The AV and the Second Temple Practice of Targumim

[Semper Fidelis]

I started chewing on a thought a few weeks ago and want to get some perspectives from some folks here.

I very much enjoy reading Rev. Winzer for his uncompromising commitment to Truth. I don't always agree with him but I do believe he approaches subjects as we all should.

I'm complementing him even as I want to challenge an idea that I see exhibited regarding the exclusive use of an "accepted" translation of the English Scriptures.

There is the assumption running through these discussions that the people of God are promised in the Scriptures that they will have a word for word accurate translation of the Scriptures in their tongue. Perhaps that is an oversimplification but the adoption of the AV and none other seems to assume that since the Reformed Church settled on this that is to be the only way in which English people read the Scriptures so there can be unity in what the Word of God says.

Which brings me to the strange title of this thread: the practice of targumim among Rabbis prior to the writing of the NT. For those not familiar with what a targum is, the meaning is "translation". The common man did not speak Hebrew very well (it was rather like Latin to them) and so the Rabbi would read in the Hebrew and then translate/explain the meaning of what the Scriptures meant.

This practice does not end in the NT canon. In fact, many of the passages are examples of Apostolic targumim under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit not only translating but explaining the meaning of the passages.

Further, I'm not certain of the utility of the Septuagint given a "one translation for the people" mentality but we see Christ quoting from it regularly.

It just seems to me that the Scriptures reinforce the practice of targumim where the Scriptures are translated by the teacher and explained to them while some argue that the Scriptures underline a single "...this is the translation for this language and none other..." that cannot be supported historically or biblically.

I'm not arguing for us to shred the translations and only have the teachers be able to read the Scriptures (though they should be able to do so from the original) but in some ways I'm arguing two things:

1. In some ways, multiple translations are a variety of targumim of the Scriptures.
2. If we exclude any translation but the AV (or the Church approved language translation) then does that exclude the teacher from translating from the original language and improving upon words so that the common man could understand as was the case when the NT Church was formed?

 

[MW]

Rich, every minister should do his own translation work for sermon preparation; but in delivery of the sermon the main concern should be to feed the sheep, and this includes reassuring them that they can trust the Bible.

I think some difference should be seen between the words accurate and perfect. The appeal for a standard English Bible is not based on the idea of a perfect translation, but on an accurate one. Hence the work of translation will continue. An analogy may be seen in the unity of the church: this entails its soundness, but not its perfection, and room will always be left for continuing reformation.

I believe the present condition of the reformed church requires recovery of past attainments. That means this is no time for revision, neither of the Scriptures nor of formularies. When the church has remembered the height from which she has fallen, and has recovered her past attainments, then the work of reformation may proceed apace.

Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, every minister should do his own translation work for sermon preparation; but in delivery of the sermon the main concern should be to feed the sheep, and this includes reassuring them that they can trust the Bible.

I think some difference should be seen between the words accurate and perfect. The appeal for a standard English Bible is not based on the idea of a perfect translation, but on an accurate one. Hence the work of translation will continue. An analogy may be seen in the unity of the church: this entails its soundness, but not its perfection, and room will always be left for continuing reformation.

I believe the present condition of the reformed church requires recovery of past attainments. That means this is no time for revision, neither of the Scriptures nor of formularies. When the church has remembered the height from which she has fallen, and has recovered her past attainments, then the work of reformation may proceed apace.

Blessings!

Thanks for the clarification.