Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161508363, 9783161517785, 316150836X

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

279

Martin McNamara

Targum and New Testament Collected Essays

Mohr Siebeck

Martin McNamara, born 1930 is Professor Emeritus of Sacred Scripture, the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin, Ireland.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151778-5 ISBN 978-3-16-150836-3 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http: / /dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Stempel Garamond and OdysseaU typeface, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The essays reproduced here were published over a period of forty-six years (1966–2011), in a variety of journals, Festschriften and volumes of essays on a selected topic. Presentation of the originals had to conform to a divergence of house styles or none. The first essay I wrote on the subject was soon after defence of my doctoral dissertation in 1965. It was in Latin and basically contained a summary of the contents of the dissertation.1 It is not reproduced here, either in the original Latin or in translation. The essays in their original form represent the state of targumic studies over this period, from the point of a person interested in them and who believed that they had a contribution to make to New Testament studies – however naive or unfounded this belief might have been. Over these forty-five years the sigla assigned to the various Targums changed. Bringing together essays from this period required uniformity in the new presentation of the contributions, from the point of view of the abbreviation system for Targums, manuscripts, periodicals, reference system, and such like. This required appropriate revision in these matters. It seemed desirable that the information presented in essays published earlier be updated in the light of the extensive development in targumic studies. This presented a problem in that it also seemed indicated that the earlier essays be allowed to present evidence of the state of targumic writing at the time of the original publication. This would be impaired by undue updating within the essay itself. The solution to the dilemma accepted for this particular collection of essays is to retain the original form of the article in so far as is possible, and, where indicated, to add at the end of the contribution in question a postscript for the date of the new presentation: “Postscript 2010”. I trust that this will cater for both concerns. Together with this, as appendices at the end of this volume I indicate work done over the period on annotated English translations of all the Targums (in the “Aramaic Bible” series) and of the critical editions and concordances of Targums over the same period.

1 Martin McNamara, “Novum Testamentum et Targum palaestinense ad Pentateuchum”, Verbum Domini 43 (1965), 288–300.

VI

Preface

The first essay reproduced below is my first (1966) contribution on the subject, requested by the scientific journal in question. The next two essays (1966, 1979) are less scientific in nature, but I reproduce them here unchanged to give an idea of an earlier somewhat un-nuanced approach to the subject of the relationship of the Targums to New Testament studies. Topics studied and analyzed in the later essays will go beyond this, and the entire collection ends with a study that might be of help in future approaches to this subject.

Acknowledgments Thanks are hereby expressed to the following publishers or editors of journals for their kind permission for the use or reproduction of material that originally appeared in their publications: Mohr Siebeck – Baker Academic for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 11. Brill (Leiden and New York) for permission to reproduce the essays in chapters 7, 13, 16, 22. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 10. The essays in chapters 5, 18 are “Reproduced by kind permission of Continuum International Publishing Group” The Irish Biblical Association for permission to reproduce the essays in chapters 9, 15. The Catholic Biblical Association of America for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 1. Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain for permission to reproduce the essays in chapters 3 and 20. The Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy for permission to reproduce the essays in chapters 4, 19, 21. Editorial Committee of Rivista degli Studi Orientali for permission to reproduce the essays in chapter 8. Editor and Editorial Committee of Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (SNTU) for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 14. The Editorial Board of Apocrypha for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 17. Irish Biblical Studies for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 2. The Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, for permission to reproduce the essay in chapter 12.

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Part One

Targum and Research Chapter 1: Targumic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Chapter 3: The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings (pre-1980) on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Part Two

Targum and Language Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Part Three

Targum and Biblical Exegesis Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti): Numbers Chapter 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1): Numbers Chapter 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1: The Scribe Menahem and the Roman Medical Family of Manuele . .

318 344 366 392

Part Four

Targum and New Testament Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology Chapter 18: Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Exod 12:42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 19: “To Prepare a Resting-Place for You”: A Targumic Expression and John 14:2–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 20: The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 21: þƱĎƫ(ŊčƩě)ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a): Paul and Petra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward? Targums, Tel-like Character, a Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1: A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara in Targumic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2: The Aramaic Bible Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3: Modern Targum Critical Editions, Concordances and Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

409 439 444 450 460 480 518

533 538 539 541

Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569 Index of Subjects and Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Index to Citations and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584

Abbreviations AB ABD

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman et al., 6 vols., New York 1992 AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures AnBib Analecta Biblica Ant. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae (cited as book, chapter, paragraph, followed by Niese paragraph, preceded by symbol § [§§], e.g. Ant. 2.8.13, § 160) APOT R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols., Oxford 1913 (repr. 1963) ARN Aboth de Rabbi Nathan b. Babylonian Talmud B2 Second Biblia Rabbinica, Venice: Bomberg, 1524–1525, Fragment Targums at end of vol. 1 BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research b.c.e. Before the Common Era BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, & C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BJS Brown Judaic Studies BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihafte zur ZAW CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCSG Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca CCSL Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina c.e. Common Era CJ Classical Journal col(s). column(s) ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica/Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum CTg(C, D, E, F, H) Targum texts of the Cairo Genizah DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplément, Paris 1928 ff.

XII DJD ed. EncJud EstBíb Exod. Rab. ExpTim fol. Frg. Tg(s). GCS Gen. Rab. HeyJ HR HT HTR HUCA IDB IDBSup Int ITQ JBL JE JETS JJS JPOS JQR JR JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSS JTS L LAB LCL Lev. Rab. LXX m. MGWJ MT N

Abbreviations

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert editor, edited Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols., Jerusalem 1971–1972 Estudios Bíblicos Exodus Rabbah Expository Times folio Fragment Targum(s) Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte Genesis Rabbah Heythrop Journal History of Religion Hebrew Text Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols., New York 1962 Supplementary volume to IDB, New York & Nashville 1976 Interpretation Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. by I. Singer, 12 vols., New York 1901–1906 Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Leipzig manuscript of the Fragment Targum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Loeb Classical Library Leviticus Rabbah Septuagint Mishnah Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Masoretic Text Nürnberg manuscript of the Fragment Targum

Abbreviations

NAB Neof. Neof. mg. NJB NovT NovTSup NRSV NTS Num. Rab. OCA Onq. Or OrAnt OTP 1/2 P p(p). Pal. Tg. PEQ PG PIBA PL Ps.-J. RB REJ RevQ RHPR RSR RSV RTP SBL SBLMS SC Scrip SNTS SNTSMS SNTU ST StPB StJLA s. v./s. vv. t. TAPA TDNT

Tg(s).

XIII

New American Bible Targum Neofiti Marginal note in Targum Neofiti New Jerusalem Bible Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Numbers Rabbah Orientalia Christiana Analecta Targum Onqelos Orientalia (Rome) Oriens antiquus J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., Garden City 1983–1985 Paris manuscript of the Fragment Targum page(s) Palestinian Targum Palestine Exploration Quarterly J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Graeca Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Revue Biblique Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse Recherches de science religieuse Revised Standard Version Revue de théologie et philosophie Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Sources Chrétiennes Scripture Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas/ Society for New Testament Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Studia Theologica Studia post-biblica Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity sub voce, sub vocibus Tosefta Transactions of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by G. Kittel & G. Friedrich, trans. and ed. by G. W. Bromiley, 9 vols., Grand Rapids & London 1964–1974 Targum(s)

XIV transl. TS V v(v). v.l. VT VTSup War WTJ WUNT y. ZAW ZDMG ZNW

Abbreviations

translated, translator Theological Studies. Theological Faculties of the Society of Jesus in the United States Vatican manuscript of the Fragment Targum verse(s) varia lectio Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Josephus, Bellum judaicum (cited as book, chapter, paragraph, followed by Niese paragraph, preceded by symbol § [§§]) Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi) Zeitschrift für die altestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction

Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study My definitive involvement with Jewish studies and the Targums in particular would appear to have begun about 1955. In my second year of studies at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, in 1955–1956 Fr Stanislas Lyonnet lectured on 2 Corinthians and Romans and spoke on the relevance of some targumic texts for the understanding of St Paul’s epistles. He had written on the bearing of the Palestinian targumic rendering of Deut 30:12–14 on the understanding of Rom 10:6–8. Roger Le Déaut, who would later defend a major and influential thesis on a Palestinian Targum text (La Nuit pascale), was also a student there. My interest in the Targums may have been aroused earlier by the fact that I was a student of theology in the international house of studies of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart in Rome from 1950 onwards, a house that our senior confrere Fr A. Díez Macho, MSC, would have visited. Since he has played a central role in targum study over four decades I devote a special section to him here.

