RUmike

The KJV has the last 12 verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, and the Johannine Comma, and you honestly think that the KJV is still the inspired word of God? :banghead:

Notsri

Of course, there's a difference between the biblical and targumic usage of mashiach. As you've mentioned, the word assumes a much more generic sense in the Bible, allowably being used of "any king of Israel." In the rabbinic targums, though, it's in the main used with a redemptive, eschatalogical figure in mind. The Isaiah Targum consistently employs the term with that signification in view, and there's nothing from the context of 52:13ff.; 53 to suggest a different sense there.

I would generally agree, Diogenes, though I would tend to think "anomalous" is an unfair characterization. The Isaiah Targum presents us with the earliest of something like a sustained commentary on the text from the rabbinic perspective, with roughly six to seven hundred years intervening till our next exhaustive work on the book, namely the commentary of Rashi. Rashi, of course, departs from the Targum, applying the text to Israel. Between those two works, though, we have, to my knowledge, only the midrash-compilations, and the midrashic portions of the Talmuds, from which to glean the relevant rabbinic opinions. This perhaps presents a bit of a problem, as not a single one of those works seeks to elucidate our text in full. In fact, in most cases, in this or that particular midrashic or talmudic homily, just a single verse from Isaiah is cited. It is therefore quite difficult to obtain from the sources a fully informed understanding of the rabbis' views on the subject. On the other hand, if the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets enjoyed a certain official status in the synagogues and academies of Palestine and Babylonia like the Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch, then the Isaiah Targum could very well represent "the mainstream" between the time of its final redaction and the composition of Rashi's commentary. (N.B. This point is not something I've looked into much, so for now I would make the suggestion only tentatively.) If this were the case, then we might expect the Midrashim or Talmudim, when interested in the pericope from Isaiah, to apply one or another verse to the Messiah, in keeping with the Targum; and if and when a Midrash or talmudic passage should depart from the usual messianic approach—well, this would merely accord with the rabbinic dictum that "a single verse can yield many teachings" (Bavli, Sanhedrin 34a).

From what I can gather, the evidence does seem (at least on the surface) to support such a hypothesis fairly well. Though the midrashic and talmudic literature are generally disinterested in the Isaianic pericope, isolated texts are used a number of times, and used most often for messianic discourse. Ruth Rabbah 5:6 applies 53:5 to the Messiah; the Printed edition of Midrash Tanhuma, Toledot 14 applies 52:13 to the Messiah; the Buber edition of Midrash Tanhuma, Toledot 20 applies 52:13 to Messiah; Aggadat Bereshit 45 applies the same to the Messiah; Sefer Zerubbabel draws from 53:3-5, applying the verses to Messiah; and the Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98b applies 53:4 to the Messiah.

The exegesis of 53:12 presents the notable exceptions: Sifrei Numbers §131 applies the verse to Phinehas; Sifrei Deuteronomy §355 applies the same to Moses; Numbers Rabbah 13:2 applies it to Israel; and the Talmud Bavli, Sotah 14a applies the verse to Moses. (Midrash Psalms 2:9 applies 52:13 to Israel.)

Other significant midrashim, e.g. the Mekhilta de'Rabbi Ishmael, Pesikta de'Rav Kahana, Pesikta Rabbati (at least according to Braude's translation), and Midrash Proverbs ignore the text entirely.

In any event, whether or not such a hypothesis could prove true, the high incidences of messianic exegesis of select verses should at least caution us against labelling the Targum "anomalous."

Regards,
Notsri

Chris Weimer

Thank you for the encouragement and welcome to IIDB. So do you actually know Greek or are you still learning. And if you're still learning, how far have you come along? Curious.

best,

Chris Weimer

Steven Avery

Right.. suureeeee.... because Targum Yonathan only shows how 1st-century Jews viewed the text of Isaiah, what point in discussing that ... it doesn't show how skeptics who have bought into the 20th century Jewish anti-missionary rewrite of Jewish interpretation view the text. How Christ Weimer or Jews for Judaism or Farrell Till views the text is certainly far more important to scholarship discussions about the validity of the New Testament Messianic exegesis than some inconsequential document like the Targum of that actual time period of that exact section that is backed up by the Talmud as ancient Judaism.

