Interpretation
 

Anybody have any knowledge of "meturgeman" I probably hacked up that spelling I don't have the book in front of me. I'll bring it tomorrow......anyhoo


Something about when ancient Hebrew was read in the synagogue there was an interpreter. Most did not know the ancient holy language. Anybody?????

Go to JewishEncyclopedia.com:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=523&letter=M

thanks Chan.

This is what I said.

Anyone care to comment on how this corresponds with the tongues that are mentioned in 1st Corin. I'll get deeper after lunch.

1Corinthians 14:5 for example.

I would that ye all speak with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied; for gre4ater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.


Wasn't it Judaic custom to read from the holy script? Was everyone able to understand? Not hardly. But the meturgeman interpreted the tongue so that the unlearned could receive edification.

bump

In looking at the Mishnah, the Talmud, and various other Jewish writings, the notion that the tongues of 1st Corin. could have actually been the use or misuse of the Hebrew language, becomes plausible.

For instance lets compare:

Christain Text: 1st Corin. 14:9-10. So likewise ye except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? Foe ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signifigance.


Jewish Text:

Massech Sopherim, cap. I. hal. 6 If any write the holy books in any language, or in any character, yet he shall not read in them (publicly in the synagogue) unless they be written in Hebrew.


These thought are taken from a book called Mystery at Corinth.

Peter spoke to the crowd in Acts 2 in a language they all understood not in other tongues. Did anyone in the book of Acts teach or preach in tongues? No!

Finally.....thankyou

Humor me and lets stay in Corinth.

Is it possible that the new radical church was torn between new religion and Judaic customs?

Was there a such thing as the Holy tongue in the synagogue?

Wasn't this "holy language" a problem in the church at Corinth?

What 'holy tongue' are you talking about? Aramaic?

I read somewhere the Jews of the Babylonian dispersal lost track of their language, Hebrew, and needed their own scriptures interpreted for them in a common language they all understood, Aramaic.

As for the Targums:http://www.bibletheology.com/Product.asp?ID=93

The holy language being Hebrew. Its stated in this book that there ia ample evidence to suggest that the Jews believe that Hebrew is the language of God and his angels. Sacred or holy tongue.

Your reference to the losing track of the language kinda follows what the author is stating. As a new radical church they were still those that held on to the reading of Hebrew in the synagogue as Judaic custom simply so that it would not be lost. He contends that this was held on to for the greater part of the First Century until the Jewish influence was finally overshadowed by the Romans.

Christian Text 1st Corin. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Book of Legends, 375:17 R. Judah said:a man should never pray for his needs in Aramaic. R Yohanman said: when a man prays for hhis needs in Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) the ministering angels who do not understand Aramaic will not respond to him.

"Thus Pauls teaching : that is there are those who do not understand the Hebrew renderings and exhortations, it is not possible to argue their inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the practice of maintaining the use of Hebrew in the assembly is of limited utility, and further, is subjuect to no N.T. mandate for its continued employment in the manner of the synagogue"

bump for MIZ

Oh how I would love to continue in this

Christian Text:
1st Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Jewish Text:
Tractate Megillah, folio 23b One who reads the Torah (in the synagogue) should not read less than three verses, and he should not read to the translator more than one verse (at a time).

The amazing thing is that even though I believe in tongues. This book makes some sense. And I can tell that not many are prepared to debate such a claim.

Don't bring a wet noodle to a sword fight

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I believe there are two catagories, men and angels, of tongues. I understand this to mean angels have a different tongue than men.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

God is the one that created different languages. Can you show from the scriptures where Hebrew is the language of the angels? I think angels know all the languages of men. There are many stories in the Bible of angels talking to men in their human language who were not of the Hebrew nation. Nu 22:32 Ac 10:3

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make when it comes to tongues in the NT.

Try telling that to the Yahwist and Hebrew root movements around America.

They will tell you in the name of Yahvuhasa or Yahshuhosho that the original Hebrew was taught without a break. They forget about Yiddish and Ladino, or should I say they don't know about.

During the time of Christ they were not speaking Hebrew they were speaking Aramaic. Peter and his Brother Andreas were Greek and Aramaic speakers.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Tongues of angels are not babel; there is no where in the Bible where any angel could not be understood. Tongues of angels are speaking of spiritual instruction and tongues of men are speaking of teaching the new converts (babes in Christ) and those who are unskilled in the word.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Whatever. Try posting something that actually pertains to the topic

Bump for Mizpeh........Brother I am not trying to change anyones mind about tongues. I too have experienced and no one will ever take that away.

