Conference taveng::bagels

Jews view Jesus as a man who lived about 2000 years ago.  Any belief that
regards Jesus as a Savior or as a Son of God (any more than you or I am a
Son of God) is contrary to Jewish tradition.

The word "Messiah" has a different meaning to Jews than to Christians.
The original Hebrew root (mem-shin-het) means "to pour oil on", which is
how the kings of Israel and Judah were designated to begin their reigns.
The concept of a Messiah is _not_ central to Jewish thought today.  Many 
Jews look on the coming of a Messiah as no more than folklore, an 
idealistic symbol of the dawning of a perfect society where there won't 
be any more troubles.

Personally, I am not knowledgeable about Jesus' teachings.  I was taught
that he was a Jew who preached love and brotherhood, much as many Rabbis 
do today.  From what I have read, he was something of a radical and 
controversial figure during his lifetime, and many opposed him.  What his 
views were that engendered rejection at the time I do not know.  

Living in Massachusetts and having just observed a controversial election
campaign, I might think of drawing a comparison between Jesus and 
John Silber.  No offense to Christians (or supporters of Silber) is 
intended.  Today, a public figure with controversial views might just lose an 
election, but 2000 years ago, he might just have been publicly executed to 
teach people not to challenge those in power.

    
Re: .0
    
    Please see 963.8, which answers most of your questions. I'd like
    to reiterate my opinion that this discussion is not appropriate
    in a Jewish conference, although it can be continued off-line.
    In short, Jesus is no more relevant to the Jewish religion than
    he is to say, Buddhism.
    
Re: .1
    
    >The concept of a Messiah is _not_ central to Jewish thought today.
    
    A tad presumptuous, eh David? Perhaps what you meant was, "the concept
    of the Messiah is not central to David Ellis' thought today."?
    
    Jem
    

Re: .2
    
>    to reiterate my opinion that this discussion is not appropriate
>    in a Jewish conference, although it can be continued off-line.
>    In short, Jesus is no more relevant to the Jewish religion than
>    he is to say, Buddhism.
    

I disagree on both counts.  The questions in .0 are valid for any discussion
folks wish to participate in.  If YOU do not feel comfortable with it, you
do not have to enter into the conversation.

Jesus IS more relevant to the Jewish religion than to Buddhism.  He was a
charismatic JEWISH teacher in his day, teaching primarily very JEWISH things.
The religion which his followers created has a lot in common with its
"parent" religion of Judaism.

I think if Jews and Christians involved themselves more in the kind of 
honest exploration and dialog which is being promoted in .0, there would
be a lot more education going on and a lot less misunderstanding in this
world.

I say - on with the discussion!!!

Waky

In my laborious reading thru Graetz's "Popular History of the Jews", there
were some kind words said about Jesus, some OK (maybe only so-so) things said
about the early Christian leaders (especially Saul/Paul of Tarsus), and some
very harsh things said about the Christian emperors and the early clergy.
What follows is my recollection of the highlights (and lowlights) of the
early interactions between Christians and Jews.

Coming from Gallilee, Jesus spoke with an obvious accent that made him not
be easily accepted by the Jewish Establishment. Tho not actually a member
of the Essene sect, he was influenced by their practices. The Essenes were
the "ultra-Orthodox" of their day; their daily use of the mikvah is well
known today as "baptism". They swore off worldly posessions and practiced
chastity. Jesus' innovation was to offer assistance and to teach Judaism to
the diseased and the disfigured who were neglected by the main stream.
The Essenes would not dream of doing this.

In the first century, Jews were widespread through the Roman Empire and
Judea was an important member state. Judaism was attractive to many Pagans
because of its high moral standards. Many actually converted but Halacha,
especially the requirement for circumcision, was a barrier to widespread
conversions. Saul of Tarsus (later Saint Paul) was involved in
prosyletizing the Pagans for Judaism and was initially anti-Christian.
However, it occurred to him that the coming of the Messiah would cancel
most of the Jewish law and the major barrier to conversion could be removed
simply by recognizing Jesus as the messiah. The result is history.

The Bar Kochbah revolution (2nd century, I forget the exact date) nearly
wrecked the Roman Empire 400 years before the Goths succeeded in wrecking it.
The punishment inflicted by Rome upon the Jews was very severe. At that time
the Christians (and the Samarians) saved themselves by pointing out they were
not Jewish. Bar Kochbah, the leader of this revolution, claimed to be the
messiah. When you consider the violence of this revolution, you get some
idea of what Pontius Pilate was worried about when he had Jesus executed.

