Petri Paavola: Tuon sen vielä esille että Talmud, Targum ja rabbiininen talmudilainen kirjallisuus edustaa eksytystä, ei Raamatun totuutta.
Mielestäni Targumien asettaminen pelkäksi eksytykseksi ei ole mielestäni oikein. Selvää on että Raamattu on targumien yläpuolella. Mutta onko väärin lukea targumeja? Mielestäni ei. Syy. Jeesus (hyvin todennäköisesti) luki Nasaretin synagoogassa Luuk.4:18 kohdan Jesajasta targumien mukaisen lukutavan mukaan. Tämä ei tietenkään tee targumeista Raamatun vertaisia (tai aseta niitä niiden yläpuolelle), vaan osoittaa sen - että Jeesuksen aikaisessa juutalaisuudessa targumit toimivat synagoogissa käytettyinä "lukuteksteinä".
The Scripture demands that the interpreter of it understands the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ did indeed Targum many of the OT texts to which He referred. In the Case Study of Luke 4:18, several lines of argumentation for this proposition are set forth.
First, Luke's use of the perfect verb gegraptai ("it is written")[36] refers to the original inspired Scripture which has continuing results in written form; i.e., the preserved, inspired original of Isaiah 61:1-2a and 58:6d. When Luke stated "it is written" and then records Christ's Targum, he is not teaching that the Lord's Targum was written, but the original is intact from which Christ built His Targum. This would be analogous to someone saying, "you know that verse in John's Gospel that says that God loved the world and sent His son and whoever believes in Him won't perish-oh, yes, that is John 3:16." The allusion to the intact written words of Jn. 3:16 does not diminish the reality of the intact words of the verse.
Second, the Lord Jesus Christ did not quote verbatim the Masoretic Hebrew text or any known text for that matter in Lk. 4:18-19. He did not quote Isa. 61:1f ("And the opening of the prison to them that are bound") because He rendered it "and the recovering of sight to the blind" (v. 18). Even though His citation was in agreement with the LXX at this point, it is certain that He was not quoting the LXX. The Lord added clause g ("to set at liberty them that are bruised" [Targum of Isa. 58:6]) which is not found in either the MT or LXX at this point. Furthermore, He used a different infinitive than that of the LXX in clause c (LXX: euangelisasthai vs. TR: euangeliszesthai). And it is certain that the CT did not quote the LXX since it omits clause d ("he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted"), which clause occurs in the LXX and TR.
Third, Christ's expanded and inspired interpretation of Isa. 61:1-2a not only becomes part of the canonical Scripture, but is also an object lesson in bibliological interpretation, enhancing one's understanding of the Lord's eschatology. Dispensationally, He divided up Isaiah's prophecy of the coming of the Lord into the first coming and the second coming (cf. Lk. 4:21). The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isa. 61:1-2a with His first advent, and will fulfill Isa. 61:2b with His second advent in connection with the conclusion of "the day of vengeance" (Isa. 61:2b; cf. 34:8; 35:4; 63:4). Christ's employment of targuming OT Hebrew texts gave further complementation to the interpretation of these texts and additional contribution to the whole of Christian theology.
Targumit sisältää selittävää arameankielistä käännösmuotoa VT:sta, ja siksi niihin tulee suhtautua varauksella. Mutta itse en sano, että targumit on "demoneista" tai "riivaajista". Tämä vielä tähän huomiona.
Aika erikoinen homma sekin, että länsimainen kristillisyys viittaa paljon filosofiaan, kuten Plato, Aristoteles ja niin edelleen. Kyllä nämä filosofiat ovat yhtä eksyttäviä kuin targumit.
Täällä teidän foorumissa on todella hiljaista, kukaan ei kirjoittele tänne ?