princeofshalom86 wrote:I already have. In this very thread. Start with post #2 where I wrote:
Dear Sophiee,
In regards to Mosheh el Sheikh is Moshe Alshekh, Michael Brown claims that he said that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah.
This is the citation and reference he gave:
Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (or Alshekh), claimed that "our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah" and also referred to a midrash that stated, "of all the sufferings which entered into the world, one third was for David and the fathers, one for the generation in exile, and one for the King Messiah." (Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:259)
How would you respond back to that?
So to start with Brown is using a missionary's favorite, but very poor, source. You can read more about Driver and Neubauer in that post.The internet has site after site "quoting" early Jewish sources who recognize that the suffering servant was the messiah. The only problem is that this is not the truth.
The original error began in the 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 Samuel R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer, created at the request of Anglican priest E. B. Pusey (more on him in a minute).. Driver was a was an British churchman and Regius Professor of Hebrew at Chrst Church, Oxford. Doesn't sound very Jewish for one claiming to know all about Rabbinical teachings is he? It gets even better. The Hebrew Chair at Oxford was attached to a canonry of Chrst Church -- so Pusey became an Priest of the Anglican church. THIS is the source quoted by Michael Brown and other Chrstians as JEWISH!!!!!
Adolf Neubauer was a sub-librarian at Oxford. Neubauer put the book Jewish Interpretations of the Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah together and Driver translated it into English.
E. B. Pusey (who asked that the book be created) wrote the original introduction to Driver & Neubeur's book. In it he 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. Pusey the predecessor to Driver at Oxford as the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Chrst Church, Oxford -- so he, too, was a priest.
In Pusey's 35 page introduction he defends the work of Raymond Martini from the 13th century. Raymundus Martin (Raymond Martini) was an anti-Jewish Dominican priest from the 13th century CE. Pugio Fidei (Dagger of the Faith) was an anti-Jewish diatribe he wrote (amongst others).
Read the introduction to the D&N bookand you will see that Neubauer DID NOT want to include the passages that appear from Martini as he knew they were forgeries. However Pusey insisted that they appear (as he states in his introduction) and so there now appears a text that is claimed to come from the Talmud Sanhedrin, which disagrees with all texts of Sanhedrin, and is IN FACT taken from Martini.
In other words Pusey wasn't above lying to make his point that the Jews had interepted Isaiah 53 as being about the messiah. His use of Martini over even Neubauer's objections shows this.
This issue of falsification and distortion is a common one. The Targum Yonathan is quoted for verse 52:13 but usually not 52:14 or 53:1.
Why because that destroys the premise that the servant in Isaiah is the messiah!
I'll respond to your specific question about Mosheh el Sheikh in my next post.