But doesn't God want us to defend our faith? And is that from an experiential standpoint alone?

What was the miracle on the day of Pentecost? Hearing or speaking? Have you ever understood what someone was saying when they spoke in tongues. Is there a documented case out there where anyone has been understood?

I see no support in the word of a heavenly language.

200 hundred views and only 2 reponses. Just can't debate the fact that Paul was not even talking about speking in tongues. He was merely talking about the use of the native tongue in the synagogue.

Why isn't there talk of it in the other epistles? Could it be that the point was made? Could it be that the trend faded?

I've heard David Bernard say he has heard someone speak in English when he was in S Korea. The person speaking in English didn't know the language.

Bro Strange testified on this site in a post of an AOG pastor who listened to a tape of Bishop Magnun when he was pastor of POA, heard the bishop speak in tongues, I the Sioux language. This AOG pastor had been a missionary to the Sioux indians and took the message in tongues as being spoken directly to him. He became a Oneness believer shortly thereafter. If you browse through Bro Strange's posts you will find it there.

but these testimonies won't do anything for someone who wants to argue these things.

I've never understood a message in tongues yet because none have been spoken in English, the only language I know. But I will say that messages in tongues that I've heard do not sound like gibberish. They sound like languages.

What do you mean by a 'heavenly language'?

BTW, I'm a sister.

SOOOOOO Sorry about the gender mishap! Sister.

Some say that the reason you cannot understand the tongue is because its a heavenly language, again which is not supported by scripture.

Now back to the structure of the 1st century synagogue.

Bench of Three, Angel of then Church, meturgeman ring a bell?

What passage are you speaking of in regard to Paul? 1 Corinthians 14? and what point are you trying to make?

Here are two interesting posts with different takes on tongues. The first speaks to the God being just and no respecter of persons.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=131

The second speaks to the case of necessary redundancy that some demand when it comes to why isn't there more about tongues in the NT.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=131

Not a heavenly language but a language of men and of angels.

I have no idea what a bench of three and a meturgeman bell is! :girlpopcorn

I forgot the comma after the meturgeman



As far as what scripture I'm referring to in Corinthians, just like I told you in the pm.....all of them referrring to tongues.

The Bench of Three consisted of 3 men and was the ruling body of the synagogue resolving conflicts that arose amoung the members.

The Angel of the Church was an individual who was responsible for the public reading of scripture and preaching in the assembly. His objective was to maintain the integrity of God's Word, and was always. by nessecity, a learned man in the scripture. The public minister never readfrom the scrolls himself, but would call upon certain of those in the assembly to do so under the guidelines established by oral tradition, and later codified in the Mishnah. IN Luke 4:16 we find Jesus being called to read.

The public minister would stand beside the reader in order to call upon the reader to stop and correct if a mistake was made.

Each assembly also had 3 deacons/pastors who were responsible for the care of the widows and poor.

The interpreter of the syn. was the meturgeman. His responsibility was to interpret what was read from the scrolls in the Hebrew tongue into the mother tongue of the assembly. Throughout the Jewish writings including the Talmud there are references to the meturgeman, or interpreter. Because Hebrew had fallen intodisuse by this period, this interpreter was critical to the syn. Hebrew did not lend itself easily to interpetation into Greek and other dialects. The job of the meturgeman was to give a sense and marrow of the passage rather than a word for word translation

The Talmud reads: And they read in the book, in the Law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

*******This is a quote from the Book*********

Now after this he contends that "tongues in Corinthians was nothing more that the interpretation of the readings.

You might not accept it but GA Mangun testified a few weeks ago, I was there, that he had been told by native speakers 3 or 4 times that he was speaking in their language perfectly as he glorified God in tongues!

Kutless,

Do you think there is a difference in an interpreter and a translator?

There is a difference between translation and intrepretation.
One is a word for word meaning and one is a general gist of something.

the meturgeman/interpreter did not give a word for word analysis, rather an understanding of what was implied.

Seems like a translator would be more word for word.


Has anyone ever studied out the format of the early church?

Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. 1994, pg 253

The section of the day was subdivided so that every Sabbath at least seven persons were called up to read, each a portion, which was to consist of not less than 3 verses. The first reader began, and the last closed with the bendiction. As the Hebrew had given place to the Aramic, a "meturgeman", or interpreter stood by the side of the preacher, and translated verse by verse into the vernacular.