In book 4 Dr. Brown addresses the Jewish proof of fallacy/error/lack of divine inspiration of Jesus and/or the author of Matthew, which Jews often bring from Matthew 23:35. In Matthew 23:35 Jesus refers to Zechariah ben B'rachyah, while it is clear from context that he means to refer to Zechariah ben Yehoyada. Jews point out that obvious textual error in simply referring back to a prior biblical story.
Brown says something that has intrigued as well as bothered me quite a bit, and I am hoping that someone can shed some insight onto the matter.
Brown points out that the Targum on Eichah 2:20 refers as well to the murder of Zechariah- the targum (in accord with the text of that possuk) explicitly says that it is referring to the murder of Zechariah in the temple. The thing is, Brown points out, that the targum refers to zechariah bar iddo. And Zechariah ben berachiah ben iddo is the other zechariah- the wrong zechariah- the one that Matthew refers to. Per the klal of beni banim harei hein kbanim (Brown doesnt say this exact point), it seems correct to say that zechariah bar iddo is zechariah ben berachiah. Brown does point out that the book of ezra refers to zechariah ben berachia as zechariah bar iddo, which would lend support to the fact that when the targum refers to zechariah bar iddo it is referring to zechariah ben berachiah.
Now contextually, however, we are referring to the murder in the temple of someone who was both a navi and a kohein, and we are identifying this individual as zechariah. The only person mentioned in tanach (or elsewhere in jewish tradition at all, to my knowledge), is zechariah ben yehoyadah.
So the targum seems to be referring to zechariah ben yehoyada, but yet is calls him zecharyah bar iddo; which seems to be synoymous with zechariah ben berachyah. Thus, Dr. Brown contends that we have an authentic Jewish source stating the same thing tha the author of Matthew states. Brown therefore says that we will need to either recognize error in both Matthew and the Targum, or speculate that both Matthew and the targum were correct but referring to another event (the murder of zechariah ben berachyah in the temple), an event for which we have no documentation or support. I believe Brown has a third possibility too, but I dont remember it at the moment.
In any event, this seems to me to be a fair contention on Browns part. So I did a lot of thorough research in the attempt to resolve this. Firstly, I verified the starting point of Browns argument by looking up the targum in three different mikraos gedolos nach sets on eichah. They all were in agreement with each other, and Brown definately quoted the text accurately. I looked up all the meforshim in the mikraos gedolos sets that I had available. I also looked up the torah temimah and his novella on this possuk. I looked up the two or three references (I dont remember now if there were two or three- but one was in sanhedrin and one was in yuma or brachos- I forget now) to this interpretation of eichah 2:20 (interpretation regarding zecharyah being murdered in the temple, i mean) which are mentioned in the talmud bavli. I looked up the rashi and maharsha on each of these, as well as the ein yaakov, and the nosei keilim on the daf. I looked up the two instances in the midreash rabbah, two instances in the yalkut shimoni, and one instance in the torah kohanim (this was a while ago, but I think my memory serves me correct about this) which I became aware of as referring to this concept, as well. All of the references which I found either did not speak of this point (ie- I dont think that I found any ein yaakov on any of this, if I remember correctly), or explicitly stated the point and applied it explicitly to zecharyah ben yehoyadh (as for example rashi in the gemara does). It could be that some stated the pont and just mentioned zecharyah without further clarification of which zecharyah they were referring to, but again, my memory alludes me about this (it was about two months ago that I looked into this). Point being that all the sources that I found which made reference to this point explicitly applied it to zecharyah ben yehoyadah- except for this one targum- which applied it to zecharyah bar iddo (ben berachya, I would say). This, if anything served to reinforce Brown's point that the targum strangely seems to refer to the wrong Zecharyah, as does Matthew.
I did not become aware of any talmud yerushalmi or tannaitic works (mishnah, tosefta, any of the mesechtos ketanos, pirkei drabbi eliezer, tanna dbei eliyahu, or zohar either), or other midrashim, which make reference to this concept in reference to this possuk.
I took out a concordance and looked up iddo- I did not find any reference to iddo in tanach which bore any relation to zecharyah ben yehoyadah either- so I dont see how zecharyah bar iddo can be construed as a reference to zecharyah ben yehoyadah.