1. Professor Alejandro Díez Macho (1916–1984)1 An overview of Alejandro Díez Macho’s involvement with Targum studies during the years 1949 to his death in 1984 will give a good idea of the atmo1 As sources for the life and career of Fr A. Díez Macho we have: (1) “La figura intellectual de un joven profesor aramaista”, Punta Europa (Madrid) 1 (no. 3, marzo) 1956, 141–159, in the internet site: http://www.filosofia.org/hem/dep/pun/ta0003141.htm – with biographical details until 1956, a bibliography; followed by an interview with Díez Macho and an account by him of a new (Palestinian) Targum of the Prophets (mss. Jewish Seminary New York ENA 2576, fol. 5, and Cambridge University Library T.-S. B 13/2); (2) A. Díez Macho, Magister – Minister: Prof. P. E. Kahle through twelve years of correspondence, in Recent Progress in Biblical Scholarship, ed. by The Richard Kronstein Foundation for the Promotion of Jewish and Cognate Studies, Oxford 1965, 13–61 (on Díez Macho’s researches, manuscript finds and correspondence with P. Kahle during 1952–1964); (3) D. Muñoz León, “En memoria del profesor Alejandro Díez Macho”, in Salvación en la Palabra: Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, ed. by Domingo Muñoz León, Madrid 1986, 13–22 (on Díez Macho’s contributions in the fields of Targum, the language of Jesus, Old Testament apocrypha); (4) L. Díez Merino, “Alejandro Díez Macho: Datos biograficos y publicaciones”, in Salvación en la Palabra, 829–848;

2

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

sphere in this field of study in the 1950s and 1960s, and of the changes that have taken place in this area since then. In the 1950s there was the interest in Targum Onqelos, there was the excitement over new manuscript finds of Targum texts, especially of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, and the presumed early date of this Targum and its importance for the study of the language of Jesus and the Aramaic background of the Gospel tradition. A. Díez Macho was born in the village of Villafría de la Peña (Spain) in 1916. He completed his secondary education (baccalaureate) in the Juniorate (Apostolic School) of the religious Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart at Canet de Mar (Barcelona), and joined the Society, completed his philosophical studies at the Seminary of his religious society of Logroño, which was followed by theological studies at the Gregorian University, Rome. His studies were interrupted by the Spanish Civil War which required him to do military service. In 1939 he enrolled in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the University of Barcelona, specialising in Semitic philology. He got his Licentiate (B. A.) in his specialisation in 1943 and soon afterwards (1945) his doctorate with the dissertation “Mošé ibn ‘Ezra como poeta y preceptista”, with the well-known Arabist Professor J. M. Millás Vallicrosa as director. His doctoral dissertation was published in 1953 under the title Mošé Ibn ‘Ezra como preceptista biblico y poeta by the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid and Barcelona (Colección Hebraico-Española). Between 1946 and 1949 Díez Macho taught Hebrew language and literature and Arabic at the University of Barcelona and got the chair of Hebrew rabbinic language and literature in 1949, a post which he retained in Barcelona until he was made professor of the same subject in the Complutensian University, Madrid. In 1949 there commenced a very happy and fruitful relationship between Díez Macho and Millás Vallicrosa. In 1949 they both came to an agreement with the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (C. S. I. C.) of Spain and with the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos for the preparation of an edition of the Targums for the project Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Their chief interest at that moment was in Targum Onqelos, and that same year they went to Rome and Italy in search of manuscripts. At the Vatican Library they catalogued Targum manuscripts and came into possession of a microfilm of the manuscript Vat. Ebr. 448, with a text of Onqelos in Eastern pointing which would occupy Díez Macho’s attention for years to come. He had a plan to study and publish it. They also became acquainted with Codex Neofiti 1, which was catalogued as a manuscript of Onqelos. They soon recognised (5) Domingo Muñoz León, “Alejandro Díez Macho: Una figura excepcional de la cultura española”, Sillar 5 (1985), 85–91. See also, more briefly, M. McNamara, “In Memoriam: Professor Alejandro Díez Macho (1916–1984), Henoch 31/2 (2009), 1–3.

1. Professor Alejandro Díez Macho (1916–1984)

3

that this was not so, and while taking some notes on it they did not consider it any further. In 1951 Díez Macho visited England in the search of Targum manuscripts. In 1952 he was back in Rome for the same purpose, and spent the summer in the Vatican Library studying ms. Vat. Ebr. 448. In 1953–1955 he was in the USA. His visits to Rome would have made students at the International Scholasticate of his religious Society aware of what Targums were and what research remained to be done. Díez Macho was back in Spain in 1956. Having ascertained that Codex Neofiti 1 was clearly a Targum but not Targum Onqelos as had been thought, he was interested in finding out what exactly it contained. For this purpose in 1956 he contacted Br. Juan Arias, MSC, a young Spanish confrere at the International Scholasticate and asked him to copy for him the opening chapter of the manuscript. On examination it became clear that the manuscript contained not Onqelos but a genuine text of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. Since 1951 Díez Macho had been in contact with P. Kahle of Oxford on matters relating to the Targums and his recent manuscript discoveries, and through him, with M. Black. Kahle was the first foreign specialist who was informed by Díez Macho of his discovery of the nature of Neofiti. He wrote to Kahle on this matter in late 1956, getting a reply on 9th January 1957, with the words: “My heartiest congratulations. This is really of great importance.” Many more letters followed from Kahle during 1957, in spite of his being occupied with the preparation of the second English and the first German edition of his work The Cairo Geniza. Correspondence from Professor M. Black followed from March 1957, expressing great interest in the announcement of this discovery, as his (Black’s) own work had, for many years, lain in the field of study with special reference to the problems of the original language of Our Lord. In 1959 Díez Macho gave a detailed account of his discovery, and what he regarded as its importance, at the International Conference of Vetus Testamentum in Oxford  – at which I had the privilege of being present.2 The discovery of Neofiti and its identification as a complete text of the Palestinian Targum, in Palestinian Aramaic, accentuated the debate concerning the nature of the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus. That the language of Jesus was the Palestinian Aramaic of the kind found in Codex Neofiti was defended in various writings by Díez Macho, P. Kahle and M. Black. The situation was to change with the publication and examination of the many Aramaic texts from Qumran, all from the first century of our era or earlier. This led to a new presentation of the stages of the Aramaic language, with 2 A. Díez Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums”, in Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7), Leiden 1960, 222–245.

4

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

agreement among the specialists that the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti and others) belonged to a later stage of the language, later than the Aramaic of Onqelos, than the Aramaic of Qumran texts, and that it was of the third century c.e. at the earliest. Díez Macho continued his writings on the many topics related to the Targums, and Targum Neofiti in particular, right to his death. The editio princeps of Neofiti appeared in five volumes (1968, 1970, 1971, 1974, and 1978) and later the Palestinian Targum in its various forms (Neofiti, Neofiti marginal and interlinear glosses, the various forms of the Fragment Targum, the Cairo Genizah Palestinian Targum texts, citations of the Palestinian Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan with a Spanish translation) in the Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia: Numbers 1977, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in 1980. Genesis (an immense volume of 578 pages; published 1988) was with the printers at the time of the editor’s death (1984), the proofs arriving too late for him to correct. He never succeeded in publishing the Vatican Library manuscript Ebr. 448, with Onqelos, on which he laboured so much. A new edition of Onqelos from this manuscript was in preparation for publication in the Madrid Polyglot, but has never been published. A photostatic edition of the manuscript was published in Jerusalem in 1977, with an introduction in modern Hebrew by Díez Macho himself.3 His manuscript of the work, with annotations by himself and his nephew L. Díez Merino, was for years feared lost, but was recently rediscovered by Díez Merino who intends to publish a transcription of it, but only of the consonantal text. This manuscript is of exceptional importance, provided, as it is, with a very early form of vowel-points. A. Díez Macho is remembered fondly by the many students and scholars he has encouraged and generously helped. My personal contacts with him were as confrere, being both members of the same religious congregation, and as director of various Targum projects. Going now over some older correspondence I see in a letter from him dated 12th September 1961 that he had met Fr M. O’Leary, my provincial superior, who was on a visit to Spain and took occasion of the visit to request Fr O’Leary that he leave me completely free for scientific research, unburdened by any further tasks apart from the teaching of Scripture. He further suggested that I be given the facility to travel and to purchase books and materials, or at least to have the opportunity to visit places where such could be found. He kept in contact over the following years, sending offprints of his essays on current questions, in particular on the language spoken by Jesus. After the defence of 3 The Pentateuch: With the Masorah Parva and the Masorah Magna and with Targum Onkelos. Ms. Vat. Heb. 448, 5 vols., Jerusalem 1977.

2. Postgraduate Studies

5

my doctoral dissertation in 1965 he wrote suggesting the possibility of my doing an English translation of Targum Neofiti for the editio princeps. Correspondence over the years following had very much to do with the English translation of Neofiti by M. Maher and myself, and Díez Macho’s close attention to details of this translation, sometimes not in agreement with his Spanish version. In one of my letters to him on this matter I mentioned a principle of our approach: “The translation of the text was made direct from the Aramaic, with a constant eye on the Spanish, naturally. The notes are mainly from the Spanish, with an eye on the Aramaic.” Correspondence continued on various topics over later years. My last letter from him was a note dated 20th March 1984, accompanying an offprint of an essay on the absolute and emphatic cases in Targum Onqelos. He passed away later that year, on 6th October.

