that is precisely the my point. Who used that prophecy before "Matthew" (moving "Matthew" to use it too) meant an obscure messiah and could only mean it, given the clear meaning of the text.
Assumption, speculation, tortuous (shall I say: obscure) reasoning.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:26 am
to Giuseppe,
that is precisely the my point. Who used that prophecy before "Matthew" (moving "Matthew" to use it too) meant an obscure messiah and could only mean it, given the clear meaning of the text.
Assumption, speculation, tortuous (shall I say: obscure) reasoning.
What seems to be not clear for you is that an innocent reading of the Isaiah's prophecies quoted above seems to describe the predicted figure more in the following terms:
He [Moses AlDar'i] informed them that the Messiah had come, as was divinely revealed to him in a dream.
(Maimonides, Epistle to Yeme, 12th century)
...than in the terms of a figure who was known by historical tradition. Any honest person has to agree that this figure of Messiah isobscure.
So the my point is: pace “Matthew”, was that the sense of how that prophecy was interpreted by the early Christians?
Because it is too much evident that the Matthean Jesus was doing quarrel all the day with the scribes and pharisees. While the predicted figure doesn't any quarrel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
And note another striking difference between the prophecy and the Jesus of ''Matthew'':
the Matthean Jesus didn't preach to the nations. Only to the Jews.
So it is evident that Matthew quoted the prophecy because previous Christians were using it when their Jesus could effectively realize it (by being an obscure figure).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.