The best answer to Brown's point that I myself could come up with was the fact that chazal tell us that there is no targum on kesuvim. But to try to claim that as an answer, and thus discount the targum on eichah- first of all I dont think that would be a kosher jewish answer within the pale of Torah Judaism, and even so, it seems to me that that is for all intensive purposes conceding to Brown's pont.
This question is relevant even if we leave Matthew out of the picture- for it questions the validity of our mesorah.
So, I turn the question over to you guys, can someone please justify the statement that is found in the targum on eichah 2:20 that states that the kohein and navi that was killed in the beis hamikdash is zecharyah bar iddo?
Thanks.
Dr. Brown's comments in defense of Matthew 23:35
Moderator: Netanel
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Dr. Brown's comments in defense of Matthew 23:35
by yak1605522 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:34 am
- yak1605522
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: Connecticut
by Sophiee » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:32 am
Targum Yonathan is not a "literal" translation so the point is moot.
As a matter of fact Brown himself says (in his first book):
So they aren't precise interpretations. They are often based on free association -- but hey, here -- why not use it as factual and precise interpretation to support the GT?? (my own free interpretation of Brown's comment on Matthew).
Samson H. Levey wrote (in ‘The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum”):
In other words midrash aggadah and yet Brown is trying to use it as some sort of literal proof that Matthew's error is not an error at all because it is repeated in someone else's story written rather late itself.
As a matter of fact Brown himself says (in his first book):
“Talmudic citations are not meant to be precise interpretations of the biblical text but are often based on free association and wordplays.”
So they aren't precise interpretations. They are often based on free association -- but hey, here -- why not use it as factual and precise interpretation to support the GT?? (my own free interpretation of Brown's comment on Matthew).
Samson H. Levey wrote (in ‘The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum”):
Targumic paraphrase . . . is not a translation, nor is it loose meaningless commentary, but a reworking of the text to yield what the Targumist desires it to give forth.”
In other words midrash aggadah and yet Brown is trying to use it as some sort of literal proof that Matthew's error is not an error at all because it is repeated in someone else's story written rather late itself.
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
by yak1605522 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:46 pm
Sophie,
Your answer gives me a few questions, which I hope you will please address:
1)Tell me if this is what you mean to say (as you answered in general terms about the midrashic nature of targum, but not about this particular statement and its interpretation):
The peshuto shel mikra chastises us for killing people who were kohanim as well as people who were neviim [our holy leaders and examples whom we should have emulated and taken lessons from] even in places such as the beis hamikdash [which in itself should inspire is to yiras and ahavas hashem]. In doing such a sin, the blatant disregard for everything worthwhile is obvious.
The targum, al derech derash, interprets this phrase as a reference to a specific horrific event- the murder of zecharyah [which chazal elaborated on in other places as well]. The targum does this since the possuk says navi in the singular - not neviim, and since it says kohain in the singular- not kohanim, which would seem to bear reference to one particular kohain and one particular navi. Further, the possuk refers to priest and prophet- seeming to refer to one individual who is both. According to this- we would be referring to zecharyah- who was 1)a kohein, 2) a navi, 3)murdered in the mikdash.
Now the peshat, when making such a derasha, would be to refer to zecharyah ben yehoyada- as this is whom the kesuvim in divrei hayamim record this event regarding. So if I understand you correctly- this is kind of like a derasha on the derasha- the first derasha is that we will apply the possuk to one specific individual instead of applying it in general terms, and 2) we will say that this one specific individual is not the person whom we would otherwise assume him to be. Is that correct? Am I hearing you correctly? Or maybe you mean that when we depart from the peshat and go into derash- we can pick any individual whom we would like to say fullfilled all three of these requirements- and that we never considered zecharyah ben yehoyadah (who is the most obvious and clear candidate) but rather that we immediately picked zecharyah bar iddo (who is ben berachyah). Is this correct?
My question on this would be- what would be the point/meaning/teaching/idea/lesson of such a derasha- why would we want to switch it from yehoyadah to iddo (berachyah)? And also- how would we explain this switch since we know that these statements would apply to ben yehoyadah but not to bar iddo (ben berachyah)?
Please clarify this for me.