Much of the narrative in the Christian Bible has been colored by the
struggles of the early church to establish itself and to distance itself from
Judaism. Early on there were internal splits in the Church (witness the
split between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of Rome). With all the in-
fighting going on, there was no tolerence for anyone who wasn't Christian.
Some of the early Christian emperors persecuted Jews and Pagans. Laws aimed
at Jews were established that were to cause grief for the Jews all the way
through the Middle Ages. Jews were not allowed to own Christian slaves,
could not build new synagogues, could not appear on the street during Easter,
and on and on.

Some of the Christian emperors were decent towards the Jews but never quite
did away with the anti-Jewish laws. However, the common clergy was virulently
anti-Jewish and often preached violence against Jews. Jews who tried to
escape this violence by converting to Christianity with the intention of
returning to Judiasm when things calmed down were often trapped. A nasty
bit of Christian theology claimed that though a non-Christian could be
"saved" by converting, an ex-Christian was "lost" forever an might as well
be executed immediately. An example of this was the Spanish Inquisition but
the practice developed early on.

I feel that it is because of these persecutions, the echo of which extends
to the present, the Jewish reaction to Jesus is primarily defensive. He is
considered to be a false messiah, and virtually nothing is taught about
him in Jewish schools.

Dave

Re .2: (reply to my comment in .1 that "The concept of a Messiah is _not_
central to Jewish thought today.")

>    A tad presumptuous, eh David? Perhaps what you meant was, "the concept
>    of the Messiah is not central to David Ellis' thought today."?

Let's not get personal.  I'm no authority on Jewish thought, but my
understanding of today's Jewish mainstream is that the concept of a Messiah 
is of peripheral rather than central importance.  This is a significant
distinction to make to someone who is more familiar with Christian thought
than Jewish thought.

Yes, I know that belief in the Messiah is one of Maimonides' thirteen
principles of faith.  But I was taught that Judaism regards faith as 
secondary in importance to deeds and study.  And in all the Rabbis' sermons
I've listened to over the years, I don't think that the coming of the Messiah
came up once in a serious (as opposed to a whimsical) vein.

>                                             And in all the Rabbis' sermons
>I've listened to over the years, I don't think that the coming of the Messiah
>came up once in a serious (as opposed to a whimsical) vein.

You must be listening to different rabbis that I am.  That's like a Unitarian
saying that belief in G-d isn't a central tenet of Christianity.  Belief in
the coming of the messiah *is* a central tenet of *traditional* Judaism.

I'd suggest that the base noter read "What Christians Should Know About Jews
and Judaism" by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein.  It's published by Word, and is
probably available in Christian bookstores.

    I am a Gentile Christian.  I am not here to upset anyone.  I want to
    learn what Jews understand or think about the following two scriptures
    in Isaiah.  What ever your answer I will not debate.  I just want to 
    learn how you understand these two scriptures.
    
    
    Isaiah 9:6-7
    
    Isaiah 53
    
    I understand that you use Hebrew scriptures, so I hope the chapter and
    verse does not make it hard for you to find what I am asking about.
    
    
    
                                   Marshall 

re: .-1

>I just want to learn how you understand these two scriptures.
>    Isaiah 9:6-7
>    Isaiah 53
>I understand that you use Hebrew scriptures, so I hope the chapter and
>verse does not make it hard for you to find what I am asking about.
    
	The chapter and verse numbering is not a problem, as "we"
	adopted it "back" a number of centuries ago.

	"The" problem is not the chapter and verse numbers.  "A" problem
	is not that we USE Hebrew scriptures; rather, that the scriptures
	ARE Hebrew (not English, not Greek, ...).  In the places you
	cite there are several significant translation problems. Some
	are obvious (open mis-rendering of verb tenses, etc.), and some
	are not so obvious (difficult Hebrew resolved into simple Greek/
	English), and some from which the intent/beliefs of the translator 
	were clear!

	One of the "fun" things about delving deeper and deeper into the 
	sources is that one digs up more and more richness of understanding 
	and detail.  The Hebrew language supports this structurally;  once
	things are translated, this richness is totally lost.

	Also, one of the problems of interpretation of any set
	of passages in Isa. (especially) is that understanding him requires 
	a pretty fair knowledge of the context:  his life, the rest of
	book of Isa., etc.

