wmfinck wrote:Nayto wrote:If we accept Targums as credible then we have to accept that there is such an entity as the angel of deat, Samael, for example. Otherwise we would have to cherry pick what we accept from Targums. Given that they are embellishments, there is no yardstick like other translations, except to look at other Targums wherein the same problem presents itsel; it's circular. Then there is the question of their origins. Why not just leave them out as witnesses entirely in theological discussion?
If we start tossing literature merely because it contains something which we do not like, do not understand, or think is absurd, well, there would be very little left.
Think of the phrase "angel of death", for instance. Immediately it invokes images of ghosts with wings floating around in the sky looking for people to haunt. But in reality, it does not have to invoke those images, and perhaps that is not what the original author intended.
The other day Donald Trump was visited by an angel of death, and the media made a fuss about it. His name was Henry Kissinger.
On the other hand, if Genesis 4:1 were an entirely legitimate verse, I am certain none of us would have missed it in thinking through what we perceive of Scripture. In spite of the many problems that may cause.
Yes, however Targums aren't even Scripture or comprise the body of documents from which we get Scripture. Also the way I see it, as I said to EzraLB in not so many words, to make statements about other documents as if they are the same as the Targums obfuscates the matter. Each should be weighed in its own right, rather than making a blanket judgement over all.
Having said that, except where jews implicate themselves, is it really appropriate to use documents of very questionable racial origin in theology? Also if we were to throw away documents because of their very questionable origin and were left with little, then I would say "So be it". Just as we don't make deals with mongrels even if it might seem to benefit us in the short term, why would we do the same with their documents? Especially those having a strong chance of being written by jews like these Targums. Even so, based on what I've learned from your own podcasts, you don't use anything in such question as the Targums and if you use something even remotely questionable, you always include the disclaimers. It's something I appreciate in those podcasts and the reason I'm surprised to be having this conversation, lol.
Whether or not they represent the opinions of our ancestors is in question. I don't think it is tossed because it has something absurd or whether we dont like something, but rather because it is inherently flawed as a basis for our theology. I didn't actually mean to use Samuel as an example of something absurd, but rather that it is something that would have to be accepted. If we accept this opinion in the Targum, we automatically assume the writer is one of our ancestors and we accept his opinion. Then we would have taken a matter in question and resolve it in our favour simply because we like what it says.
Again, being an embellishment, there is nothing with which to cross reference it except against other Targums whose origins are also in question. At least the Masoretic text can be cross reference with multiple other works.
With all of the above in mind and given that we don't actually need it for the sake of Cain and his birth, why bother with it at all? Even if I am wrong in my assessment it will still do damage to the message. It's like swearing, which although it is not objectively wrong it will still deter those who do not appreciate swearing. If it would do no harm to omit it, if it is not necessary for the message and if it's omission would make it more widely accepted, then why not omit it?
This is of course retrospective and we can't change Clifton's work, but I say it for the sake of the future.