2)We hold the targum to be true but (lehavdil) Matthew to be false. If so, we have to be able to differentiate between the two regarding this issue here (or at least we will need to concede that this particular example is not a problem, even on the christian part). That being the case, what is to prevent Brown from taina'ing back to us that just as the targum is speaking al derech derash, so too is Matthew speaking al derech derash. I have seen christians claim this regarding many of the innacuracies in their scriptures, and I have even seen literature to this effect regarding this exact statement of Matthew's (stating that Yayshu was combining the names of both zecharyahs al derech derash, and that he was actually referring to both of them).
How do we differentiate between the two statements- each on its own right? How can we defend the targum's useage al derech derash while not accepting Matthew's useage al derech derash?
3)It seems to me that you concur that the Targum's reference to Zercharyah bar iddo is indeed referring to Zecharyah ben berachyah (ben iddo)- the navi of the book of zecharyah who lived during the beginning of the bayis sheini times (and that the targum is by no means referring to zecharyah ben yehoyadah who was kohein gadol in the days of Yoash HaMelech during the middle of the first bayis period). Correct?
4)Also, you referred to this as Targum Yonasan. Now this is kesuvim- not neviim [on which yonasan is the primary targum], and not in chumash [on which we of course have the important work of targum yonasan ben uzziel as well]. I know that the gemara says that Yonasan was going to be metargerim the kesuvim and hashem did not permit him to do so.
My question is- is this targum indeed targum yonasan?
Your answer gives me a few questions, which I hope you will please address:
1)Tell me if this is what you mean to say (as you answered in general terms about the midrashic nature of targum, but not about this particular statement and its interpretation):
The peshuto shel mikra chastises us for killing people who were kohanim as well as people who were neviim [our holy leaders and examples whom we should have emulated and taken lessons from] even in places such as the beis hamikdash [which in itself should inspire is to yiras and ahavas hashem]. In doing such a sin, the blatant disregard for everything worthwhile is obvious.
The targum, al derech derash, interprets this phrase as a reference to a specific horrific event- the murder of zecharyah [which chazal elaborated on in other places as well]. The targum does this since the possuk says navi in the singular - not neviim, and since it says kohain in the singular- not kohanim, which would seem to bear reference to one particular kohain and one particular navi. Further, the possuk refers to priest and prophet- seeming to refer to one individual who is both. According to this- we would be referring to zecharyah- who was 1)a kohein, 2) a navi, 3)murdered in the mikdash.
Now the peshat, when making such a derasha, would be to refer to zecharyah ben yehoyada- as this is whom the kesuvim in divrei hayamim record this event regarding. So if I understand you correctly- this is kind of like a derasha on the derasha- the first derasha is that we will apply the possuk to one specific individual instead of applying it in general terms, and 2) we will say that this one specific individual is not the person whom we would otherwise assume him to be. Is that correct? Am I hearing you correctly? Or maybe you mean that when we depart from the peshat and go into derash- we can pick any individual whom we would like to say fullfilled all three of these requirements- and that we never considered zecharyah ben yehoyadah (who is the most obvious and clear candidate) but rather that we immediately picked zecharyah bar iddo (who is ben berachyah). Is this correct?
My question on this would be- what would be the point/meaning/teaching/idea/lesson of such a derasha- why would we want to switch it from yehoyadah to iddo (berachyah)? And also- how would we explain this switch since we know that these statements would apply to ben yehoyadah but not to bar iddo (ben berachyah)?
Please clarify this for me.
2)We hold the targum to be true but (lehavdil) Matthew to be false. If so, we have to be able to differentiate between the two regarding this issue here (or at least we will need to concede that this particular example is not a problem, even on the christian part). That being the case, what is to prevent Brown from taina'ing back to us that just as the targum is speaking al derech derash, so too is Matthew speaking al derech derash. I have seen christians claim this regarding many of the innacuracies in their scriptures, and I have even seen literature to this effect regarding this exact statement of Matthew's (stating that Yayshu was combining the names of both zecharyahs al derech derash, and that he was actually referring to both of them).
How do we differentiate between the two statements- each on its own right? How can we defend the targum's useage al derech derash while not accepting Matthew's useage al derech derash?
3)It seems to me that you concur that the Targum's reference to Zercharyah bar iddo is indeed referring to Zecharyah ben berachyah (ben iddo)- the navi of the book of zecharyah who lived during the beginning of the bayis sheini times (and that the targum is by no means referring to zecharyah ben yehoyadah who was kohein gadol in the days of Yoash HaMelech during the middle of the first bayis period). Correct?