Bridge for sale.

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

Steven Carr

Bearing in mind that you claim that Jews of the period interpreted the text wrongly, I imagine that how Jews interpreted the text is irrelevant to how inspired authors were guided to intepret the text.

But please feel free to show that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy without begging the question.

Steven Avery

Thanks for an excellent summary. This probably could be expanded into an article that is separate from being simply apologetic, checking sources, giving more context, even a little history if there is commentary or usage of the sections in other literature, and pointing out sections that may be dual or ambiguous in interp, (like the Tehillim section we are discussing, I have a friend trying to search that out in the Aramaic to give a pure translation without English sectioning, getting the flow of the original). I'm not sure offhand how this list dovetails with the URL's I posted earlier, and I'm not sure offhand how many of these are actually covered in the Driver/Neubauer book.

In addition it is good to mention that when the rabbinical age moved towards the Israel interp, many voices were raised that this new view was different than the view of the midrashim. Some of those specifically also mentioned Targum Yonathan as well, another confirmation of the high status of the Targum through the rabbinic age (as well as accepting that TJ viewed I-53 as messianic). Any sections frp, Talmud about Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel fit it here, per your note earlier ...

You gave the reference for from Bavli, Megillah 3a
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...76#post2942876

Here is one reference so far, but of less direct import ...

http://headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebglossB.html
Yonathan ben Uzziel, we are told further, contemplated preparing a Targum for the third division of the Scriptures, but he was deterred by a bat kol, saying: "No more!" The explanation is that he was prohibited from preparing an interpretive translation of the biblical division containing the book of Daniel, because this would enable laymen to speculate on the date of the advent of the Mashiach, resulting in devastating disillusionments. Those who make calculations, from biblical verses, as to when the Mashiach would come were reviled by the sages (Sanhedrin 97b).

I didn't bother posting the actual Sanhedrin 97b as it is a bit afield from what we are looking for.

Here only your Megillah reference comes forth, with a curious statement that Yonathan was a disciple of Hillel.. (this is probably from Chilton or Neusner, since it is Bard College), note also the Hiyya reference.

http://inside.bard.edu/religion/facu...iah/targum.htm
"In the Talmud (Megillah 3a), the Targum of the Prophets is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel who was a disciple of Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus...
Talmud also mentions one Joseph bar Hiyya, a Babylonian rabbi whose death is reckoned to have occurred in A.D. 333 (cf. Grossfeld [1971] 847), as discussing Targumic interpretation."

http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/onkelos.htm
The translation of the Prophets was made by Yonatan ben Uziel, who learned it from Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi.’ � The Gemara later asks from a source in Nechemiah that the “Targum� came into existence in the time of Ezra, several hundred years before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Onkelos the Convert! The Gemara answers that while it is true that the initial translation of the Torah into Aramaic was done in the time of Ezra, the vast majority of the Jewish People forgot it. However, the tradition came down to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who taught it to Onkelos, who wrote it down again for all of Israel.

This last one fits, and might be enough to find the specifics.

Also from before..

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?worknum=145
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

Here is a note for those who still think that the Targum doesn't shed light on the views of Jesus and the disciples.

http://askelm.com/restoring/res004.htm
the Targum of the Law by Onkelos, and the Targum of the Prophets by Jonathan.... The Talmud reveals that these two Targums were even used in synagogue services.

SIDENOTE:
Interesting point, Risto properly points out the skewed view of modern scholarship as in the Klausner book.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT15.html
Klausner...the Midrash literature and the Targums are not much in evidence. Jonathan Ben Uzziel, for example, is mentioned only once.

