Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Notsri · 12-04-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

Praxeus, I do want to comment more fully on your post, though I have to run out for a bit.

Thanks. Before we discuss the section more, I would hope that you could include all the text down to Messiah-king. Let's be fully unabridged

So in the first version of the Midrash you had quoted, toward the end it cited Daniel 7:13,14, and then immediately added: "The LORD said 'You are my son'. The decrees are those of the king, the king of kings, that this would be done to the Messiah-King... "

This is how the text actually goes: the verses from Daniel are quoted, and then a new paragraph begins (again, with the missing materials in bold type):

"In another comment, the verse is read: 'I will tell of the decree: The Lord said unto me, "You are My son...ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession"' (Pss. 2:7,8). R. Yudan said: 'All these goodly promises are in the decree of the King, the King of kings, who will fulfill them for the lord Messiah. And why all this? Because the Messiah occupies himself with Torah.'"

According to Braude's translation and structuring of the text, then, it would appear that R. Yudan's comments refer back only to Pss. 2:7,8, the verses just cited. I suppose, however, that there is some possibility the Midrash has in mind the entire collection of verses previously mentioned, when R. Yudan says "all these goodly promises." Alfred Edersheim seems to raise that possibility, in any event, in his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. I'm a little doubtful, though. (Granted, all the verses cited—Isa. 52:13; 42:1; Pss. 110:1; Dan. 7:13,14; with the possible exception of Ex. 4:22—are sometimes applied to the Messiah in the rabbinic literature. But, again, as the text reads in Braude's translation, it just doesn't appear to me that Midrash Psalms 2:9 is one such place.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

..Indeed, to suggest that the Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 53 itself dates to the Second Temple period is surely untenable, for 53:5 (in the Targum) assures the reader that the Messiah "will build the sanctuary which was profaned for our sins, handed over for our iniquities"—a reference unquestionably deriving from a time after 70 CE and the destruction of the Temple, needless to say.

This would also seem to go especially well with the Samson Levey Maccabean dating, or perhaps even the Ezra dating of the Talmud.

If the Targum had mentioned only the profanation of the Temple, then perhaps a Maccabean setting would be more convincing. The fact, however, that the Targum mentions also the Messiah's actual reconstruction of the Temple (53:5), seems to me to point to a time when the structure lay fully in ruins.

By the way, do you have the talmudic reference to Ezra's composition of the Targum? The passage I'm familiar with bearing on the question of TJ's authorship is the famous text from Bavli, Megillah 3a; and of course, Ezra is not mentioned there:

"The Targum of the Prophets was composed by Jonathan ben Uzziel, (who had learned it through tradition directly) from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and the Land of Israel shook (over an area) four hundred parasah by four hundred parasah. A heavenly voice emanated saying: 'Who is this that has revealed My secrets to mortal beings?' Jonathan ben Uzziel rose to his feet and said: 'I am the one who revealed Your secrets to mortal beings. It is revealed and known before You that I did it not for my glory or for the glory of my father's house, rather I did it for Your glory, that dissension may not spread in Israel.' And Jonathan ben Uzziel also wished to reveal the Targum of Writings. A heavenly voice emanated and said: 'You have done enough.' (The Gemara asks): Why? (and answers): Because in them (the Writings) is (the revelation of) the end, (the time when ) the Messiah (will come)."

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Do you have any author's writings on this to consider, or your own study? As I've explained a number of times, I find the theories of a late text creation to be especially dubious, the stylistic sense seems earlier, and it would go against any attemps to place Israel as the subject, ala the friends of Celsus. For similar reasons, I find the redactions theories (it was more sufferring servant Messianic, but was changed) also very dubious, even when floated by such as Michael Brown.

My familiarity with the Targum derives primarily from Chilton's The Isaiah Targum, which contains an excellent introduction to the work, as well as an overview of the scholarship on the subject, not to mention an English translation of the Targum itself.

Chilton tends to view the Targum as composite. He situates the authorship of 52:13ff; 53 during the tannaitic period, perhaps the 2nd c. CE. He notes the parallels between our text and tannaitic materials from the Bavli, Pesachim 5a, where the Talmud likewise assures the people of the future advent of the Messiah, the eventual reconstruction of the Temple, and the deposition of the Roman powers. Such similiarities in thought, he thinks, suggest a tannaitic origin for our portion of the Targum.

I admittedly have not studied his book in great detail, though I've generally found convincing his arguments in what I have read.

Regards,
Notsri

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-04-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

Diogenes, Isa 53 is unquestionably a prediction of the Messiah to come in the Targum. 52:13 explictily identifies the "servant" as "the Messiah." Nowhere in the text is any reference made to David, and "Messiah" is definitely not a metaphor for Israel (a possibility you'd suggested earlier in the thread; v. 14 says: "Just as the House of Israel hoped for him"—with "him" [and thus v. 13's "the Messiah"] obviously not referring to Israel).

Sometimes "annointed" just means "annointed." Any king of Israel is a messiah. David was a messiah.