4)Also, you referred to this as Targum Yonasan. Now this is kesuvim- not neviim [on which yonasan is the primary targum], and not in chumash [on which we of course have the important work of targum yonasan ben uzziel as well]. I know that the gemara says that Yonasan was going to be metargerim the kesuvim and hashem did not permit him to do so.
My question is- is this targum indeed targum yonasan?
- yak1605522
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: Connecticut
by Sophiee » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:24 pm
Yak, I am busy and won't be able to address your post in depth until next week -- but read back your own words which themselves attest to the fact that Torah is one thing, Nevi'im another, Ketuvi'im yet another and then we have aggadah.
You seem to have answered your own puzzle (which is easy enough to do given the distortions of those who try to lump pshat with aggadah).
You seem to have answered your own puzzle (which is easy enough to do given the distortions of those who try to lump pshat with aggadah).
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
by Tom1992 » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:12 am
Hello Yosef,
IMHO, the authors of the Targum noticed the Christian blunder and made a pun. Take a look at some other revealing Targumic 'mistakes':
Torah, Beresjit 25:11: HaSjem blessed Jitschak, and Jitschak moved to a place called 'The Well of the Living One Who Sees Me.'
What does the Targum (Jonathan) tell about this passage? It says that "because Avraham had not wished to bless Jisjma'el, he had not blessed Jitshak either. Jisjma'el would have hated him if he had blessed Jitschak but not Jishma'el. However, after Avraham died, HaSjem blessed Jitschak, his son…"
The Targum adds a pun by telling that HaSjem had to bless Jitschak because Avraham refused to bless Jisjma'el and therefore, unfortunately, couldn't bless Jitschak either. A hint to bnej Jisjma'el and their religion?
Interestingly enough, Targum Jonathan on Bamidbar 7:87 states, "The total of the bullocks for the burnt offering: 12 bullocks, 1 for each chief of the clan. Rams, 12 rams because the 12 chiefs of Jisjma'el (see Beresjit 17:20 & Beresjit 5:13-15) will disappear; 12 yearling lambs, because the 12 chiefs of Esav will disappear, and their offerings, because famine will be removed from the world. And 12 kids of the goats for the sin offering, because of the atonement of the12 tribes."
Again, the Torah doesn't mention Jisjma'el nor Esav here; but the Targum does: both - Jisjma'el and Esav – will disappear. A reference to the Islam and Christianity?
And how about Targum Jonathan on Beresjit 35:22? ("Perhaps an unworthy individual has come forth from me, like Jisjma'el went forth from Avraham and Esav went forth from my father").
IMHO, it can only be explained as a Targumic pun on the claims of Islam and Christianity.
And a most revealing example: Targum Jonathan on Beresjit 21:21 refers to the wives of Jisjma'el as "Fatima" & "Adisha" – nice Arabic names. More explicitly: these are the names of respectively Mohammed's wife & Mohammed's daughter.
Obviously, the Targum doesn't always follow the original Hebrew text, but, sometimes, instead, interprets passages, (re)names persons, and, as proven, even borrows names from books of other religions to make a pun.
In the case of Eichah 2:20, the Targum may have politely raised the following question: "who is blind?"
Why? Perhaps because Jesus was less polite when he said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:23-35 - KJV).
Yosef, I ask you: who was blind?
Tom
Yosef wrote:… The thing is, Brown points out, that the targum refers to zechariah bar iddo. And Zechariah ben berachiah ben iddo is the other zechariah- the wrong zechariah- the one that Matthew refers to.
IMHO, the authors of the Targum noticed the Christian blunder and made a pun. Take a look at some other revealing Targumic 'mistakes':
Torah, Beresjit 25:11: HaSjem blessed Jitschak, and Jitschak moved to a place called 'The Well of the Living One Who Sees Me.'
What does the Targum (Jonathan) tell about this passage? It says that "because Avraham had not wished to bless Jisjma'el, he had not blessed Jitshak either. Jisjma'el would have hated him if he had blessed Jitschak but not Jishma'el. However, after Avraham died, HaSjem blessed Jitschak, his son…"
The Targum adds a pun by telling that HaSjem had to bless Jitschak because Avraham refused to bless Jisjma'el and therefore, unfortunately, couldn't bless Jitschak either. A hint to bnej Jisjma'el and their religion?