Now I want to mention that I disagree with a scholar like Chilton on their view of the New Testament text, where they look at a lot of the existing text as interpolation, redaction, late and multiple authors, etc (even if there are not textual divergences, and when they are, I believe the far more common cause is subtraction/dropping, not addition).

So I believe they take that same mindset into studying a documents like the Targumim. Samson Levey seemed far less inclined towards that attitude. Overall, this does not mean that the theories such as those based on the status of the Temple may not be valid, but that one should not jump to an 'multiple text' or 'ongoing redaction' view too quickly, if there is no manuscript evidence, and little or no supporting historical reference. More so especially when we know that the rabbinics put this writing on a high level.

You can see some of that type of analysis in the history discussions here..
http://inside.bard.edu/religion/facu...iah/targum.htm
Where, to some extent, you can see the same type of JEPD mentality being utilized on the Targum, trying to force dissections and trisections on very tenuous grounds.

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

Steven Avery

Steven, it would help if you would read the threads more carefully, so as not to miss the context of a discussion, one of the problems we generally have had, and one of a few reasons I bypass attempts at dialog, sticking mostly to correction, or a topic of current study, like Targum Yonathan.

The disciples themselves, as written about in the inspired text, struggled with the same type of messianic application as in the Targum. This has, been mentioned before.

That would make the Targum text even more interesting and consequential, in addition to being a virtual refutation against the most common and forceful claims re I-53, such as on this forum, that Messianic interpretations are an (invalid) NT creation and phenomenon.

Folks here look for reasons to divert from that simple realization, despite the yeoman efforts of Notsri to go verse-by-verse and reference-by-reference ... and then next week, in another thread, I expect they will make the exact same bogus assertions.

So Targum Yonathan is extremely significant both for the fact of its messianic interpretation, and also because its 'different' messianic interpretation is simply an extra point of fascinating study and comparison.

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

Steven Avery

Hi RUMike, most assuredly and most honestly.

And we had a nice thread here on one or two of the issues you mentioned earlier in the year.

Interestingly, I often ask Christians who are alexandrian textual modern versionists whether, considering the warnings about adding to the text, they consider the sections of Mark and the Pericope as scripture (since their 'textual scholars' tell them they are additions).

Why and how would a sincere believing Christian ever accept a Bible version that they believe has the hand of man intermixed ?

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

RUmike

Why and how a sincere believing Christian could ever accept a Bible version (read: KJV) as the Word of God when it is beyond all doubt that it too has the hand of man intermixed is beyond me.

These sections should be expunged from every Bible. The Johannine Comma couldn't even be found in a single Greek manuscript when Erasmus put together his Greek NT. He said he would include it only if someone could produce such a manuscript. To little surprise, someone manufactured one, and so he included it in his second edition and all subsequent.

Steven Avery

Respectfully disagree.

Now, how about the question I asked above.
Do you believe the Pericope and ending of Mark are scripture ?
Are they in the Bible you use ?

In other words, is your OWN Bible version consistent with YOUR beliefs ?

My Bible is fully consistent with my beliefs about the inspiration and
preservation of the Word of God. How about yours ?.

Again, respectfully disagree.
Did you find and review the thread(s) on the forum I mentioned above ?

Actually that history, in the 1st edition of the Metzger book, had to be corrected when DeJonge corrected Metzger. By the 3rd edition Metzger had chenged it, albeit in a less-than-obvious manner.

Anyway, the Johannine Comma largely dropped out of the Greek line, the Johannine Comma stands on other evidences.

The irony here is that the modern versions with which you would "correct" the King James Bible often do so on the basis of little more than two manuscripts, matched up against hundreds, often in multiple text-lines and lanugages.

Ergo, it should be easy for you to understand that "counting Greek manuscripts" is not the only textual issue involved. If you believed
that, you would then go to the Robinson-Pierpont text, or perhaps
the Hodges-Farsted text.

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