Quote:

The Targum's Messiah is here viewed as prospering when he comes, being exalted, increasing and being strong (52:13). Israel has been longing for him many days (52:14). When he arrives, people will be scattered, and kings will be silent because of him (52:15). The righteous will be exalted before him (53:2). He will have a brilliant and fearful appearance (53:2). He will ask God for the forgiveness of Israel's sins (53:4). He will rebuild the Temple (53:5). He will gather the exiles (53:8). He will remove the gentile rule from the Land of Israel (53:8). He will send the wicked to their punishment in Gehenna (53:9); and so on.

I don't have the text of the Targum in front of me so (for the sake of argument) I'll take your word for it. It's still post-Christian, still anomalous in Jewish tradition, amd, most importantly, it can't be talking about Jesus because Jesus accomplished none of those things.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-04-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Your most important error, placing Messiah as the subject of the Targum, Notsri took the extra effort to walk you through in detail. Thanks.

Regardless of what you imagine it to be in the Targum, in Isaiah it's nothing but Israel.

Quote:

Possibly the best review is by William Most, although he mentions scholars different than the ones we discussed earlier, other than Levey http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?worknum=145
The Date of Targums
As a result, we need to consider the question of the date of composition of the targums, especially Targum Jonathan. There is much diversity of opinion among scholars. For example, Samson Levey wrote that the official targums (which include those of Onkelos and Jonathan) are likely to come from the second century B.C., since they are cautious about using the full title "King Messiah" -- they omit the word King -- because in Maccabean times, hope for restoring the Davidic kingship might sound like treason to the Hasmoneans. But two pages later, Levey says the older view that the latest possible date, the terminus ad quem, of Targum Jonathan was earlier than the Arab conquest of Babylon in the 7th century A.D., which is wrong. It should be placed after that.

Rabbi Menahem Kasher, in his large 25 volume work, Torah Shelemah (=complete Torah) traces Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and even Neofiti to the time of Ezra, that is, the fifth century B.C. He notes that the scribe Ezra, according to Nehemiah 8:7-8, read the law, while Levites, "gave the sense, so that the people understood what was read."2 Jacob Neusner, perhaps the greatest of modern Jewish scholars, thinks that "the targums contain ideas from a time prior to their own closure and redaction."3 Similarly Bruce Chilton, in the notes to his translation of the Isaiah Targum4 comments on 25:2 which says that the gentiles will never build a temple in Jerusalem: "Such a vigorous assurance has a rather clear terminus ad quem, since in 136 ... The Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was dedicated there." So that statement must have been made before 136 A.D. Chilton also, in great detail, in his A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible, argues that much of the matter of the targums was already in use in oral form in the time of Jesus, and finds echoes of it in the teachings of Jesus.5 The debate still goes on today over the dates of the targums. However, one thing is certain: They do reflect ancient Jewish understanding of the messianic prophecies, made without what some have called "hindsight," i.e., without help by seeing them fulfilled in Christ. If any parts are more ancient than the final form, it will be the prophecies, as we gather from the remarks by Neusner, Chilton, and Levey just cited. However, as Neusner, Levey and Schoeps, whom we shall presently cite on the point, admit, there was deliberate distortion introduced into some targums on prophecies to counter Christian use of them. (continues)

A bit more from William Most on this at
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LG603.TXT

http://catholicculture.org/docs/most...216&ChapNum=26
The dates of the Targums are disputed. A respectable scholarly opinion is that of Samson Levey: "The official Targumim are quite circumspect about adducing Messianic interpretations from the Hebrew text.... We may conjecture that the reason might be that the official Targumim stem from Maccabean times [second century B.C.], when hope for a restoration of the Davidic kingship could constitute treason to the Hasmomean dynasty" (The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 142). Levey gives us all the Old Testament texts that the Targums see as Messianic. No matter what the date, the Targums do this without the use of hindsight from fulfillment in Christ. The writers, of course, rejected Christ. R. Brown, as we saw in chapter 20, thinks the Old Testament prophecies would be good only with hindsight.
==================================================

MY COMMENTS

Kasher's view is also in line with a Talmud discussion.

Personally, I am slow to accept any accusations of distortion in the Targum, even in the Messianic passages, without compelling evidence, and afaik there is no hard evidence. However, I would agree that the Targum we have now is the mininum Messianic application, there could conceivably have been additional redactions out, I simply do not have the basis to make the claim, even if it is 'generally accepted scholarship' and would favor the NT position.

Actually, I find such scholarship conjecturing often done on a very weak base, retrofitting the glasses of today on an earlier time.

Once again, you argue with lots of words but with very little content. I'll make it simple. The TJ knows about the destruction of the Temple and its reputed author, Jonathan ben Uzziel, is identified in the Babylonian Talmud as a student of Rabbi Hillel. That means it has to date after 70 CE and everything I've read about the dating- even in some conservative Christian sources like Catolic Encyclopedia - date the TJ between the 2nd and 5th centuries with multiple redactions taking place over the centuries.

Quote:

You may have confused Pseudo-Jonathon, a Penteteuch Targum, with TJ. Your statement here is simply wrong.

Nope, I know the difference betwen TJ and pseudo TJ (a much later writing). You are either misinformed or are selectively citing bad sources.