	To give you "one opinion" is to do an injustice to the passage,
	and (probably) to start an argument about what the words _are_
	to begin with.  This has been discussed in this notesfile before
	(and in "old" Christian.note, into which I wrote two or three
	articles). I don't really have the energy to go after it again.

don feinberg

Re: .7

Marshall,

Send mail either to gaon::jem or subway::steinberg with your DECnet 
address, and I'll reply with some answers. My node doesn't recognize
RAVENI.

Jem

    I think it could be safely said that many Jews, particularly the
    non-Orthodox, do not consider Moshiach (Messiah, lit. "anointed King")
    to be a major current issue, though the possibility and hope for one
    retains some attractiveness along with other olde traditions.
    
    I think it could also be insinuated, albeit at risk of flamage, that
    one particular Hasidic sect takes the concept of Moshiach very
    seriously, and is also alleged to be viewing _its_ leader as the likely
    candidate.  Naturally, other Orthodox sects do not go along with the
    personality cult involved, but do consider the hope for a Moshiach to
    be important.
    
    However, Moshiach is _never_ a "saviour" in the Christian sense.  We
    don't need no stinkin' salvation!  Christianity is focused on death,
    Judaism on life, and "salvation" in the Christian sense is as central
    to Jewish thought as carburetors are to VAXen.

    For orthodox I am not jew because of my mother's religion who is
    catholic.But for Hitler I would be. So, as I am jew and christian, I am
    veri interested in "Judeo-Christianism". And I am reading a very good
    book written by Shalom Ben Chorin title is "My brother Jesus".
    
    
    We MUST NOT FORGET that Jesus was a jew.
    
    Henri

    Re: -.1
    
>    We MUST NOT FORGET that Jesus was a jew.
    
    
    To put it politely, so what?

Re: -1, -2

>>    We MUST NOT FORGET that Jesus was a jew.
    
>       To put it politely, so what?


Depends on who "we" refers to.  For a Christian, it is very useful to keep
in mind that Jesus lived and died as a Jew, and that he was never a
Christian.  Non-fundamentalist scholarship on the Gospels (e.g., by a group
called "The Jesus Project") has tried to determine which of the sayings
attributed to Jesus were most likely actually said by him, and the least 
authentic are those (such as his predicting his resurrection) that are
at the foundations of fundamentalist Christianity.

As for Jewish views of Jesus, I have a book at home by Martin
Buber which treats Jesus as a Jewish prophet whose sayings were
misinterpreted by Christians.  I also have a book on the Sermon on the 
Mount by a Rabbi who analyzes the Greek text in terms of likely 
mistranslations from Aramaic into Greek, and comes up with some rather
different interpretations more in line with the Rabbinic wisdom of
the times.

    re: Jesus lived and died as a Jew, and that he was never a
    Christian
    
    Under the definition of a Christian as someone who believes that
    Christ is the son of God, he would have always been a Christian.
    
             

re: -1 -- Under the definition of a Christian as someone who believes that
    Christ is the son of God, he would have always been a Christian

The Gospels are *not* contemporaneous accounts.  They were written years after
the events described, so the quotes attributed to Jesus are really legends
about what Jesus said, not reporting.  The Jesus described by the earliest
Christians in the Gospels is the Jesus they believed in, which is not
necessarily the Jesus who died at least thirty years before the Gospels were
written.

Even ignoring this reasonable suspicion about the accuracy of any quotes, I
believe that Jesus is quoted as referring to himself as "The Son of Man", but
not (except for referring to God as "father", an appelation which he invited
everyone to use) as the Son of God. (Then again, I have hardly memorized
the Gospels, and I don't have a concordance handy.)

    Reply to .15
    
    I believe in the Gospel of John, Peter said to Jesus that he believed
    Jesus was the Son of G-d.  Jesus said that G-d revealed this to Peter.
    
    If you do not believe that G-d has given men His word directly then the
    Old Testament reports of events could not be believed for sure also.
    
    However, I for one believe in G-d's scriptures.
    
    
        
                                  Marshall

    REPLY TO .14
    
    The name "Christian" was not given to followers of Jesus until many
    years after the cross.  A church at Antioch is where the name Christian
    was first used.  The name means "follower of Christ".  Jesus was a
    Hebrew.
    
    
                                 Marshall

    
    Re: .16
    
    >    I believe in the Gospel of John, Peter said to Jesus that he believed
    >Jesus was the Son of G-d.
    