2. Postgraduate Studies On completion of my Licentiate in Scripture at the Biblical Institute in 1956, and with the intention of moving further to a doctorate in the same subject, I had to decide on the subject matter of my dissertation. For some years I had been keenly interested in the question of the Bible text, biblical commentaries and biblical apocrypha in the early Irish church and was between two minds as to whether I should choose a topic from this field or from that of Targumica. I followed the advice of Fr F. McCool, SJ, at the Biblical Institute who suggested that I choose rabbinics and leave work on the ecclesiastical literature of the early Irish church for a later date. I had the opportunity to study at the Biblical Institute, Jerusalem, and at the École Biblique in 1957–1958 and before going got letters of introduction to Jewish scholars from Professor J. Weingreen, Trinity College, Dublin. I returned to Ireland to teach Scripture in 1958 and made arrangements to do research work for my doctoral dissertation over the summer months during the coming years: in Dublin, mainly at the National Library of Ireland, in 1959–1960 and in London at the British Museum (now British Library) in 1961–1962. In both institutions I found the staff extremely helpful. In the autumn of 1962 I took a break from teaching to devote myself fully to completion of work on the dissertation. Díez Macho kindly provided a set of excellent photographic reproductions of the entire Codex Neofiti which gave me the opportunity of doing the necessary research in my home office. By June 1963 I was in a position to travel to Rome to complete work on my dissertation under the direction of Stanislas Lyonnet. In 1963 matters were not at all easy for Fr Lyonnet. It was during the Second Vatican Coun-

6

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

cil and accusations were levelled against the Biblical Institute, and Frs S. Lyonnet and M. Zerwick in particular, in relation to their stand on Formgeschichte and the historicity of the Gospels, especially Luke’s Annunciation narrative and the primacy of Peter in Matt 16:17–19. Due to intervention by the (then) Holy Office both were suspended from teaching biblical subjects in 1962, a decision not revoked until October 1964. The events of these turbulent years for Frs Lyonnet and Zerwick are soberly chronicled by M. Gilbert in his history of the first century of the Biblical Institute.4 In the course of his narrative Gilbert notes that for 1962–1963 Fr Zerwick taught only New Testament Greek, while Fr Lyonnet, still remaining dean of the biblical faculty, continued to publish in the field of exegesis, but did not teach anything during the first semester; during the second semester, he left Rome on 14th March 1963, and returned there from Jerusalem on 10th June. While in Jerusalem he visited the Holy Land and gave a minor course on the Codex Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library, which A. Díez Macho had discovered seven years earlier and revealed that it contained a complete Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch.5 Lyonnet’s “minor course” on Neofiti in Jerusalem, and his contacts there, were not without lasting effects. The young Spanish researcher D. Muñoz León set out to investigate the Prologue of John’s Gospel in the light of targumic evidence. In 1963 he obtained his Licentiate in Biblical Studies at the Biblical Institute, and that same year made the acquaintance of S. Lyonnet in Jerusalem, who introduced him to the world of Targums and gave him an intense interest in intertestamental literature. The influence of Lyonnet led him to study the Aramaic roots of the Prologue of John. In 1964 he got a scholarship to study the Targum of Codex Neofiti in the Vatican Library. Since S. Lyonnet had to leave Rome, the direction of his doctoral dissertation was by the then young R. Le Déaut. His doctoral dissertation was defended in 1968, and later published: “Dios-Palabra: Empleo del apelativo “Memrá de YY” en los targumín del Pentateuco y su relación con el Logos de Juan”.6 In the summer of 1963 I went to Rome, and then to Barcelona where I had the opportunity of spending some months in Díez Macho’s office with access to all personal library and collections of offprints. From 1963 onwards I worked on completion of the dissertation under the direction of Fr S. Lyonnet.

4 M. Gilbert, The Pontifical Biblical Institute: A Century of History (1909–2009), transl. by Leo Arnold, Rome 2009, 162–186. 5 Ibid., 168. 6 Later published: Domingo Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974.

2. Postgraduate Studies

7

During the 1960s the importance of the Targums for New Testament study was stressed at the Biblical Institute, in particular by S. Lyonnet. A seminal work in this field is the doctoral dissertation of R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, published in 1963.7 At the end of the introduction to his work Le Déaut thanks S. Lyonnet who suggested the subject of his research and who had shown the richness of the targumic sources for Pauline exegesis. I have already mentioned Lyonnet’s influence on Muñoz León. Muñoz León has devoted a lifetime to the study of the Targums in relation to the New Testament.8 To return to the completion of my own dissertation: early in 1965 S. Lyonnet advised me to limit my researches and not to try to include too much. A number of issues I had raised could provide material for a later work. I took his advice. The extra material would in part be published in Targum and Testament.9 The copy of my dissertation presented to the Biblical Institute bore the title: “The Palestinian Targum and the New Testament”, with the subtitle: “The Early Date of the Palestinian Targum – Arguments from the New Testament” – an indication of the rather simplistic approach to the subject, the complexities of which would soon afterwards be made clear. The dissertation was defended publicly on Thursday 8th April 1965 at 17.00 hours (5 pm), with S. Lyonnet as director and second reader R. Le Déaut. One of those present was K. Prümm, a professor of the Biblical Institute, who had a special interest in the understanding of 2 Cor 3:17 (“The Lord is the Spirit”) and had in 1950 written on the Catholic interpretation of vv. 17–18 in the preceding four decades, essays I cited in the section dealing with this issue, under the heading: “The Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17 and TJ1 [= Targum Pseudo-Jonathan] Num 7:89; Ex 33:11, 20”, believing that I had found the answer to this question in those texts of Targum PseudoJonathan. Towards the end of the defence, as the Roman Angelus bells rang out, Fr Prümm rose to compliment me on having finally solved this question. He was happy that this was done by a Catholic, a solution being announced by the toll of bells!! Very little attention has been paid to this particular section of the dissertation since then!!10 The dissertation was published by the Biblical Institute Press the following year, under the title The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to 7

AnBib 22; Rome 1963. See I. Carbajosa, “Domingo Muñoz León o de las raíces judías de la Palabra Encarnada”, EstBíb 66 (2008), 11–14. 9 M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972. 10 See further M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 174–176. 8

8

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

the Pentateuch, without any subheading.11 The first edition sold out in due time and the publishers requested that I consider a second printing, with an appendix containing any updates I considered useful. This was published in 1978.12 All copies of this printing also have been sold out. The sales are an indication that there has been a certain interest in the work. What enduring impact, if any, it has made is hard to say. It served a purpose in the ongoing development of the age-old question of the bearing of the Targums, the Palestinian Targum in particular, on New Testament exegesis. It raised a number of issues with regard to the date to be assigned to targumic Aramaic and to the methodology to be used in this field of study. In his monograph The Blessings in the Targums (1986) R. Syrén pays special attention to what is said in the dissertation on what the Targums have to say on the blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33.13 Twenty-four years later J. Ronning would develop points made in the dissertation on the dependence of Rev 12:16–17 on the Palestinian Targums of Gen 3:15 and Exod 15:12.14

3. The English Translation of Targum Neofiti and the Book Targum and Testament On receipt in late 1956 of the information on the identification of Codex Neofiti 1 as a complete text of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, both P. Kahle and M. Black wrote to Díez Macho congratulating him and expressing the hope that the work would soon be published. Preparation of the main Targum text, with its numerous marginal and interlinear glosses, for an editio princeps was an immense task  – the necessary identification of the different scribal hands, and the related problems. Díez Macho set himself about this task immediately and completed it in very good time, the end result appearing as we have seen in five volumes in 1968, 1970, 1971, 1974, and 1978. One of the features of the edition was that the Aramaic text was to be accompanied by three translations: Spanish, French and English. The French translation was by the renowned Targum scholar R. Le Déaut. To myself and my confrere M. Maher was confided the task of producing 11 M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966. 12 M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Second Printing, with Supplement containing Additions and Corrections (AnBib 27A), Rome 1978. 13 R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targums of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Acta Academiae Aboensis Ser. A, vol. 64, nr. 1), Åbo 1986. See especially 11, 182. 14 J. Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Peabody 2010; see p. xv.

