Two false assertions are contained in the answer of your rabbins. The first, that those passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah were not intended to refer to the Messiah. The second, that, in the passage from Isaiah, the prophet speaks of King Hezekiah; and in that from Jeremiah, the prophet speaks of David or Zerubbabel. Moreover that the name of God applied to the Messiah in these two passages does not prove that the Messiah was God, even if they be allowed to refer to the Messiah; for that either the Messiah does not take upon himself the name of God, or even if he did assume that name, it would be no proof of his divinity. And that you may clearly see that the whole of this taught you by your rabbins is a gross falsehood and absurdity, I will show you with what ease their doctrines admit of refutation, and we will begin with showing that the two passages do refer to the Messiah.

XXVI.

The Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase, of Rabbi Jonathan Ben Uziel, that is, Rabbi Jonathan son of Uziel, which some authors, evincing the little knowledge they had of the Hebrew writings, confound with the Targum of Onkelos, thus translates into Chaldee this passage of Isaiah following the text of the Hebrew.

66

"Infans

"natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, et suscipiet legem super se, ad conservandam eam, et vocabitur nomen ejus, Minkodam, Deus fortis, permanens in "sæcula sæculorum Messiah."

This book is held so sacred among the Jews, that, down to the present day, no one of your synagogues has ventured to reject or controvert it, not alone

your

from its venerable antiquity (for it was composed one thousand seven hundred and forty-seven years ago, forty-two years before Christ), but because in all schools which you improperly call "Synagogues," it is read every Sabbath-day equally with the Torah, that is, the Pentateuch of Moses.* Moreover, you or your rabbins (who have invented your ridiculous fictions have made your belief in this book a matter of public notoriety, from having had put into your head the well-known fable to the effect that when Jonathan was composing it, if a fly chanced to light on the paper on which he was writing, there came instantly a fire from heaven which consumed the fly, but left the paper untouched: a fine story for men of sense to believe in!

Now if the Targum which is admitted as a book of infallible authority and as canonical, and the truth of which has been always held to be incontrovertible, explains the passage from the prophet Isaiah as relating to the Messiah, it must unquestionably be wrong any Jew to deny that the prophet did not here allude to the Messiah.

in

XXVII.

The same sense as is given in the Targum, we find in Beresheet Rabba, in the large glossary on Gen. iv. where it says, viz:-"Non est autem nomen Domini "hic, nisi Rex Messias, ut dictum est; Principatus super humerum ejus!" To these books which you hold as sacred and infallible, we will add the authority of the rabbins, to prove that the passage relates

66

* TL

66

to the Messiah. Rabbi Joseph Galileo, in his preface to the Lamentations, which are called in Hebrew, Echa Rabbathi, being asked the name of the Messiah, answered thus "Nomen Messiæ Pax scriptum est, enim princeps pacis Moyses Egyptio." This rabbi, whom by distinction you call "the great preacher," also says in his epistle named Egaret Teman, written to the rabbins in Africa, "Omnia nomina hic posita ab Isaia, ix. cum epithetis suis dicuntur de puero nato qui est Rex "Messias." Consequently the opinions of Rabbi Eben Ezra, and of the other rabbins who deny that the passage treats of the Messiah, must be erroneous; for besides being in opposition to so many ancient rabbins it is contrary to the Targum, which you admit to be an authentic work, and even recognise as sacred.

66

XXVIII.

By the same evidence, it may be proved that the passage in Jeremiah is meant of the Messiah, which we consider to be the case not only because your most learned and most ancient rabbins who flourished in your synagogues acknowledge it, but because we find the same in the Targum of Jonathan. "In tempore illo statuam Messiam justum et hoc est nomen quod ipsi dicent ei; Tetragrammaton justus noster." The same we infer from the book Midrash Tehilim, which is a commentary on the Psalms, where the text is thus expounded: "Domine in virtute tua lætabitur Rex." Also in this book we read, "Quod est Messiæ nomen est illud quod dicitur;" in cap. 23, Jeremiæ, “Dominus justus noster." The like we infer from the book Echa Rabbathi, where, expounding that part of Lamentations, "Longè factus

est a me consolator," Rabbi Abba, speaking of the Messiah, writes thus: "Quia elongatus est a me consolator convertens animam meam. Quod est nomen Messia? Deus Jehova est nomen ejus, sicut dictum est Jeremiæ," cap. xxiii. "Et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum, Dominus justus noster." This is proved from an infinite number of rabbins and books admitted by the Jews, which, in order not to waste time, I shall refrain from quoting. We are thus provided with a ready answer to your teachers, which proves them to be guilty of fallacy and falsehood in denying that these passages in the two prophets treat of the Messiah, because they know not how to reply to the evidence of the demonstration we have given, and being determined to remain Jews, reject the interpretation both of the canonical books, and their most ancient rabbins, in order to persevere in error.

XXIX.

Eben Ezra and Rabbi Solomon, being thus convicted of falsehood, in denying that these prophets speak of the Messiah, we will now proceed to convict them of a second error in affirming that the passage in Isaiah applies to King Hezekiah, and also to expose the error of other rabbins in affirming that the text in Jeremiah alludes to David or Zerubbabel; and that the name of God applied in these two places to the Messiah, does not prove his divinity, even granting that they are applied to him: in other words, that the name of God is not applied to the Messiah, or even if so applied, is not sufficient to prove his divinity.

XXX.

First: If the prophecy of Isaiah is to be understood to treat of Hezekiah, as these rabbins pretend, they are bound to shew us how the prediction of the prophet has been fulfilled in Hezekiah. But this they cannot shew, as to do so they must either deny chap. xviii. of the 4th Book of Kings, or must pronounce that the Scripture declares what is untrue, or has been falsified, in this chapter. For if the prophet thus speaks of Hezekiah, of necessity Hezekiah was not called Hezekiah, but God; and this alone must have been his name. Furthermore, it must be shown that Hezekiah was the Prince of peace, and the peace in his time was perpetual; also that he was Eternal Father, or Father of Eternity, and his dominion exists at this day, and will have no end; for all this can be inferred from the aforementioned passage in Isaiah, that he was to be the Son-born of Him of whom the prophet treats in chapter ix. Nothing of all this has been realised in Hezekiah, nor can be realised, but the direct contrary is shewn in the sacred text. Therefore it is false to assert that the prophet speaks of Hezekiah.

XXXI.

That no one ever called Hezekiah a God, and that the designation of God was never bestowed on that prince, is most certain, because we cannot trace from Scripture that such title has been given to him; but on the contrary, he is there never called by any other name than Hezekiah. That he never was, nor could be, the Eternal Father, or Father of Eternity, our na