    I believe in the Jewish Bible. G-d said to Moses, "Israel is my son,
    my fistborn. (Say to Pharaoh) let my son go, that he may serve me"
    (Ex. 4:22,23).
    
    Here is, BTW, a classical example of the "Gospels" deliberately
    twisting Jewish scripture for their own agenda. In Matthew 2:14,15
    we find, "When he (Joseph) arose he took the young child and his 
    mother by night and departed into Egypt, and was there until the
    death of Herod. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
    the prophet, saying, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'"
    
    All one needs do is look at the verse "quoted" in full (Hosea 11:1):
    
    	When *Israel* was young and I loved him, and called my son 
    	out of Egypt.
    
    No magic. Just read the Jewish Bible with an unjaundiced eye.
    
    Jem
    

    reply to .18
    
    I did not mean to say that I do not believe in the Old Testament.  I
    do believe that what I call the Old Testament (the law and the
    prophets) is the pure word of G-d.
    
    
                                  Marshall

    Reply to .18
    
    Do you not believe that the Massiah is the (or will be from the Jewish
    point of view) Son of G-d?
    
    
                                Marshall

>   Do you not believe that the Massiah is the (or will be from the Jewish
>   point of view) Son of G-d?

The short answer is "no". We believe the Messiah will be just a person.

Dave

>>   Do you not believe that the Massiah is the (or will be from the Jewish
>>   point of view) Son of G-d?

>The short answer is "no". We believe the Messiah will be just a person.

Another point is that we Jews are at least as diverse as Christians. Just as you 
will find many Christians who do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus, there
are many religious Jews who do not believe that there will be a Messiah, but
rather that there will be a "Messianic age". However, I think that the short
answer captures one thing all Jews share: none of us believe that the
Messiah will be a Son of God. 

    Hi again everybody, boy it's been along time since I started this note,
    I see it's still kinda going.....
    
    From the last few replies about the Messiah being just a person, I was
    wondering how the Jewish bible interprets Isaiah chapter 9, especially
    verse 6. Is this chapter and verse talking about the Messiah, from a
    Jewish perspective? And if so, doesn't this address the Messiah as the
    "Mighty G-d, The everlasting Father"? Also in Isaiah 7:14, if this is
    also speaking about the Messiah, it says that He shall be called
    Immanuel, which being interpretted is 'G-d with us'. Just curious about
    the Jewish interpretations of these scriptures...
    
    Carlos (base-noter from many moons ago.)
    
    P.S.  My first son's name is Isaiah, does anybody know what that means?

.23>    ... Immanuel, which being interpretted is 'G-d with us'.

It also could be interpreted as "God is with us".  Whenever I've met anyone
named Immanuel, I never taken it to imply that his father was anything other
than human.

From my Tanakh; Isaiah 9:5-6

5 For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
"The Mighty G-d us planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -
6 In token of abundant authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David's throne and kingdom, ...

[In other words we have a king (we did literally in Isaiah's time)
his name is the long thing in quotes.]

Dave

    Thanks. I'm still a little confused though. So what you guy's are
    saying is that these verses have nothing to do with the Messiah, is
    that right? 
    
    Carlos

.26>    Thanks. I'm still a little confused though. So what you guy's are
.26>    saying is that these verses have nothing to do with the Messiah, is
.26>    that right? 

    	Right.

    	Another common problem with translation is in the related prophecy
    which the King James version has as "Behold, a virgin shall
    conceive..." whereas the Hebrew is really saying "Behold, a young woman
    shall conceive..." which changes the interpretation a wee bit.

    	I really don't go for out-of-context quoting of individual
    passages, anyway.  You can "prove" just about anything that way.

    		David

    re .27 and "young woman"
    
    Well, many languages have a word for an unmarried woman which implies
    both youth and virginity--the English version is "maid".  Given a
    society in which sex before marriage is not supposed to happen, and
    where this supposition is enforced for women, it's an understandable
    combination of meanings and connotations.
    
    I suspect the actual meaning of the Hebrew word at the time the verse
    was composed is best expressed as "maid" rather than "virgin", which
    would be too definite on the point of no sexual experience, or "young
    woman" which would be too vague on the marital and sexual status.
    
    Of course, while possibly more correct philologically, it's not going
    to satisfy people who want a clear answer on the virginity question.
    
    		-John Bishop

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I believe that Hebrew has very specific terms
for various ages and statuses of women.  For instance, there's a term for
a girl between the ages of 12 and 12�.  The only word that I know of that
means "virgin" is besula.