4. The Michael Glazier Aramaic Bible Project

9

an English translation of the Aramaic Targum text and of the marginal and interlinear glosses. We worked on these translations in the late 1960s and earlier 1970s. After the publication of my doctoral dissertation in 1965 I took up the suggestion of the director of my thesis, S. Lyonnet, to edit material I had omitted from this in book form. This work was completed in 1968. Given the English translation of Codex Neofiti, I was also interested in exploring the possibility of publishing an English translation of this work independently of that in the editio princeps. The dual intent of the work led to part one of the proposed book being devoted to general questions of the formation of the targumic tradition, followed in part two by seven chapters on the (presumed) relationship between the Palestinian Targum and New Testament texts, ending with an appendix (in four chapters) with an introduction to all extant Targums. The desire for publication of an English translation of Neofiti alone or of all the Targums of the Pentateuch never materialised, and the work was finally published hardback by Irish University Press (Shannon, Ireland) and paperback by Wm.B. Eerdmans (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA), in 1972. The title I had intended for the work was “Targum and New Testament”, but that used in the published edition was Targum and Testament.

4. The Michael Glazier Aramaic Bible Project15 The idea to publish an English translation of the texts of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch remained with me. This was taken a step further in 1979 in a conversation with the American publisher Michael Glazier. W. Harrington, OP, a friend and colleague of mine in the Irish Biblical Association was a personal friend of M. Glazier. With D. Senior he had edited for M. Glazier’s publishing company, Michael Glazier Books (Wilmington, Delaware, USA) the “New Testament Message” series of commentaries. On completion of this a like series was planned for the Old Testament and I was invited to be co-editor with Carroll Stuhlmueller. The two editors had a meeting with the publisher in Ain Karim, Israel, in 1979 to agree on a plan for the series. Among other matters I discussed with Michael the idea of 15 I have treated of this project in M. McNamara, “The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 103–115; in greater detail in M. McNamara, “On Englishing the Targums”, in Salvación en la Palabra: Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho. Edición preparada por el Profesor Domingo Muñoz León, Madrid 1986, 447–461, at 452–461; reproduced below, pp. 106–117, and 118–131.

10

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

publishing an English translation of the various texts of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. He was taken with the idea and believed we should discuss the matter further at a later date. During the Autumn semester of 1980 I was teaching at John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, and it was agreed that on the occasion of Thanksgiving Day weekend in November I visit Michael at his home in Wilmington to discuss the matter. He was very much in favour of the publication project, but expressed his conviction that the translation project should go beyond the Palestinian Targum to include the entire corpus of rabbinic Targums. It was agreed that a first step towards the realisation of this project should be the setting up of an editorial board, which would present a concrete plan to him by the end of January 1981. It was entirely due to the enterprising approach of M. Glazier that the project got started and took the form it did. I expressed these sentiments in the first volume of the series, as follows:16 “In this, the first volume in number in the Aramaic Bible Series, full credit must be given to the publisher Michael Glazier, without whose initiative and resourcefulness this project would never have been begun. Not only did he take up with enthusiasm the suggestion put to him in 1980 to publish a translation of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, but he proposed that the entire corpus be translated and published with appropriate introductions, critical apparatuses, and notes. It was an immense undertaking. Let the volumes already published and the entire corpus stand as a monument to his dedication to the publication of scholarly works.”

I returned to Ireland at the end of December 1980 and the following month an editorial board of three was brought together, consisting of K. Cathcart, Professor of Semitic Languages at University College, Dublin, M. Maher, Lecturer in Scripture and head of the Scripture Department at the Mater Dei Institute of Religious Education, Dublin, and myself as director of the project. This preliminary work was completed by 23rd January 1981. From the outset it was seen as desirable that consultants be added to the editorial board proper. A concrete plan for the publication of all the (rabbinic-type) Targums was drawn up over 1981, together with provisional guidelines for contributors. By the end of 1982 a final text of the guidelines was complete and the panel of translators agreed on. Eighteen scholars, seventeen of whom continued throughout the project, were recruited: P. S. Alexander, D. R. G. Beattie, K. Cathcart, B. Chilton, R. P. Gordon, B. Grossfeld, D. J. Harrington, R. Hayward, J. F. Healey, P. S. Knobel, S. H. Levey, J. S. McIvor, M. McNamara, M. Maher, C. Mangan, A. J. Saldarini and M. Wilcox. E. G. Clarke joined later. 16 M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1A), Collegeville 1992, ix.

4. The Michael Glazier Aramaic Bible Project

11

The question of deadlines for the submission of manuscripts of the completed work on the various Targums was considered at this early date, as was the date of publication of the individual works and of the completion of the entire project. After various attempts and suggestions the editorial board agreed on dates from late 1984 to 1986 for the submission of manuscripts. In an essay published in 1986, but completed some time earlier, I had ventured to say that the entire project could well be completed by the end of 1987!17 Given the nature of the subject matter, the other commitments of the editors, the lack of research done with regard to many of the Targums, and other factors, the deadlines would prove with regard to some of the Targums and editors to be unrealistic. None the less, manuscripts of completed works for some of the Targums began arriving in 1984 and four volumes with Targums of the Former Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (vols. 10–13) were published in 1987, and four volumes with Targum Onqelos (vols. 6–9) in 1988. In 1989 came the Targum of the Minor Prophets (vol. 14), in 1991 vols. 15 and 18 (with the Targums of Job, Proverbs and Qohelet); in 1992 two further volumes (1A, 1B) with Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis; three further volumes in 1994 (vols. 2, 3 and 19), Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus and Leviticus, and the Targums of Ruth and Chronicles; one volume in 1995 (vol. 4), Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan of Numbers; one volume in 1997 (vol.  5A), with Neofiti of Deuteronomy; the next in 1998 (vol. 5B), with Pseudo-Jonathan of Deuteronomy. Two volumes of the planned 19 were still outstanding, vol. 16 with Targum Psalms and vol. 17 with Canticles and Lamentations, with the perfectionist P. S. Alexander as editor. I recall mentioning to Philip that attention could be paid to the old adage not to let the best become the enemy of the good. It was arranged that this composite volume could be published in two separate parts. He recalled my words in his preface to his edition of Targum of Canticles to which he had devoted a life’s work, and his work on Canticles (nearer to perfect than just the good) was published in 2003 (vol. 17A). Next came Targum of Psalms (vol. 16) in 2004, and then the final volume of the series “The Aramaic Bible” in 2008 (vol. 17B) with P. S. Alexander’s altogether excellent study of Targum of Lamentations. This brought the Aramaic Bible Project to an end, twenty-eight years after it was first planned, and some twenty after it was first supposed to have been completed.

17

M. McNamara, “On Englishing the Targums”, 459 = below, p. 129.

12

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

5. Aramaic Bible Project Crisis Years 1988–1990 The Michael Glazier Aramaic Bible Project could not operate like such major commentary publication projects of T&T Clarke where time and short-term planning were not essential. In the prestigious “International Critical Commentary” series the commentary on Isaiah took many years to prepare and almost a century to complete. It was first offered to S. R. Driver who gave it up as beyond him, then to A. B. Davidson who died before he could deliver. Part of it then passed to G. Buchanan Gray who published the commentary on Isaiah 1–27 in this series in 1912. Nothing further happened until a later reorganisation had H. G. M. Williamson publish in 2005 the commentary on Isaiah 1–5, as the first part of a three-volume commentary on Isaiah 1–27. J. N. Schofield was given the task of providing a commentary on chapters 40–55 and was later joined by D. Payne. Schofield later withdrew, and J. Goldingay joined Payne. Goldingay and Payne produced their completed work for this series in 2007, A critical and exegetical commentary on Isaiah 40–55. The remaining sections (28–39 and 56–66) will probably be covered in two volumes, bringing a work commenced in 1912 to completion at some future date in seven volumes. Matters were somewhat different with regard to the Aramaic Bible Project, as would become clear after the first batch of volumes had been set and printed in 1987–1988. The setting required special treatment by specialised typesetters, the setting to be done in batches of volumes, not for individual items as manuscripts happened to arrive on the publisher’s desk. The money from sales was also required to keep the project funded. This became clearer during 1988 and 1989. The deadlines set at the beginning of the project were not being met. In November 1988 the publisher informed the Editorial Board that there had to be a guarantee that the volumes must be kept flowing and that unless there was a guarantee that all the manuscripts could be with the publisher within twenty months the entire project would have to be called off, winding up as best we could. Matters came to a more serious impasse later in 1989 and on 12th August 1989 M. Glazier wrote to say that after much consideration and consultation with two prudent and experienced scholars he had decided to discontinue the publication of the Targums, but as a concession would publish those that arrived fully edited by the next autumn (1990). He confirmed this in a later letter in which he stated that the publishers had discussed the matter on 28th November, concluding that it was not viable for them to go ahead unless they had definite dates for the manuscripts. Being personally chiefly involved with the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, over the following months attempts had to be made to involve others for the completion of texts of Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan. Dr R. Hayward, University of Durham, very generously

7. Developments in Targum Studies from the Later 1960s to the Mid-1980s

13

agreed to contribute the notes to the translation of Neofiti for the books of Exodus and Leviticus, while Dr E. G. Clarke, Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto, agreed to translate and annotate the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It was soon to emerge that the publisher’s cash flow problem did not arise merely from the Aramaic Bible Project. An accountant had defrauded the publishing company of some hundreds of thousands of dollars ($200,000). The future of Michael Glazier’s publishing house needed to be attended to appropriately. In April 1990 an agreement was signed between The Liturgical Press (Collegeville, Minnesota) and Michael Glazier, whereby the Liturgical Press purchased the religious titles of Michael Glazier Inc., both those already published and those in process, committing itself to honour all contracts and agreements made by Michael Glazier, Inc. pertaining to workin-progress. The future of the Aramaic Bible Project was thus assured, to be completed in 2008.