Interestingly enough, Targum Jonathan on Bamidbar 7:87 states, "The total of the bullocks for the burnt offering: 12 bullocks, 1 for each chief of the clan. Rams, 12 rams because the 12 chiefs of Jisjma'el (see Beresjit 17:20 & Beresjit 5:13-15) will disappear; 12 yearling lambs, because the 12 chiefs of Esav will disappear, and their offerings, because famine will be removed from the world. And 12 kids of the goats for the sin offering, because of the atonement of the12 tribes."
Again, the Torah doesn't mention Jisjma'el nor Esav here; but the Targum does: both - Jisjma'el and Esav – will disappear. A reference to the Islam and Christianity?
And how about Targum Jonathan on Beresjit 35:22? ("Perhaps an unworthy individual has come forth from me, like Jisjma'el went forth from Avraham and Esav went forth from my father").
IMHO, it can only be explained as a Targumic pun on the claims of Islam and Christianity.
And a most revealing example: Targum Jonathan on Beresjit 21:21 refers to the wives of Jisjma'el as "Fatima" & "Adisha" – nice Arabic names. More explicitly: these are the names of respectively Mohammed's wife & Mohammed's daughter.
Obviously, the Targum doesn't always follow the original Hebrew text, but, sometimes, instead, interprets passages, (re)names persons, and, as proven, even borrows names from books of other religions to make a pun.
In the case of Eichah 2:20, the Targum may have politely raised the following question: "who is blind?"
Why? Perhaps because Jesus was less polite when he said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:23-35 - KJV).
Yosef, I ask you: who was blind?
Tom
- Tom1992
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: Europe
by riffraff » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:26 pm
Tom1992 wrote:Hello Yosef,
In the case of Eichah 2:20, the Targum may have politely raised the following question: "who is blind?"
Why? Perhaps because Jesus was less polite when he said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:23-35 - KJV).
Yosef, I ask you: who was blind?
Jesus.
Not to mention hateful, especially if you read from the beginning of Chapter 23. Holy cannoli! Of course, he was hardly the epitome of justice and mercy having condemned any and everyone who'd rather not pray to him. And if that wasn't loving enough, even the people who do pray to him have no guarantee of not being black listed. Isn't he the one who said, Not everyone who says lord lord will enter his kingdom. He had some nerve to rant and rave about anyone else. I swear the more I read what this guy was about the more he seems a lunatic.
--rr--
-
riffraff - Posts: 146
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:06 pm
- Location: Minnesota
by Sophiee » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:48 pm
Well between here and MT I notice I said was busy and would "get back."
Does anyone have a clue what I was supposed to get back to? I take this seriously and am sorry if I left anything anging. My son is making a "fort" of the sofa and I am not a lesiurley purson. If I have missed something that still warrants a response please enlighten me.
But Targums are sometimes midrashic (stories) an on other times more translation -- but they are not Torah.
Generally speaking they are interpretation of the Tanach.
יונתן בן עוזיאל (Targum Yonathan) is highly inerpretive in nature (stories to make a moral point). Again, it has been awhile (2 weeks?) since the original post in question and it would help if a specific question were asked. I apololgize, but this has been a busy time for me. I'm more than happy to addrss any questions.
Does anyone have a clue what I was supposed to get back to? I take this seriously and am sorry if I left anything anging. My son is making a "fort" of the sofa and I am not a lesiurley purson. If I have missed something that still warrants a response please enlighten me.
But Targums are sometimes midrashic (stories) an on other times more translation -- but they are not Torah.
Generally speaking they are interpretation of the Tanach.
יונתן בן עוזיאל (Targum Yonathan) is highly inerpretive in nature (stories to make a moral point). Again, it has been awhile (2 weeks?) since the original post in question and it would help if a specific question were asked. I apololgize, but this has been a busy time for me. I'm more than happy to addrss any questions.
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
by Sophiee » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:41 am
Later.
Gleason Leonard Archer says it was the 4th century CE. Ernst Wurthwein says it was the 5th century CE. Looking into the matter further, it seems that dates for this Targum are all over the map.... but none date it back to Uzziel in the 1st century.