Re: .23 (CGRIEGO)

>    From the last few replies about the Messiah being just a person, I was
>    wondering how the Jewish bible interprets Isaiah chapter 9, especially
>    verse 6. Is this chapter and verse talking about the Messiah, from a
>    Jewish perspective?

*The* Messiah, no; *a* messiah, yes. The
Hebrew word "messiah" (_mashiach_) simply means "anointed," 
and refers to the flesh-and-blood king of Israel, in this case
Hezekiah, who had already been born, and was called "Ruler of
Peace" because peace in fact reigned during his days as king
(Assyria was miraculously defeated during Hezekiah's reign). 
The word _vayikra_ of course is past tense, meaning "and he
called..." In this case, it was G-d Himself ("the wondrous
advisor, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father") who called
Hezekiah "Ruler of Peace" in order to reassure the people
of Israel that Sannecheirev would be overthrown and peace
was at hand.

The Talmud (San. 94a) interprets the name as referring to 
Hezekiah himself, but this is hardly shocking to anyone
who is familiar with Biblical Hebrew names, most of which
refer to G-d in one way or another. For example, _Elihu_
means "He is my G-d," _Eliav_ means "G-d is my Father,"
_Elitzur_, "Rock, my G-d," _Elishama_, "my G-d has heard,"
_Eltzaphan_, "Hidden G-d," to name a few.

>Also in Isaiah 7:14, if this is
>    also speaking about the Messiah, it says that He shall be called
>    Immanuel, which being interpretted is 'G-d with us'.

You are actually not quoting Isaiah, but *Matthew's quote* of
Isaiah (Mat. 1:23). Anyone who takes a minute to read the
whole chapter in Isaiah will immediately see that Jerusalem
was under attack, and that G-d was giving the Jewish king
Ahaz a comforting sign that Rezin and Remaliah would be
defeated (not unlike Abraham's request for a sign that he
would indeed inherit the land in Gen. 15:8). According to
Rashi, the sign was that "the" woman, i.e., the wife of Ahaz
(who was pregnant at the time) would give birth to a boy
(the prediction of which was indeed miraculous before the
advent of sonograms (sp?) :). His name was called Immanuel because
this sign proved that G-d was indeed with Ahaz and his kingdom,
which would not fall.

Re: .27 (David O.)

>        Another common problem with translation is in the related prophecy
>    which the King James version has as "Behold, a virgin shall
>    conceive..." whereas the Hebrew is really saying "Behold, a young woman
>    shall conceive..." which changes the interpretation a wee bit.

The word "alma" appears 7 times in the Tanach. The KJV translators
knew exactly what they were doing, since in each of the other
cases KJV correctly translates it as "young woman," this being
the only exception, for some strange reason. 

>    conceive..." whereas the Hebrew is really saying "Behold, a young woman 

Actually, it doesn't say "*a* young woman," but "*the* young woman,"
another subtle mistranslation to imply that the woman
may have been someone other than "the" woman known best to Ahaz, i.e.
his own wife.

Jem

    Reply to .25
    
    Dave,
    
      Do you believe it is ok for a man that has no G-dhood to be called 
    "everlasting" or "eternal father"?  Is there any example in the Old 
    Testament of a king being called eternal father other than Isa. 9?
    If not, then why would you take it to mean an earthly king in Isa.?
    
    
    
                                         Marshall

    
    Re: .31
    
    >  Is there any example in the Old
    >    Testament of a king being called eternal father other than Isa. 9?
    
    First of all, Jews believe in only one "Testament," and therefore
    referring to it as "old" is offensive. I guess you haven't gotten
    the point that most Biblical names contained references to G-d.
    You want kings?
    
    Name			Meaning
    ____			_______
    
    Aviyah     (I Chron. 3:10)  G-d is my Father
    
    Yehoshafat (I Kings 15:24)	G-d, Judge
    
    Yehoram    (I Kings 22:51)	Lofty G-d
    
    Yehoyakim  (II Kings 23:34)	Enduring G-d
    
    Yehu       (I Kings 19:16)  He is G-d
    
    How about, instead of my listing all the names with
    Divine allusions, *you* list the ones that don't? 
    Do you suppose they were all gods, or is there
    some other logical explanation?
    