Quote:

And as I have pointed out numerous times, It would make little or no sense for the Jews to deliberately write and spread a Targum of that nature, declaring Messiah as the subject of Isaiah 53, at the time when Christianity was spreading, when it would contradict any rabbinical attempt to claim Israel as the subject. At most they would change the emphasis away from the suffering aspect, but personally I see no evidence of any such redaction.

Nevertheless, the TJ dates well into the Christian era.

I will also reiterate that the neither the Targums or the NT have any bearing on the author's original intent for Isaiah 53 anyway. No matter how it was later reinterpreted (or misinterpreted) by either Christians or (some) Jews, the author of Isaiah 52,53 was talking about Israel.

And not for nothing but it bears repeating that even if the TJ is granted the most Messianic interpretation possible, Jesus still did not remotely fit the description. Where's that new Temple? Where's that world peace? When did all the Jews return to Israel? THOSE are the criteria for the Jewish Messiah, not dying for anyone's sins....and even the "Messiah" in the Targum is not identified as God himself.

Chris Weimer · 12-04-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Stick with the King James Bible, then the only misunderstandings will be your own, not the text :-)

The King James alongside YLT and the original Greek and you can't mess up. The KJV, for all its merits, has many faults as well. Relying on it as the True Authority (which I'm not saying that you're doing) is not healthy and can lead to degenerate results.

Chris Weimer · 12-04-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have the text of the Targum in front of me so (for the sake of argument) I'll take your word for it. It's still post-Christian, still anomalous in Jewish tradition, amd, most importantly, it can't be talking about Jesus because Jesus accomplished none of those things.

I don't think Notsri was apologizing for Christians on this one. In fact, I think that's why he pointed them out in the first place. And remember, even if it did predate Christianity, which this part may have, it still doesn't lend any credence to the thought that Isaiah was referring to a future Messiah. If you want to discuss Isaiah 53, there's absolutely no point in bringing up the Targum.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-04-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Stick with the King James Bible, then the only misunderstandings will be your own, not the text :-)

The KJV is virtually worthless for any serious study. The Textus Receptus in particular is late, interpolated and sometimes fabricated. When you suggest that the KJV is some sort of authoritative text you really discredit yourself.

Chris Weimer · 12-04-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The KJV is virtually worthless for any serious study. The Textus Receptus in particular is late, interpolated and sometimes fabricated. When you suggest that the KJV is some sort of authoritative text you really discredit yourself.

Now hold on a second. KJV has it's merits as well. It's true that alone it is virtually worthless, since behind it lies part-Textus Receptus and part-Vulgate. However, for command over language and it being so literal, it does have those redemptive qualities. I would argue for the YLT, but it's 19th century imitation of 16th century language just doesn't cut it, though it does in large correct a lot of the KJV's errors. What needs to be done is a literal translation of NA27/UBS 4. I'm currently working on Matthew, but translation is not an easy task, especially in terms of consistency.

Mars Man · 12-04-2005, 07:36 PM

I greatly appreciate those comments there, Chris. May I encourage you in that work; as I also hope to possibly discuss things related to that, too--where ever the place for that may be. I just use NA27 as it is basically, but spend more time with lexicons and what little grammer material I have here, than with the flow, it seems.

Please do forgive me, as I have just joined this past week, but after I have caught up on all the reading of this thread, I do hope to join in with whatever postitive addition I may be able to make.

Strange though it may sound, (and of course I do have KJ as well as AS, NAS, TEV, NRSV) I more often use the New World Translation by the Watchtower Soc. of NY--one just has to be careful of some points of seemingly bias translated words or clauses, but otherwise, it is quite readable, and is fairly direct. Now, I'll catch up on that reading.

Steven Avery · 12-04-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The KJV is virtually worthless for any serious study. The Textus Receptus in particular is late, interpolated and sometimes fabricated. When you suggest that the KJV is some sort of authoritative text you really discredit yourself.

LOL.. we have done this before. The King James Bible folks get a lot of flak and frothing from errantists because, unlike their buddy liberal (secular and Christian and other) scholars, we truly believe that God has inspired and preserved His Word, and that it is inerrant, and with authority.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 12-04-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Once again, you argue with lots of words but with very little content.

The post was for Notsri.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2005, 07:36 PM	#118
Mars Man Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Aida, Matsumoto, Japan Posts: 129	I greatly appreciate those comments there, Chris. May I encourage you in that work; as I also hope to possibly discuss things related to that, too--where ever the place for that may be. I just use NA27 as it is basically, but spend more time with lexicons and what little grammer material I have here, than with the flow, it seems. Please do forgive me, as I have just joined this past week, but after I have caught up on all the reading of this thread, I do hope to join in with whatever postitive addition I may be able to make. Strange though it may sound, (and of course I do have KJ as well as AS, NAS, TEV, NRSV) I more often use the New World Translation by the Watchtower Soc. of NY--one just has to be careful of some points of seemingly bias translated words or clauses, but otherwise, it is quite readable, and is fairly direct. Now, I'll catch up on that reading.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.