C
Cathoholic
Guest
JDGaney, I said I would lead up to Mr. Asher Norman’s reference-link on the Suffering Servant Songs and Norman’s denial of Jesus being seen in them by him.
Asher Norman is the author of the book, Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus. This is a book that had so many ideas I take issue with, I wouldn’t know where to begin in a forum like this to criticize them all. In one section of his book Norman censures translations of Christian Bibles for being “mistranslated” (p.92) and states: “phrases were invented and tenses were altered” (p. 92) concerning Isaiah 7:14. Norman then quotes a Jewish Stone Edition English translation (on p. 93) using present-tense language in Isaiah 7:14b to try to indict Christian translators concerning Christian tense translation here.
The several-fold problem with Mr. Norman’s assertion, is that he doesn’t give you the whole verse when he quotes it—just the second half of the verse (the first half of the verse from the Stone Edition—Jewish translation that he alludes to, suggests future tense but alas, Norman did not cite the whole verse).
Mr. Norman also fails to tell you of other English Jewish translations in the past that have used the exact same tense-translation (here for example) in the second half of Isaiah 7:14 as some Christian translations of the same verse.
Norman also fails to tell the reader explicitly that some Christian Bibles DO use a present tense in the second half of Isaiah 7:14.
This suggests to me some tense-ambiguity in the text and not collusion by Christian translators or anyone else.
Which aspects of the verse (Isaiah 7:14) do you believe, the present-tense or the future-tense? Hopefully you affirm all of the aspects of the verse.
Instead Mr. Norman seems to me to impugn Christian translator’s motives stating concerning Isaiah 7:14 (p. 93 bold and UL in quote below mine):
I had frequent disagreements about many other conclusions Norman drew in his book on other subjects as well. But as I said, this is not the place to go over Mr. Norman’s assertions that I disagree with in detail.
JDGaney, Mr. Norman attributes the Suffering Servant of Isaiah corporately as the “Jewish people” in the link you cited in post number one.
Norman discusses why the Suffering Servant is talked of in a plural sense AND in a singular sense in the Suffering Servant verses, then he concludes it must therefore refer to the “Jewish people” in the plural sense ONLY.
I see what Mr. Norman is affirming (the Suffering Servant being corporately the Jewish people) and I don’t necessarily take issue with that concept.
Norman takes this one-interpretation-ONLY approach on other theological discussion points in his book too (such as Isaiah 7:14 that we already touched upon).
One thing I DO take issue with here is that Mr. Norman seems to fail to see a relatively immediate fulfillment in the singular sense too—which almost certainly points to the prophet Isaiah himself.
Which aspects of the Suffering Servant Songs do you affirm, the individual sense or the corporate sense? Hopefully you affirm all of the aspects of the verses.
But that is still not all.
Since Mr. Norman does not see Catholicism as fulfilled Judaism, he cannot see that there is another layer to the Suffering Servant Songs that goes beyond seeing Isaiah in a singular sense, and the Jewish people in a corporate sense that yields even yet a deeper fulfillment.
This fulfillment would include Jesus in a singular sense as the ultimate layer of meaning as the epitome of the Suffering Servant; and secondarily a sense of all of us as Christians in a corporate sense (or what we would call, “The Mystical Body of Christ”) as “the Suffering Servant”. We already saw the US Bishops assert the possibility of various layers of meaning concerning the Suffering Servant Songs in post 18 . . . .
continued . . .
Asher Norman is the author of the book, Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus. This is a book that had so many ideas I take issue with, I wouldn’t know where to begin in a forum like this to criticize them all. In one section of his book Norman censures translations of Christian Bibles for being “mistranslated” (p.92) and states: “phrases were invented and tenses were altered” (p. 92) concerning Isaiah 7:14. Norman then quotes a Jewish Stone Edition English translation (on p. 93) using present-tense language in Isaiah 7:14b to try to indict Christian translators concerning Christian tense translation here.
The several-fold problem with Mr. Norman’s assertion, is that he doesn’t give you the whole verse when he quotes it—just the second half of the verse (the first half of the verse from the Stone Edition—Jewish translation that he alludes to, suggests future tense but alas, Norman did not cite the whole verse).
Mr. Norman also fails to tell you of other English Jewish translations in the past that have used the exact same tense-translation (here for example) in the second half of Isaiah 7:14 as some Christian translations of the same verse.
Norman also fails to tell the reader explicitly that some Christian Bibles DO use a present tense in the second half of Isaiah 7:14.
This suggests to me some tense-ambiguity in the text and not collusion by Christian translators or anyone else.
Which aspects of the verse (Isaiah 7:14) do you believe, the present-tense or the future-tense? Hopefully you affirm all of the aspects of the verse.
Instead Mr. Norman seems to me to impugn Christian translator’s motives stating concerning Isaiah 7:14 (p. 93 bold and UL in quote below mine):
There were many other issues I saw regarding Norman’s criticism of how Christians see Isaiah 7:14.
I had frequent disagreements about many other conclusions Norman drew in his book on other subjects as well. But as I said, this is not the place to go over Mr. Norman’s assertions that I disagree with in detail.
JDGaney, Mr. Norman attributes the Suffering Servant of Isaiah corporately as the “Jewish people” in the link you cited in post number one.
Norman discusses why the Suffering Servant is talked of in a plural sense AND in a singular sense in the Suffering Servant verses, then he concludes it must therefore refer to the “Jewish people” in the plural sense ONLY.
I see what Mr. Norman is affirming (the Suffering Servant being corporately the Jewish people) and I don’t necessarily take issue with that concept.
Norman takes this one-interpretation-ONLY approach on other theological discussion points in his book too (such as Isaiah 7:14 that we already touched upon).
One thing I DO take issue with here is that Mr. Norman seems to fail to see a relatively immediate fulfillment in the singular sense too—which almost certainly points to the prophet Isaiah himself.
Which aspects of the Suffering Servant Songs do you affirm, the individual sense or the corporate sense? Hopefully you affirm all of the aspects of the verses.
But that is still not all.
Since Mr. Norman does not see Catholicism as fulfilled Judaism, he cannot see that there is another layer to the Suffering Servant Songs that goes beyond seeing Isaiah in a singular sense, and the Jewish people in a corporate sense that yields even yet a deeper fulfillment.
This fulfillment would include Jesus in a singular sense as the ultimate layer of meaning as the epitome of the Suffering Servant; and secondarily a sense of all of us as Christians in a corporate sense (or what we would call, “The Mystical Body of Christ”) as “the Suffering Servant”. We already saw the US Bishops assert the possibility of various layers of meaning concerning the Suffering Servant Songs in post 18 . . . .
This multi-layered verse meaning (“compenetration”) is something that can only be “seen” with grace. A “pep-talk” wouldn’t do it.
- Prefigurement Sense of Suffering Servant = Ethnic Jewish people in a corporate sense, Isaiah in a singular sense.
- Fulfillment Sense of Suffering Servant = Christian people in a corporate sense, Jesus in a singular sense (and in an ultimate fulfillment sense).
continued . . .