    Speaking of logical, do you suppose that when
    we are told, for instance, "...and Ahaziah (tr: G-d gripped), his
    son reigned in his place" (I Kings 22:40) that this is 
    really a secret reference to some earthly "deity" who will
    "grip" mankind some 700 years later? Or is it just possible
    that we should read the rest of the verse and discover that
    he was simply a son of Achav who reigned for two years over
    Israel? I guess that's not quite as intriguing. Sorry.
    
    Jem
    

>     Do you believe it is ok for a man that has no G-dhood to be called 
>   "everlasting" or "eternal father"? 
If it's in there, it's OK. If I don't like it, it's up to me to figure
out why. Consulting the best commentaries is a good way to figure "it"
out. Asking Je is another :-).

>     Is there any example in the Old 
>    Testament of a king being called eternal father other than Isa. 9?
As Jem points out, "Old Testament" is a Christian term that we do not
use because we believe there is no "New" testament. We refer to that
book as the "Hebrew Bible" or the "Tanakh" (from an acronym for the
3 main divisions). In the Hebrew Biblethe Prophets appear in the
middle; in the "Old Testament" the Prophets are at the end, so there
are real differences.

Dave

	RE: .30

� Anyone who takes a minute to read the
� whole chapter in Isaiah will immediately see that Jerusalem
� was under attack, and that G-d was giving the Jewish king
� Ahaz a comforting sign that Rezin and Remaliah would be
� defeated 

	I understand that the confederacy of Rezin and Pekah (BTW, it was Pekah,
*son* of Remaliah) is a primary concern in the beginning of chapter 7.  Yet I
have to disagree that the "sign" was merely to the faithless Ahaz.  Using the
principal put forth so often in these notes, we need to look at the entire
context.  And in v.13, the Lord is addressing the entire "house of David":

	"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David..."

	The sign was a prophecy to the Davidic "family", which seems to make it
more than a simple prophecy of Ahaz's wife conceiving a child.

	F

    
    Re: .34
    
    >I understand that the confederacy of Rezin and Pekah (BTW, it was Pekah,
    >*son* of Remaliah)
    
    Thank you for the correction.
    
    > is a primary concern in the beginning of chapter 7.  Yet I
    >have to disagree that the "sign" was merely to the faithless Ahaz.
    
    Wicked or not, he was the king of Judah, and G-d did discourse
    with him.
    
    >Using the
    >principal put forth so often in these notes, we need to look at the entire
    >context.  And in v.13, the Lord is addressing the entire "house of David":
    >
    >        "And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David..."
    
    As long as we're looking at the context, let's go back a few
    more verses:
    
            10. And G-d continued to speak to Ahaz, saying: 11. "Ask for
            yourself a sign from the L-rd, your G-d...12. And Ahaz said,
            "I will not ask, and I will not test the L-rd." 13. And He
            "said,  Hear ye now, O House of David..."
    
    Obviously there was a dialogue taking place between G-d and
    Ahaz, who, as scion of the Davidic line indeed represented
    (for better or for worse*) the "House of David."
    
    Jem
    
    *Some indeed interpret this as a semi-veiled insult to Ahaz:
    i.e., "you have no merit on your own, and the only reason
    you are king is due to your Davidic lineage." This is because
    of his false piety in refusing to ask for a sign although
    specifically sanctioned to do so.
    
                                                                       

�    *Some indeed interpret this as a semi-veiled insult to Ahaz:
�    i.e., "you have no merit on your own, and the only reason
�    you are king is due to your Davidic lineage." This is because
�    of his false piety in refusing to ask for a sign although
�    specifically sanctioned to do so.
 
	I guess I'm part of the "some"...  That's how I interpreted v.10 (not
so much as an insult, but as a "counter" to Ahaz's faithlessness); I'm
glad you brought it up.  My understanding was precisely that -- that Ahaz would
not *accept* a sign, and the Lord then turned his attention to the entire 
people.

	Thanks for the good hermeneutics.

	F

    
    Re: .36
    
    >;    *Some indeed interpret this as a semi-veiled insult to Ahaz:
    >;    i.e., "you have no merit on your own, and the only reason
    >;    you are king is due to your Davidic lineage."
    
>        I guess I'm part of the "some"...

> My understanding was precisely that -- that Ahaz would
>    not *accept* a sign, and the Lord then turned his attention to the entire
>    people.
    
    The "some" is the commentator Redak, and he isonly explaining
    why Ahaz is referred to by a name other than his o. V.As far 
    as not "accepting" a sign, Ahaz makes clear in v. 12 that his
    motivation was to demonstrate how faithful he was, by not
    *requiring* a sign of G-d.
    
    Jem