6. Irish Biblical Association Targum Seminar Six of the nine Irish contributors were resident in Ireland (in Dublin Professor K. Cathcart, M. Maher, C. Mangan and myself; in Belfast Professors D. Beattie and S. McIvor). These and others in Dublin were interested in issues relating to the Targums. Over six years, from 1984 to 1989, while the Aramaic Bible Translation Project was in progress, members of a group of twelve (the six names and A. Mayes, S. Freyne, B. Nolan, M. O’Kane, E. [Ted] Russell and D. Hutchinson) met in Dr Mayes’s office a number of times a year to read and discuss papers on targumic topics, mainly arising from the current translation project.

7. Developments in Targum Studies from the Later 1960s to the Mid-1980s The situation with regard to the central importance of Targum studies for an understanding of the Aramaic background of the Gospels and the New Testament was to change from 1947 onwards with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls contained a number of texts in Aramaic dating from the first century of our era or shortly before it. This led to specialist studies on the stages of the Aramaic language, and the bearing of this on targumic Aramaic.18 Clearly, the language of Jesus’ day should be considered near, 18

J. Fitzmyer, “The Phases of the Aramaic Language”, in idem, A Wandering Aramean:

14

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

if not identical with, that of the Qumran texts. Onqelos and Targum of the Prophets might be dated before 135 c.e. Serious objections were also directed against the use made of targumic material in New Testament studies, in particular the methodology used, and the assertions sometimes made that New Testament texts were dependent on Targums, in particular on the Palestinian Targum(s) of the Pentateuch.19 The language of the Palestinian Targums is later still than that of Onqelos. How late, and how to be used in the study of first-century c.e. texts, were now matters calling for serious study. Fortunately such questions were soon attended to by a leading specialist in the field, S. Kaufman. He published an initial study on the question in 1985.20

8. Royal Irish Academy 1992 Conference on the Aramaic Bible The Royal Irish Academy has a number of National Committees, both in the area of the Sciences and the Humanities (for instance the National Committee for Greek and Latin Studies). The nature of the membership of these societies is established by regulations or custom. The members are generally from University or Third Level faculties or other learned or public bodies. There was no committee dealing with the Bible or its Near Eastern background. The present writer was elected a member of the Academy in 1981. In 1982, mainly through the good offices of Professor E. Huxley, a member of the Academy and of the Executive, the Academy established a Consultative Committee on the Bible and Near Eastern Studies. Being a Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25), Missoula 1979, 57–84 (reproduced with same pagination in: idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 1997); idem, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501–531 (reproduced in A Wandering Aramean, 29–56); idem, “The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean, 1–27; being a slightly revised form of idem, “Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus’ Sayings in the New Testament”, in Jacques Dupont et al., Jésus aux origines de la christologie, ed. by J. Dupont et al., Gembloux 1975, 73–102; see also J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 5–21; idem, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean, 85–113 (reproduced, with same pagination in idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament). 19 See J. A. Fitzmyer, in his review of M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (1966) in TS 29 (1968), 322–326, and of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967), in CBQ 30 (1968), 417–428. For reaction to Fitzmyer’s position see G. Vermes, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology”, JJS 33 (1982), 361–376, at 364–368. 20 S. A. Kaufman, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology”, JSNT 23 (1985), 117–124.

8. Royal Irish Academy 1992 Conference on the Aramaic Bible

15

Consultative, rather than a National, Committee its membership was not restricted by the regulations and customs governing the National Committees. With E. Huxley, Professor J. Weingreen and others, I was invited to become a founder member of the new Committee and was elected as chair. The newly established body had the task of planning its way forward. It organised a number of colloquia and in 1988 a very successful international conference on “The Role of the Book in the Civilization of the Near East”. After much discussion the Committee decided that its next international conference would be on the Targums, to coincide with what was then considered would be the completion of publication of the Michael Glazier Aramaic Bible Project. Before concrete planning could begin it was necessary to ensure sponsorship, which fortunately was generously provided by Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland (Anglican communion) bishops, the Milltown Institute of Philosophy and Theology, Dublin, and by some other public institutions and private individuals. There was intense preparation for the conference over 1989 and 1990. In 1990, in conjunction with a meeting of the SNTS (Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas / Society for New Testament Studies) at Milan, I had the opportunity of discussing the plans with R. Le Déaut in Rome. He advised me to make a special effort to have Stephan Kaufman as one of the key speakers, given especially his significant contribution to the question of methodology in his essay published in 1985. Some thought it unlikely that this could be arranged. The contrary was the case. Not only did Professor Kaufman agree to come but he suggested other colleagues’ names who could be invited. The Consultative Committee was anxious to cover the current relevant questions relating to the Targums, from a variety of approaches. In all it was agreed to have twenty-six speakers. They were from different countries, according to their place of work, as follows: Australia 1; Finland 1; Germany 3; Great Britain 5; Ireland 4; Israel 4; Spain 2; USA 6. The Conference was held in Dublin on Tuesday 14th to Friday 17th July 1992. The papers read, and published, can be classed under seven headings as follows: 1. Targum texts and editions (M. L. Klein; S. C. Reif; L. Díez Merino; R. P. Gordon; M. McNamara); 2. The Aramaic language (Stephen A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”; E. M. Cook); 3. The Targums and Jewish biblical interpretation (M. Hengel; O. Betz; A. Shinan; J. Ribera); 4. Targums of the Pentateuch (B. Grossfeld; P. V. M. Flesher; G. Boccaccini; M. Maher; C. T. R. Hayward; R. Syrén); 5. Targums of the Hagiographa (P. S. Alexander; D. R. G. Beattie; C. Mangan; B. Ego); 6. Targum and New Testament (M. Wilcox; B. Chilton); 7. Jewish traditions and Christian writings (G. J. Norton; B. Kedar-Kopfstein; M. E. Stone). Together with the speakers there were about twenty others present at the conference, among whom I may mention W. F. Smelik, Theologische Universiteit Kampen, The Netherlands; Dr. G. Stem-

16

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

berger, the University of Vienna, Austria; Professor E. G. Clarke, Toronto, Canada; Professor E. L. Huxley, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin; Rev. R. Murray, Heythrop College, London.

All the papers were later edited and published by Sheffield Academic Press.21

9. The International Organization for Targumic Studies The conference ended on Friday evening 17th July with an open forum, with consideration among other matters of: “The Targums: A backward glance; the way forward”. In this, as organiser of the conference, I had occasion to express gratitude on two points, and a hope with regard to a third. The first was that this international conference had taken place, with such a galaxy of speakers and persons attending. The second was that arrangements had been made with Sheffield Academic Press to have the papers delivered to be published. The hope was that at this conference a step forward would be taken for the establishment of an international organisation for Targum study, with provision for regular meetings on the matter. The point was discussed at some length and agreement soon reached that the time was opportune for the creation of such a body. E. G. Clarke, Emeritus Professor of the Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto, had previously made attempts for such an organisation, but without success. He had devoted many years of his life to the study of the Targums, both in researches, his writings and his involvement with the newsletter for Targum studies. Various venues for such meetings of a new organisation were put forward. It was agreed unanimously that Dr Clarke be chosen as head of an organising committee to look into the matter as to how best set up such a new body. Dr Clarke reached an understanding with the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) that a new body, the International Organization for Targumic Studies (IOTS) could meet in conjunction with the larger one (IOSOT) at the same venue every three years. The first meeting was at Cambridge in 1995 and there the International Organization for Targumic Studies was born and E. Clarke was elected by acclamation as its first president. He was busy organising the second conference (to be held in Oslo, Norway, 1998) at the time of his untimely death (1997). Over the coming years targumic studies went from strength to strength, especially in Spain (Barcelona) and the Netherlands (Kampen), with the production of a bilingual concordance to the Targums of the Prophets and plans for critical editions of the Targums of the Hagiographa in particular. Less attention, 21 D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994.

10. More Recent Writing on Targum Matters (1995–2009)

17

however, was paid to the relationship between the Targums and the New Testament in the triennial meetings of IOTS (Basel 2001, Ljubljana 2007), although there were two papers on the topic at the Leiden meeting in 2004.