From The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Hardcover) by Paul D. Wegner
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 30-8679967 (p. 202):
Here are a few on the web resources:
NewAdvent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14454b.htm)
Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 7&letter=T)
A New Source in the Vision of Isaiah (http://inside.bard.edu/religion/faculty ... newsrc.htm)
Messiahtruth has a lengthy article on the subject of the Targum. http://www.messiahtruth.com/targum.html
Nowhere in Targum Yonathan does it speak of a suffering messiah. It speaks of an EXALTED messiah. The Xian “quote” from the Targum has the phrase “who was bruised for our sins" – which appears nowhere in the Targum.
The Targum is an interpretive rehashing in Aramaic of Nevi’im aka Prophets. It speaks of Israel as suffering and the messiah as exalted and triumphant. Not exactly what the apologists say is it?
Gleason Leonard Archer says it was the 4th century CE. Ernst Wurthwein says it was the 5th century CE. Looking into the matter further, it seems that dates for this Targum are all over the map.... but none date it back to Uzziel in the 1st century.
From The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Hardcover) by Paul D. Wegner
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 30-8679967 (p. 202):
"Targum Jonathan - Date: 4th-5th century. . . "The official Babylonian Targum of the Prophets probably translated by Rabbi Joseph ben Hayya (c. 270-330), head of the academy of Pumbeditha (T.B. Baba Bathra 3b; Yoma 32b).”
Here are a few on the web resources:
"For Jonathan as for Onkelos the final settlement of the written form did not occur until the fifth Christian century."
NewAdvent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14454b.htm)
"...as early as the beginning of the fourth century the Targum to the Prophets was recognized as of ancient authority."
Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 7&letter=T)
"...the year 275 CE is not impossible, within the terms of reference of current discussion, as a date for Targum Jonathan to the Latter Prophets in its present form."
A New Source in the Vision of Isaiah (http://inside.bard.edu/religion/faculty ... newsrc.htm)
Messiahtruth has a lengthy article on the subject of the Targum. http://www.messiahtruth.com/targum.html
Nowhere in Targum Yonathan does it speak of a suffering messiah. It speaks of an EXALTED messiah. The Xian “quote” from the Targum has the phrase “who was bruised for our sins" – which appears nowhere in the Targum.
The Targum is an interpretive rehashing in Aramaic of Nevi’im aka Prophets. It speaks of Israel as suffering and the messiah as exalted and triumphant. Not exactly what the apologists say is it?
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
by Sophiee » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:08 pm
Maize do you understand what aggadah is?
Is it literal? Is it homily? Is it allegorical?
When was it written?
What was its purpose?
Is it scripture?
I look forward to your answers.
In the meanwhile you might want to read http://www.messiahtruth.com/targum.html
Is it literal? Is it homily? Is it allegorical?
When was it written?
What was its purpose?
Is it scripture?
I look forward to your answers.
In the meanwhile you might want to read http://www.messiahtruth.com/targum.html
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
by PeterKal » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:28 am
Maizie:
I just think that Sophiee would like you to explain why you posted it and tell about what you think it should tell us..
I'm no mechanic at Jiffy Lube but I am familiar with Aggadah.
Apparently you did not like my post. Sorry. My bad.
I just think that Sophiee would like you to explain why you posted it and tell about what you think it should tell us..
Tjek den ud.. Du kan kun blive overrasket..
-
PeterKal - Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: Denmark
by Sophiee » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:07 am
maizie wrote:I'm no mechanic at Jiffy Lube but I am familiar with Aggadah.
Apparently you did not like my post. Sorry. My bad.
Odd response to simple questions. How am I to know if you are familiar with aggadah let alone can repair cars?
“Introduction to the Talmud” by Moses Mielziner:
“Where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and significance of the laws or where it only uses the words of Scripture as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruction and consolation, it is called a ‘Midrash Agadah’ Interpretation of the Agadah, homiletical interpretation.”
Abrabanel (I'm sure Jiffy Lube has classes on his teachings) said:
In a word, the interpretation of Yonathan (Targum Jonathan) "was" concerned only with allegorical or adventitious expositions, and hence merely applied the traditions they had received respecting the Messiah to the present passage, without in the least imagining it to be its actual meaning.
Is that what they teach at Jiffy Lube?
"Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know."
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
"And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice." Bereshit 21:12
-
Sophiee - Site Admin
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: The World
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Return to Michael Brown and Jewish Objections to His Books
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests