stephan huller

Aaron's function as a divinely assisted interpreter of Moses' words becomes more interesting when his role as 'mouth' in 4.16 (=J) is explained as 'prophet' in Exodus 7:1:

The clincher is to look and see how this relationship was understood in the earliest interpretations of Exodus. Philo writes:

The same pattern can be seen in the Targumim. Onqelos and Neofiti consistently translate the material in Exodus chapter 4 as follows - God gives his Word (Memra) to Moses and so his tongue will speak on behalf of the divinity but Aaron is the 'interpreter.'

The Targumim, followed by the Peshitta, interpret 'mouth' as 'Meturgeman', the official title of the postexilic liturgical translator of Scripture into Aramaic. According to Jewish tradition (b. Meg. 3a),'9 his office derives from the days of Ezra who appointed the Levites to 'give sense' [sim s'ekel] and make the people 'understand' [hébin] the Scripture he proclaimed to them (Neh. 8.7, 8). As translation demands interpretation, the 'Meturgeman' is a 'translator-interpreter' and this partially clarifies the function that the Targumim attribute to Aaron. In effect, they are abbreviating a tradition that envisions Aaron translating Moses' words into Egyptian.” For the same reason, it is clear that the Targumim presuppose a difference in the way that (1) Aaron's and (2) Moses' mouths are opened by God.

Aaron's function as a divinely assisted interpreter of Moses' words becomes more interesting when his role as 'mouth' in 4.16 (=J) is explained as 'prophet' in 7.1 (=P):

The Targumic representation of Moses as Rab or teacher and instructor corroborates this reading and therefore represents a logical development of the meaning of the MT. Rab, which Targ. Onq. ascribes to Moses, means, as Jerome noted, something like the Latin 'Magister' and connotes not just 'master' but 'teacher' and 'instructor' (Schiirer 1973—87: II, 325 n. 10, 326-27, 332-34). In rabbinic eyes, the position merited something like divine respect. By appealing to this notion, the Targum clarifies the difference between the mouth-openings of Moses and of Aaron. Moses' mouth is opened by divinely bestowed 'teaching' or 'instruction', tora, while Aaron's mouth-opening involves divine assistance in 'translating' and 'interpreting' Moses' tora.

For the Targums, the portrayal of Aaron as Moses' Meturgeman should probably be understood reciprocally as a claim of Aaronic priestly and prophetic charisms and status for the levitical Meturgeman which probably reflects a claim to to semi-canonical status for the Meturgeman's interpretation and translation of Moses' tora. http://books.google.com/books?id=S13...9;s%22&f=false

Juststeve

Wouldn't simpler explanation be that Mark took Peter's Aramaic and turned it into Greek?

Steve

stephan huller

:banghead: That's the point. But people at this forum - especially the so-called 'mythicists' - think that things are the way they are because 'it just happened that way.' No, if we truly are to embrace 'mythicism' then the precedents established in the Pentateuch become stronger, not weaker. 'Reality' disappears and things become mere typologies established in the Mosaic narrative and then 'fulfilled' (allegedly) in contemporary history. Read the Church Fathers. Read the Fathers of the rabbinic literature. Scripture and reality are blurred.

Only the historicists can claim that Mark could have 'really been' Peter's interpreter independent of the example of Moses and Aaron and even then the argument is weak because these are the kind of ideas that keep manifesting themselves in the writings of the very people reporting 'these facts.' People at this forum just know too little about the things they dare make pronouncements about.

Adam

As Post #1 stands,
After the 10:53 revision it makes no mention of Mark except in the title. Did that get deleted by mistake, or will something about Mark be restored?

As for Post #3, isn't Juststeve right in Post #2 that it's simpler that Mark interpreted Peter, that it is Mythicism that requires contortions?

stephan huller

I thought it was implicit. I don't know why I have to spell things out. Mark is said to be the 'interpreter' of Peter in Irenaeus et al. Yet what does this mean? If Mark was carrying out the function of translator of a text already written by Peter it would fit the mold of the relationship between Moses and Aaron where the gospel was the new Torah and the Gospel of Mark was its targum (= "translation, interpretation").

The noun 'meturgeman', or 'turgeman' (related to 'targum') may apart from its meaning as interpreter/translator also refer to someone who transmits the lesson of his rabbi.

If such a relationship held up then Simon Peter had the divine Word in him and was Moses (and increasingly appears indistinguishable from Simon Magus). He established something from his experience but Mark's text was that which was generally used by the Alexandrian community because it was 'interpreted' into a language people could understand.

Peter (pitur) can be argued to be from a different Aramaic root which means 'to interpret.'

aa5874

No way!!! You will have to first establish that Peter was a figure of history, that Peter spoke or knew Aramaic and that Peter was historically accurate.

We longer accept presumptions and Imagination as evidence. Those days are over. We have DATED sources and they show a Big Black hole for Jesus and the disciples in the first century.

Toto

Is there any other instance where Peter is analogous to Moses?

stephan huller

In catacomb art. his enthronement. Just working this out now actually

stephan huller

If simon peter = simon magus the epithet the standing one

stephan huller

More on Aaron as 'interpreter':

I bet the Samaritan Targum has the same idea as Onqelos and Neofiti here.