10. More Recent Writing on Targum Matters (1995–2009) In August 1995 I received a kind invitation from Professors A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson to contribute an essay on “The Targums” for a volume on “The History of Biblical Interpretation” (published 2003).22 My first draft of the contribution was submitted in 1996, and the final agreed text came after consideration of the detailed editorial observations of the editors A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson over 1997 to 1999. My Alma Mater, the Biblical Institute, Rome, was founded in 1909. At the request of its students it celebrated the eightieth anniversary of its foundation, but in a small way. For its ninetieth anniversary the Institute wanted to do things on a grand scale, but also to mark the occasion just before the jubilee year of 2000. It organised a great international gathering of scholars for a three-day congress, with a round table in the afternoons.23 The first of these round tables was on how the figure of Melchizedek was understood from the time of the Hebrew Masoretic Text until the Jewish and Christian traditions of Antiquity. J. Fitzmyer spoke on the Old Testament evidence, F. García Martínez on the Qumran texts, while my paper was on Melchizedek in the Targums and early Christian tradition.24 The next request for a major contribution on the Targums came from D. Carson, Deerfield, Illinois, USA, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, for an essay on Targums for a planned volume of essays on “Variegated Judaism”,25 a work published in 2001. This was part of a planned two-volume project to consider anew E. P. Sanders’ seminal work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), and the “new perspective” on Paul. In the view of D. Carson and two colleagues, the theses of Sanders regarding covenantal nomism, though they obviously provided valuable correctives, needed further examination, through a fresh explo22 “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targumim”, in A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol.  1: The Ancient Period, ed. by A. J. Hauser & D. F. Watson, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2003, 167–197 (reproduced below, pp. 211–233). 23 See M. Gilbert, The Pontifical Biblical Institute, 290. 24 M. McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000), 1–31 (reproduced below, pp. 289–317). 25 M. McNamara, “Some Targum Themes”, being chapter 11 of Justification and Variegated Judaism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid, Tübingen & Grand Rapids 2001, 303–356 (reproduced below, pp. 234–288).

18

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

ration of Second Temple Judaism, followed by a fresh treatment of Paul that took into account the findings of the first exploration. The relevant evidence for First Temple Judaism was to be explored in the course of thirteen chapters, one of which was the topic assigned to me. This I did under the title “Some Targum Themes”, under the headings: Law (the Torah), righteousness and divine grace, good works and reward for good works, covenants and visions of the future, repentance, intimacy with God.26 It was necessary to preface all this with a consideration of a central issue: the very admissibility of targumic evidence in any consideration of Second Temple Judaism, especially since E. P. Sanders had explicitly omitted consideration of the Aramaic Targums, since he was not persuaded of the antiquity of the Targums as we have them. The second volume of the project, under the title The Paradoxes of Paul, was published in 2004. A similar position had to be taken with regard to an essay on Historical Jesus studies. In 2004 I received an invitation from Dr T. Holmén, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland, for a contribution for the Brill Academic Publishers’ project “Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus”. This was to be a major publication project, in four volumes. The requested contribution was to be in volume 3, dedicated to the “Historical Jesus”. This volume was to be in three parts; part one: “Jesus Tradition in Individual Documents”; part two: “Fundamentally about Jesus”, and part three: “Jesus and the Legacy of Israel”. Part three would have thirteen contributions, that requested from me (under the heading “Background II: [Some] Literary Documents”), being preceded by essays on “The Historicity of Jesus: How Do We Know that Jesus Existed”, and “Background I: Jesus of History and the Topography of the Holy Land”, by J. H. Charlesworth.27 Since in this part of the third volume due attention is given to the contributions made by archaeology, geography and the social sciences with regard to the world of Jesus, my essay would devote itself principally to the thought world of the first century of our era in so far as this can be known from the sources that can be legitimately used for such a study. Among these sources I include the Aramaic Targums. This seemed indicated in the consideration of individual themes in the history of an interpreted Bible, from the time of Ezra (and earlier) through the first Christian century, themes such as the well that followed, the cloud of glory and the manna, the Law as the tree of life, good works, reward in the world to come, resurrection (on the third day) and others besides. They are themes I treat of in some of the essays reprinted below. 26

Reproduced below, pp. 234–288. The essay was published as: M. McNamara, “Background II: (Some) Literary Documents”, in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols., ed. by T. Holmén & S. E. Porter, Leiden & Boston 2011, vol. 3: The Historical Jesus, Part Two: Fundamentally about Jesus, 2243–2290. 27

10. More Recent Writing on Targum Matters (1995–2009)

19

On 12th December 2003 I received an email from M. Thomson, Sales Director of Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, asking if I had given a revision of my earlier work Targum and Testament some thought. The paperback edition of this work which their company had published in 1972 was out of print and they had received queries on the matter, since there was no convenient book on the subject for students. I replied that it was gratifying to learn that there was still a memory of Targum and Testament, but indicated that much had changed in this field since 1972. I stated that I would be agreeable to considering a new “revised” edition, or a kind of “Targum and Testament Revisited”. The correspondence continued through 2004, and Mr Thomson suggested the end of 2005 as a date for submission of the completed text. However, I had a number of other commitments and I realised that the rewriting necessary would take much longer than this. I was able to submit a preliminary form of the manuscript in 2007 and the final form in April 2008. The meeting of IOTS at Leiden (The Netherlands) in 2004 presented the occasion to read a paper on the general topic of the new plan for Targum and Testament. I was invited by F. García Martínez to read a paper on the Targums at an international conference on “The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature” at the Catholic University of Louvain (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) in January 2006. I took as title “Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit”, and examined some of the themes I would cover in my revision of the 1972 volume.28 Much of my study of the Targums has been concerned with the Palestinian Targum as found in Codex Neofiti, written in 1504 (or possibly 1499). A colophon to the translation of Deuteronomy gives the name of the chief scribe as Mena em, with his ancestry as far back as his great-grandfather. I was particularly interested in this colophon as it clearly indicates that Mena em belonged to a medical family, as did his great-grandfather. We could thus trace the history of this family back for 100 years or so, from 1500 to 1400. I treated of the matter in detail in my introduction to the translation of Neofiti, the Book of Deuteronomy, for the Aramaic Bible series, and in a separate essay, making mention of Anna Esposito’s study of the Jews and Jewish medical families in Rome in the 1400s.29 I mentioned this study and A. Esposito’s essay during my conference at the Biblical In28

M. McNamara, “Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. by R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P. J. Tomson (JSJSup 136), Leiden & Boston 2010, 387–427; see below, pp. 480–517. 29 M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1A), Collegeville 1997, 7–12; idem, “The Colophon of Neofiti 1”, JSP 19 (1999), 147–157.

20

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

stitute in 1999. The chair at the lecture, Professor J. Sievers informed me that A. Esposito was known to the Institute and occasionally lectured there. He put me in contact with her. I communicated the contents of the colophon to her, and she “converted” the Hebrew names of Mena em and his ancestors to contemporary medieval Latin or Italian ones. I was able to take this information up later (2004) in an essay on this colophon in a festschrift for Professor K. Cathcart.30 Sometimes over the years, contact with students and researchers seeking help or information on Targum related matters has been by email. The address or nationality of the person seeking information may remain unknown, if the termination is .com, .net, .org or such like. Some years ago I had a query from a J. L. Ronning, with the termination .za, South Africa. Contact continued sporadically over the years. Later he resumed contact from the United States where he was pursuing his studies, at Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, Pennsylvania. His special interests were the Targums and Johannine literature. In 1997 he completed his PhD dissertation on “The Curse of the Serpent: Genesis 3:15 in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” and in 1991 published an essay in Westminster Theological Journal on “The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature”.31 He had a long-standing interest in the targumic background (Memra) to the Logos doctrine in John. I had written a short piece on the theme in Expository Times in 1968 (“Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242)”. In general a targumic (Memra) background for John’s use of Logos is ignored or explicitly rejected by many modern scholars. C. K. Barrett has described such an attempt as “a blind alley”.

11. 2010, the “Year of the Targums”: The Current Situation and Future Prospects The current year (2010)  has evidenced such an increased interest in the Targums and their relation to the New Testament that it might be called “the Year of the Targums”. J. L. Ronning completed a monograph on the targumic background to John’s use of Logos, and published it (2010) under the title: The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology.32 He argues his 30 M. McNamara, “The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1: The Scribe Menahem and the Roman Medical Family of Manuele”, in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart, ed. by C. McCarthy & J. F. Healey, London & New York 2004, 154–167 (reproduced below, pp. 340–405). 31 J. L. Ronning, “The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature”, WTJ 69 (2007), 247–278. 32 J. L. Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Peabody 2010.

