19th century with a book entitled The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters. The book was written by a Xian as a proof and it contains many, many errors. These errors now rebound all over the internet.

It was the creation of E. B. Pusey a Xian of Oxford. The translations were courtesy of Driver and Neubauer and although the title speaks of Isaiah 53, the misquotes often ignore that chapter, and often Isaiah itself, to glean misquotes and distortions from various sources.

E. B. Pusey was a Xian theologian who lived in the 19th century. So he wasnt Jewish and his knowledge of Jewish interpretation of anything was limited (to be kind). Pusey read Hebrew, German, Aramaic and Arabic but he was not learned in Judaism.

So knowing this and realizing they weren't scholars looking for the facts but had reached the conclusion that Isaiah 53 was about Jsus and were trying desperately to find quotes from Jewish sources to prove it.

Now let me address the man you referenced and the "quote" of his you gave. Noshe el Sheikh was also known as R Moshe Alshich

R Moshe Alshich lived from 1508-1593. Pusey claimed that pre-Rashi Jews said Isaiah 53 was about the messiah but Rashi "changed" the interpretation to say Isaiah 53 was about Israel and not the messiah.

But Alshich lived 500 years after Rashi supposedly changed the Jewish concept of the servant from the messiah to Israel. How does this make any sense? Did Alshich not know the Jews had conspired to changed the interpretation?

So already you can see this doesn't make sense.

The Pusey book never gives original sources, so it is hard to track down these quotes. In the case of R Moshe Alshich it comes from a very obscure work called Marot HaTsobeot" (Collected Visions), on the prophets and their prophecies. Marot HaTsobeot is an exegetical and mystical commentary. That is, by definition it isn't what the passage means in any ordinary sense. So once again we are dealing with Midrash Aggadah allegory. It is NOT meant to be taken at face value. It is homily -- not a literal interpreation.

But even so the Pusey version is self serving and not true to the original at all. For example, the Pusey has R Moshe Alshich saying what you quoted him as saying:

Quote:
our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view


That is not what R Moshe Alshich says. He doesn't say doesn't say "our Rabbis of blessed memory". R Moshe Alshich uses a common abbreviation: R"ZL. The usual assumption would be that that's what it means, but the abbreviation also stands for *my* Rabbis of blessed memory.

R' Moshe was a mystic and using aggadah (homily) he was writing about the highly mystical homilies used by other mystics like himself.

Using allegory R Moshe equates the Messiah with King David (who was a messiah). He then writes about different worlds populated by angels.

He, R' Moshe was a mystic, writing in the center of Jewish mysticism, is transmitting a mystical interpretation of the text.

In other words this is not pshat (plain meaning).

It is not intended to be taken literally by anyone. It is simply homily and R Moshe says that HIS rabbis envision it (homiletically).

This makes the passage of my Rabbis of blessed memory" logical. He is explaining where his homily stems from.
Pusey and his translators may not have understood Jewish mysticism or they may simply have ignored context because they were trying to prove that Jews speak of the servant in Isaiah as the messiah. Their error (or they ignored it) was in misusing and mistranslating a common abbreviation: R"ZL.

He states that the servant is Israel and then using Midrash (allegory) first says king messiah IS king David not Jsus or some other messiah, and BTW David was a messiah, an anointed king of Israel). Then R Moshe Alshich compares the servant to MOSES. Folks: this is midrash! Allegory!!! Midrashim were written in an allegorical style that was NEVER meant to be taken literally.

So R Moshe Alshich never meant for any of this to be taken literally, but using Kabbalist reasoning meant it to be viewed as allegory.

This particular part of the midrash explains that the messiah of whom R Moshe Alshich speaks is King David himself (who was a messiah):

Quote:
The Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was "anointed", and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of HaShem, says expressly, "My servant David shall be king over them" (Ezekiel 37:24). The ex-pression My servant, therefore, can justly be referred to David


He then goes on to say the following:

Quote:
The Almighty, however, says that there is no need for surprise at their attitude of incredulity in the presence of these marvels [of the restoration of Israel], for who believed our report--the report, namely, which we made known to you from heaven, but which the kings had not heard of? So fearful was it, that in the eyes of everyone who did hear it [of the restoration of Israel], it was too wondrous to behold. . .


He even references Moses in relation to Isaiah 53

Quote:
And he made his grave with the wicked. I will show you an instance of this in the chief of all the prophets [Moses], who, by still suffering after his death, endured a heavier penalty than others who had suffered for their generation. Moses was buried away from the Promised Land


He goes on at length relating Isaiah to Moses. In other words: to try and say the interpretation of el-Sheikh is that Isaiah is speaking of the messiah and only the messiah is untrue and simplistic.
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12