is it up to those who ask questions to keep studying, not up to those who explain to give every possibility.

In fact, Jesus did die more than one death, and I can show this, too.

Jews don't care. The text has nothing to do with Jesus. Or Harry Potter.

[ThomasDGW]

"1 -- Yes. You should defer to experts who have been studying a text for thousands of years in the original language and context."
The Torah says that 2 or 3 witnesses establish the truth. They have to be independent. I look for independent witnesses to tell me what the text says, since I don't understand Hebrew.  From that point, I will not defer to any interpretation that is not supported in the text's meaning.

"I never mentioned a robbery."
 The commentary by the Radak included a phrase that translated thus: "the rich man is also killed for his tithe", which I expressed as: " being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money." and I asked, "Did I get the right idea? to which you replied, "the general idea a a start"

"2 -- Actually, it has to do with the grammar, the words and the syntax of the text. Understanding that comes from study in the original and in context."
That is what I meant by content, and a translator can communicate that in the translation.  If there are secret meanings that only a native reader can understand in the original, and those meanings are not communicated clearly in the translation, then it is a bad translation, either because of incompetence or deception.  This is how international relations should be carried out. When translation is done, ideally, it should have two bilingual people involved: One, an experienced native speaker in the source language, who can pick up the nuances and explain them to the second, who is an experienced native speaker in the target language, who can digest the nuances and explain them in the target language. If there doesn't seem to be one word in the target language that communicates the range of possible meanings, a good tactic is to leave it untranslated and put in a glossary. But it is always possible to get the idea across.

So, I do not accept your characterization of me as doing frivolous imagination, and the Hebrew Bible as being only accessible to native speakers working in an approved framework of Judaism.

And, regarding the 3rd point, if the counter-missionaries say that Jesus does not fit a passage because such and such is THE meaning, but there are actually other meanings, they are being deceptive.  If I take that meaning, and show that Jesus actually does fit with that meaning, it is inappropriate to tell me that "Jews aren't interested." What is this? Hit-and-run apologetics?

[ThomasDGW]

Now I want to explain why Isaiah 53:9, in the range of translations given in my first post and all those used by counter-missionaries to represent the meaning of the text, actually fits perfectly with the NT description of the burial of Jesus.

Everything is according to the NT description, in strict translations, Catholic and Protestant. I will not clutter this up with all of the references. The passages are easy to find in Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 19

(1) Jesus was killed in a Roman criminal execution. As such, taking the criminal off the cross was under the soldiers' authority and responsibility to make sure that the criminal was really dead. Letting a civilian Jew do that task is frankly unthinkable.

(2) The Jewish leaders were very anxious, and thus the Romans, too, that the criminals be taken off the crosses and buried before sundown, because the next day was a sabbath. Therefore, they would be very unwilling to let any criminal remain on the cross after his death. They broke the legs of the two thieves to hasten their death for that reason, but found that Jesus was already dead. Therefore, they must have proceeded to bury him first in their criminal burial pit, as soon as they confirmed his death. Undoubtedly, the burial pit was already dug before the soldiers would have been allowed the luxury of dividing up the criminals' clothes. It was part of their job, and there must have been 100 soldiers there since the leader was a centurion.

(3) Joseph of Arimathea decided to ask Pilate for permission to bury Jesus' body after seeing Jesus die. The text says that he gathered his courage, as it must have been scary to ask the governor to bury an executed criminal. I see another probable reason for him to wait until then, because he didn't know if there would be enough time between Jesus' death and sundown. This also explains why the women did not buy spices. They didn't know if their would be time OR opportunity to use them. When he saw that Jesus died early, he suddenly realized that there was enough time to give Jesus a decent Jewish burial, if only Pirate would agree in time.  This means that when Joseph left for Pilate's office, Jesus was already dead.

(4) Now, think about the detailed sequence of events recorded in Mark 15:42-46. Joseph surely ran to Pilate. I understand that it was perhaps less than a mile, but it was not at the crucifixion site. Then, the text does not say, but we can be sure that Joseph had to ask permission for an audience with Pilate. He got in and stated his petition to bury Jesus, but Pilate couldn't believe that Jesus was already dead. So, he called the centurion on his cell phone--- He sent a messenger to call the centurion, then the centurion had to come like Joseph. I can imagine Joseph eyeing the daylight saying, "Hurry, Hurry up," in Aramaic. So far we have 3 trips from the crucifixion site -AFTER Jesus died- by the time the centurion gets there to tell Pilate that Yes, Jesus is already dead. They were in a hurry to get the bodies off the cross into the grave. The grave was already dug. It is impossible that Jesus was not already buried in the grave. by the time the centurion arrived, and if I had been the centurion, I would not have dared to tell Pilate that Jesus was dead, if I had not seen him buried under dirt first.

(5) So, in the time it took to make four trips, for Joseph to get back with the centurion to receive Jesus' body, the thieves with the broken legs were surely already dead and in the burial pit, too.  Jesus literally made, put, set his grave with/to the wicked, among the wicked, however they want to honestly translate it.  He shared the grave with the wicked.

So, why have Christian scholars, as far as I can see, always said that Joseph took Jesus' body down from the cross and straight to his rich man's tomb? There are 2 verses that seem to give this idea. Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53. They both say that Joseph took the body down. When I read this challenge from the counter-missionaries, I had never thought about Isaiah 53:9 that deeply. I just observed that there was a juxtaposition of with the wicked and with the rich, remarkable. When I read their challenge that shouldn't Jesus have been buried with the wicked, if he is supposed to be the servant of Isaiah 53? I took it to heart. I first checked with a few Christian leaders, including John Wesley, and found that they had just made excuses about the tomb being not far from the wicked. If you do a Google Search of Jesus coming down from the cross and click on images, there must be hundreds of paintings of Joseph on his ladder bringing Jesus down from the cross, sometimes with Nicodemus helping. But I have learned NOT to accept millenia of tradition over Scriptures' plain statements, even though I have to read translations. I looked at the text, expecting to see "down from the cross" and found just "down". Only in some paraphrases have they dared to add " from the cross", even though that is an almost universal belief of Christians.

So, after considering all of these solid reasons for saying that Jesus must have been already buried with the thieves and was dug up by the soldiers to give the body to Joseph, what did Joseph take the body down from? Golgotha hill, of course!

Then they say that Isaiah 53:9 could not refer to Jesus because it speaks of "deaths" and individuals only die once' right? I knew the answer right away, because in I Peter 3:18, it says that Jesus was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. Some translations say "alive by the spirit", but I also studied Romans 6-8 a lot, where in refers to multiple kinds of death, spiritual and physical as well as death to God death to the law death to sin, etc. It certainly is possible for one man to die multiple times in multiple sense or ways.

So, there is absolutely no reason why Jesus does not fit Isaiah 53:9. Jews don't care? I can't help that, but counter-missionaries, Tovia Singer, Michoel Drazin, everyone involved, take it off your list! You are deceiving people. If you want to convince Jews to reject Jesus, do it honestly.  Maybe you have other valid points. Fine. But if you do not take off points that you can see have no basis, you have no position to be accusing Paul of lying.

That is the first reason why I posted this. The second reason is to explain why I do not accept religious authority, after seeing something so universally affirmed by the top scholars for centuries that is so obviously wrong, I am not in a mood to just believe. The third reason why I explain this is to help Christians who cannot believe that a doctrine that is so obviously wrong, according to the New Testament, could be so universally believed. It is time to make adjustments.