11. 2010, the “Year of the Targums”: The Current Situation and Future Prospects 21

position over 350 pages (including bibliography). He ends on a note of modesty: “While I expect it will take some time for interpreters used to other ideas to digest the material of this book, perhaps at least there can be immediate agreement that scholars can no longer ignore or give superficial attention to the Targums while trying to explain John’s Logos title.” In his acknowledgements he notes my discussion, in my doctoral dissertation (1966) of the dependence of Rev 12:16–17 on the Palestinian Targums of Gen 3:15 and Exod 15:12, which he says served to introduce him to other of my writings on the Targums.33 He hopes that at last my advocacy of the Targum background for the Logos title will find the acceptance that it has long deserved, and for this reason he is pleased to dedicate this work to me in vindication of this thesis. His dedication reads: “For Martin McNamara in vindication” (!!). I was able to continue work on the revision and complete update of the earlier (1972) work Targum and Testament, and in April 2008, as already noted, I was in a position to forward the completed manuscript to Eerdmans Publishers. It was queued for editing, and in due time I received the proofs, and it was duly published in August 2010. Without indices the text contains 331 pages, in all 359 pages, as against 205 in the original. While the new text follows the plan of the original, the developments over the preceding thirtyfive years or so had to be taken into consideration. The prestigious journal Henoch has an In Memoriam section, in which they publish memorial articles on those who have died 25, 50, and 100 years ago and those who have died recently. These items contain a brief biography of the scholar under consideration, but mainly a report on and an evaluation of his or her work in the field of Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins, and related fields of study. The editor of this section, J. Harold Ellens, on behalf of Professor Gabriele Boccaccini, requested an essay on Professor A. Díez Macho who died in 1984. It was published in Henoch (no. 2, 2009).34 On 5th March, 2008 I received a letter from Professor Jörg Frey, Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, Institut für Neutestamentliche Theologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, in which in conjunction with a request for an essay on Jesus in Old-Irish apocryphal Gospel tradition, he raised a more general question whether I might be interested to think about a collection of my essays and papers on the New Testament and targumic For the paraphrase of Gen 3:15 (especially of ĐĂó of the Hebrew Text), and a possible relation with Rom 16:20 see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Grand Rapids 2010, 115–116. 34 M. McNamara, “In Memoriam: Professor Alejandro Díez Macho (1916–1984)”, Henoch 31/2 (2009), 1–3. 33

22

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

exegesis. He would be happy to consider them for inclusion in this series WUNT, of which he was editor. Discussion on the issue was taken up and in September 2009 agreement was reached with the publisher Mohr Siebeck for inclusion in this series – all leading finally to the present edition. The revision of Targum and Testament, and related studies, raised again the unresolved question of establishing a solid basis for the use of the Aramaic Targums in serious study of the New Testament. Request for an essay in a festschrift to honour a very distinguished Targum scholar presented an opportunity to make some contribution in this matter. In my essay I developed the dual theme of Targums on the one hand being tel-like, with stratified material from different ages, and on the other having a continuity over the ages in other themes.35 I instance cases from the New Testament with corresponding texts in Targums which are recognised by most scholars as coming in their present form from later centuries, for instance Targum of Psalms and Targum of Lamentations. An essay for a festschrift for another well-known Targum scholar presented the opportunity to trace the history of Targum Studies over six decades, from the first modern contact with Targum Neofiti in 1949 to our own day.36 Much of its content has been given in this introduction. The latest request for a contribution on this material was one for The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, to be published in 2011.37 In the earlier study, “On Englishing the Targums” (1986) and in introductions to individual volumes in the Aramaic Bible series, attention was paid to the translation techniques of the particular Targum. Translation techniques can reveal a wealth of information with regard to an individual Targum and interrelationships between Aramaic translations. By the nature of the case, examination of these techniques in the Aramaic Bible series could only be of a rather general nature. This, and some related questions, have been followed through in great detail at a seminar held at Duke University in 2004, the papers of which have recently been published.38 One paper, by W. Reader, is on how the various relevant renderings translate the biblical Hebrew term ĆĉĂý.39 As the editors note, the primary result of Reader’s study is that Targum Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, and the Palestin35

M. McNamara, “The Targums: Tel-like Character and a Continuum” (forthcoming). M. McNamara, “Targum Studies over Six Decades (1949–2009)” (forthcoming). 37 M. McNamara, “Targumim”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, ed. by M. D. Coogan, vol. 2, New York & Oxford 2011 (forthcoming). 38 E. M. Meyers & P. V. M. Flesher (eds.), Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Papers from the 2004 National Endowment for the Humanities Summer School at Duke University (Duke Judaic Studies Series 3), Winona Lake 2010. 39 W. Reader, “The Adverb ĆĉĂý (‘Perhaps’) in the Piety and Prophecy of the Hebrew Bible and Early Versions”, in Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism, 127–171. Summary of Reader’s paper by the editors at xvii–xviii. 36

11. 2010, the “Year of the Targums”: The Current Situation and Future Prospects 23

ian Targums all treat the Hebrew term as requiring a consistent Aramaic equivalent. This outcome stands in stark contrast with the Septuagint and the Peshitta which translate ĆĉĂý by several different terms revealing no consistent pattern. This provides useful evidence in any study of the relationships (or lack of relationships) of the Peshitta to the Targums. A similar result follows from another study on the subject by B. Conklin on the translation of the Hebrew particle ĊýĆĈ.40 Conklin shows that the Peshitta and the Targums take different approaches in addressing this term. Kyong-Jim Lee has a detailed study on the bearing of hapax legomena on the question as to whether there once existed a Proto-Onqelos.41 Restricting himself to the Book of Genesis, Kyong-Jim Lee examines eighteen absolute hapaxes, and finds that of the 18 hapaxes in Genesis ten of them share the same interpretation across all Pentateuchal Targums, from Targum Onqelos to the Palestinian Targums to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, even as the Targums massage the surrounding text in different ways. This high degree of similarity, Lee argues, shows that there was a targumic translation / interpretation underlying all these Targum traditions from which they all drew. The common source is Proto-Onqelos. R. Hayward over the years has made detailed studies of targumic topics. In a recent work he has published a collection of seventeen previously published essays and two hitherto unpublished articles.42 In these he examines strategies adopted by the ancient Aramaic translators of the Hebrew Bible in their efforts to bring the meaning of Scripture to their own generations. The specific interpretations of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan feature prominently in Hayward’s researches, and he suggests a date for the substance of this Targum earlier than is commonly assumed. He also notes that the biblical exegesis of Jerome (ca. 342–420 c.e.) often reflect targumic interpretation of Scripture. The essays also study the relationship of the Targums both to other rabbinic texts and to early translations of the Bible such as the Septuagint, the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, as well as the Syriac Peshitta. P. V. M. Flesher and B. Chilton have individually made significant contributions to targumic studies over three decades, the latter in particular on the bearing of targumic evidence on New Testament interpretation. These scholars have combined to produce a critical introduction to the Targums, 40 B. W. Conklin, “Translating the Hebrew Particle ĊýĆĈ into Aramaic and English: An Exploration through the Targum and the Peshitta”, in Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism, 173–190. Summary by the editors at xviii. 41 Kyong-Jim Lee, “Hapax legomena and the Development of Proto-Onqelos: The Case of Genesis”, in Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism, 245–268. Summary by the editors at xx. 42 R. Hayward, Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 10), Leiden 2010.

24

Introduction: Fifty-Five Years of Targum Study

bearing recent developments in mind.43 Towards the end their work treats of Targums and Early Christianity, with consideration of the questions of comparing the Targums and the New Testament, the Aramaic retroversion of Jesus sayings, of typologies of Memra and the Fourth Gospel, with detailed examination of the disputed dating of the Aqedah: Genesis 22 in the Targumim and in early Jewish and Christian interpretation. I may fittingly end this account of “the year of the Targums” by reference to the very successful meeting of the 2010 Helsinki Congress of the International Organization for Targumic Studies (IOTS), 4th–6th August, the sixth since its inception in 1992/1995. The Congress was the most intense study of the Targums to have been held as yet. It went on over two and a half days. Together with three keynote lectures there were twenty-two shorter papers, systematically arranged under six headings: philology and method; genre; exegesis; translation strategies; identifying Targum; and manuscripts, reception and edition. There was a noticeable absence of papers specifically on the Targums and the New Testament. This ongoing work indicates that targumic studies are in a very healthy condition. The way seems open for greater attention to what targumic studies have yet to contribute to a fuller understanding of the New Testament and its message, to the Jewish background of the Christian message, to the contemporary developing Jewish tradition in translational as in legalistic matters, and the bearing of all these in the study of the historical Jesus.

