This is from P3yaak's blog and I am intrigued a whole bunch!!!! Wow, this is interesting. Can anyone give further light. Thanks P3yaak for posting this:



The Problem of Loose OT Quotations in the NT September 27, 2006


Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p.308 (Hendrickson:1993)

[Of the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue]

As the Hebrew was not generally understood, , The Methurgeman or Interpreter, stood by the side of the reader (comp. 1 Cor. 14:27,28), and translated into the Aramaean verse by verse, and in the section from the Prophets, or Haphtarah, after every three verses (Megill. 24a). But the Methurgeman was not allowed to read his translation, lest it might popularly be regarded as authoritative. This may help to us in some measure to understand the popular mode of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. So long as the substance of a text was given correctly, the Methurgeman might paraphrase for better popular understanding. Again, it is but natural to suppose, that the Methurgeman would prepare himself for his work by such materials as he would find to hand, among which, of course, the translation of the Septuagint would hold a prominent place. This may in part account alike for the employment of the Septuagint, and for its Targumic modifications, in the New Testament quotations.



Thoughts? Any further resources on this topic?

__________________
Pergamum

It seems as though we preachers today stand in a closer relation to this "Methurgeman" than did the apostles and other NT writers.

No doubt, providential historic time and place was a part of the NT writers' influence. BUT (big but) they were giving inspired witness to the OT Scriptures. To my mind, that calls into question the idea that they would deliberately adopt a "stance" widely viewed as "non-authoritative." At the very least, I would expect the people listening to them would never confuse such witness for that of a mere "Methurgeman". I don't really think the apostles were scouring the alternative translations and past commentaries for "just the right language" to suit their preferred interpretation.

I'm far more impressed with the argument that these men were interpreting OT Scripture with reference to Christ, always and ever. They were conscious of the Redemptive events they had witnessed. They knew they had the Spirit. They spoke like the prophets, but also with reference to the prophets. So,when Paul in Eph 4:8 quotes Ps 68:18, he reverses the language (received gifts) and has Christ taking what he was given and in his turn dispensing gifts. If a Targum or LXX also rendered it, that could represent an alternate reading, maybe older, but also possibly influenced by later Christian interpretation. Who knows? Even if we knew for sure the order, I don't think we need to "justify" the apostolic rendering.

just my worth

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I would entirely agree with Bruce that any hint that the apostolic speech was therefore not authoritative is unwarranted (not that Edersheim implied that). What is very interesting is that when the apostles gave the substance (not always word-for-word rendition) of the OT, that substance was Christ.

In something of the same way, we can understand how many of Spurgeon's sermons are so good and so Biblical, while at the same time not being exactly exegetical.

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

I agree, it seems that what Jesus and the apostles did was very much the common anad accepted style of 2nd temple period interpretation. All interpreters saw themselves and their times as being the culmination of the old writings. Jesus and the apostles happened to be correct. We see their use as loose and inaccurate but this is wrong. They were doing exactly what would be expected in that time period and tradition. Our modern attempts to harmonize are very imaginative if nothing else.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

Bruce, I think saying that Jesus and the apostles "happened to be correct" could give the wrong idea. It wasn't that Jesus thought of Himself as everyone else did and just got it right by good luck. On the contrary, He knew that the OT Scriptures were fulfilled in Him, and as His conflicts with the Pharisees showed, this was a serious claim to make, not a common run-of-the-mill statement.

Thank you, of course. He and His age were and are the true fullfillment. Just meant to say all others were of course wrong. While observing their method confrms the practice we see used in the NT taking away the need to look for harmonization thoeries.

Bruce, I think I would add just a couple qualifiers to your latest. One is that the examples I've seen of Rabbinic exegesis all seem rather arbitrary, whereas the apostolic interpretations are anything but. So while there is overlap, there is not absolute identity of hermeneutical method. I guess harmonization theories are another thread topic, but I do honestly think that there is more straining to find contradictions or discrepancies than there is solving them.

And to finally say something to the original post, here are a couple mentions of the term in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia.

The entry itself.

Ironically, a place where it is discussed in a little more detail than the main entry.

Cool..this is fascinating!