I n the history of ancient and medieval Jewish and Christian hermeneutics, scriptural translation into the spoken tongue/s usually served alongside the Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac source texts, orally or in written form. In most cases, the learned religious authorities of both communities perceived the Bible’s translation as ‘interlinear’ with the original. In other words, in the eyes of the literate class, the translation did not replace the original, ‘revealed’, ‘sanctified’, or ‘canonized’ text. Rather, it functioned in tandem with it as an explanative vernacular tool, either in an antiphonal liturgical (and often aural) context, or as an accompanying written aid in the classroom or for private study. In practice, however, there were cases in which the translation was so powerful that for Jews and Christians it actually took on the religious status and cultural kudos of the original and even supplanted it (e.g. the Septuagint, the King James Version). More importantly, even when this process did not happen, the general populace, who attended Synagogue or Church, effectively came to identify the content of the translated text with the source text. For many believers, therefore, the translation of Scripture became Scripture despite the practices devised by the learned to keep them apart. This paradoxical process explains the persistent allure and power of scriptural translation, on the one hand, and the authorities' need to control it, on the other. So, while in Mishnah Sotah 7: 5 the early rabbis (tanaim) envisage the closing act of the ceremony of blessings and curses on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal (Deuteronomy 27–9) to be the reception of an altar upon which the Torah is written in 70 languages, later rabbis sharply criticize those who translate a verse ‘according to its form’ ( ke-tzurato ), too literally, on the one hand, or ‘add to it’ ( ha-mosif ), too liberally, on the other (Tosefta Meg 3: 41). Eventually, the Babylonian rabbis ( amoraim ) come to restrict the use of written translations to the Greek versions alone, and Aramaic oral translations to ‘our targum’ alone, i.e. Targum Onkelos (Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin 49a) (see pp. 306–9). Yet the historical reality was, as the authors point out, very different from the sages’ stipulations, as witnessed by the abundance of surviving Aramaic traditions, manuscripts, and fragments.