43

P. V. M. Flesher & B. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Waco 2011.

Part One

Targum and Research

Chapter 1

Targumic Studies* Over the last century various classes of literature have been laid under contribution by scholars in their attempt to elucidate or to explain problems arising from the New Testament. We are all well acquainted with the views that saw the New Testament under the influence of Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Iranian, or Jewish tradition. While many of the parallels adduced from some of these literatures were easily proved to be as irrelevant as they were unlikely, Jewish influence was seen to be as evident as it was natural. Within Judaism scholars could turn for New Testament parallels either to the apocryphal writings or to rabbinic literature, and both fields were attentively studied. While the former has the advantage of presenting us with texts that can, in the main, be clearly dated in the pre-Christian era or in the first Christian century, it is the latter that offers the more abundant New Testament parallels. The classic four-volume work of Strack and Billerbeck shows how rich are the resources presented to the New Testament exegete by the writings of the rabbis. The fact that these writings, as they now stand, come from centuries after the time of Christ somewhat impairs their value; however, this drawback is offset by the very wealth of the parallels they offer and by the well-founded supposition that much of the tradition they enshrine must pre-date the Christian era. The corpus of Jewish literature has further been enriched by the Qumran discoveries. For practically two decades (1946–1966) these have absorbed the attention of scholars interested in the relation of Christian origins to Judaism, so much so that they have tended to distract attention from other aspects of Jewish tradition that may be equally relevant to this study, if not more so. This is to a certain extent unfortunate. Even more unfortunate is it, however, that within Jewish studies scholars should have concentrated mainly on Qumranic, apocryphal, midrashic, or talmudic literature, and paid little or no attention to the Targums or Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament. This neglect of the Targums over the past fifty years has been due chiefly to their having once been weighed in the scales and found wanting. The belief grew that they were recent compositions which could be used only with the greatest caution, if they could be used at all, in any reconstruc* First published under the same title in CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19.

28

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

tion of Jewish beliefs in New Testament times. It followed that they were viewed as of very doubtful value for New Testament exegesis. The patient labours of a small band of scholars over the past thirty-five years, however, have shown that the fault lay not in the Targums but in the scales in which they had been weighed. Studies from 1930 onwards have tended to show that the Targums are, in the main, very old and pre-Christian, and that the material to be found in them can throw light on many aspects of the New Testament. Targumic study has now come quietly into its own and is very likely to occupy a more prominent place in Jewish and New Testament scholarship in the years ahead. In this present state of affairs it may be well to cast back a glance over the past four centuries and to view the history that lies behind the reawakened interest in the Targums, particularly in the Palestinian Targum.

1. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum: The Problem Even a cursory reading of the Targums, in particular of the Palestinian Targum as earlier found in Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targum, reveals that in language and content they contain striking parallels to the New Testament. In them we encounter such New Testament phrases as “the second death”, “God, our Father in heaven”, “the Word (Memra) of the Lord”, etc. They speak repeatedly of the Messiah, of the after-life and its rewards, of Gehenna and paradise. On the other hand, the presence of references to Abisha and Fatima, the wife and daughter of Muhammad (Ps.-J. Gen 21:21), to Constantinople (Ps.-J. Num 24:24), to the six orders of the Mishnah (Ps.-J. Exod 26:9), etc., makes their use in the scientific study of the New Testament somewhat suspect, as we have already noted. The problem that confronts the student is how to determine which elements are recent and which early, whether the bulk of targumic material – of the Palestinian Targum in particular – is old with later references, or vice versa. As noted earlier, the problem is now being resolved according to new criteria. Scholars of targumic studies from the very beginning, however, were aware of the difficulty, and we find the matter very well treated by Brian Walton in the Apparatus that accompanied his edition of the Targums for the London Polyglot. He devoted nos. 16–20 of his twelfth Prolegomenon to De autoritate paraphraseon chaldaicarum1 and expressed himself as follows on the question: 1 Biblia Sacra Polyglotta … cum Apparatu, Appendicibus … etc., edidit Brianus Walton, S. T. D., London 1657. Prolegomenon XII, 81–87, treats “de lingua Chaldaica, et Targumim, sive paraphrasibus in hac lingua scriptis”.

1. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum: The Problem

29

“Infinita sunt loca ubi Verbo [= Memra] Dei multa adscribuntur quasi personae distinctae. De Christo, sive Messiae persona, adventu, officio multa clara testimonia habentur. Loca illa de Messia exponunt quae ad Christum pertinent, licet multum laborent recentiores Rabbini eadem perversa interpretatione detorquere. Vaticinium illud celebre Jacobi Gen. 49.10. Donec veniat Siloh, reddunt, donec veniat Messia, Onkel., Jonathan, Hieros. Nullum tamen non movent lapidem perfidi Rabbini, ut hoc non ad Messiam pertinere probent, unde in alios sensus trahunt. Jos. Caecus [the reputed author of the Targum of the Hagiographa] clare veritatem vidit, dum Psal. 45 in Paraph. Hagiographorum, de Messia totum exponit, quod Rabbini Josepho caeciores de Salomone tantum intelligi volunt … Isa. 7.14. Virgo concipiet, vocem ýċĉď [sic!] non depravat Jonathan, ut posteriores Rabbini, sed fideliter vertit, nomine ad formam Chaldaicam mutato ýėċĉď.”2

Targumic material, however, he warns, must be used with discretion: “Non tamen omnia in Targum approbanda, sed triticum à Zizaniis, noxia à salutari discernendum …”3 “In multis locis articulos fidei Christianae confirmant, et contra Judaeos fortissima argumenta suppeditant, quod ex alio fonte proficisci non potuit, quam quod ea scripserant Paraphrastae, quae habuerunt ex antiquis traditionum et expositionum reliquiis quas ex Prophetis hauserunt.”4

So much for the Targums of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. On the Targum of (Pseudo-) Jonathan, Walton has this to say: “Majoris momenti est quod multa loca in hoc Targum inveniuntur, quae contra Judaeos faciunt ad Christianae religionis illustrationem, sed et hoc in omnibus Targumim est observare, quaedam in eis inveniri pro mysteriis religionis Christianae, ut in illo in Hagiographa, quod tamen ab omnibus multis post Christum seculis scriptum habetur. In antiquioribus, Onkeli et Jonathanis, plura reperiuntur quam in posterioribus; in his tamen, licet multa depravata fuerint, quaedam tamen, ex antiquorum traditionibus et scriptis, quasi Scholarum Propheticarum rudera relicta sunt, quae in suis Paraphrasibus posuerunt, ita dirigente divina providentia, ut propriis pennis increduli se configerent. Librum itaque hunc [i.e., Targum PseudoJonathan], non esse Jonathanis mihi certum est, sed post Mischna saltem, ab aliquo qui emendicato Jonathanis nomine auctoritatem Paraphrasi huic conciliare voluit, compositum fuisse.”5

The position of Walton is, then, quite clear. The Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targum in particular, have preserved certain older traditions that go back to the prophets. These same Targums, however, are compositions that are to be dated to later times. The brief citations we have given suffice to give us an idea how the problem was sensed in the seventeenth century and the solution that was given. 2

Ibid., no. 18, p. 86. Ibid., no. 16, p. 86. 4 Ibid., no. 18. 5 Ibid., no. 11, p. 84. 3

30

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

2. Targumic Studies in Europe from the Beginnings to the Nineteenth Century6 The Targums, those to the Pentateuch included, came to Europe with the advent of the Jews as part of their national and religious heritage. We find citations from them in the Aruk or Dictionary of R. Nathan ben Ye iel of Rome which was composed ca. 1100 c.e. As one may expect, they are cited in the works of R. David Qim i and other Jewish authors as well. Only gradually did they come to the notice of Christians, for example, as cited in the Pugio fidei aduersus Mauros et Judaeos of Raymundus Martinus († 1290; the editio princeps of his work, 1651). Serious consideration was given to them by Christian scholars only in the last decades of the fifteenth century and later, an appreciable time after Christianity had become acquainted with the Talmud and other Jewish writings. The editio princeps of Onqelos occurred in 1482 at Bologna. Shortly afterwards the Augustinian friar Aegidius of Viterbo came to Rome to aid his general in the government of his order. Aegidius had a passionate interest in Jewish studies, and from ca. 1515 onwards he was concerned with the Targums. Toward 1509 the Jewish scholar Elias Levita also came to Rome, and after 1515 he worked under the patronage of Aegidius. Another Jewish scholar who must have been associated with Aegidius during this period was the convert Felix Pratensis who had entered the Augustinians. He would necessarily have been put under the jurisdiction of Aegidius who, from 1506 till his elevation to the cardinalate in 1517, was prior general of his order. In 1517 Felix published the first printed edition of the Fragment Targum in the Bomberg edition of the Rabbinic Bible. From the same press came the first edition of Pseudo-Jonathan in 1591. The polyglots were the first vehicles to make these texts more easily available to students. We may recall that the first Polyglot Bible to be published was the Complutensian (1514–1517, containing Onqelos). There followed the Antwerp Polyglot or Biblia Polyglotta Regia (1569–1572), the Paris Polyglot (1618–1645), and the London Polyglot (1653–1657). By now the Aramaic texts of all the Targums, with the exception of that to Chronicles, had been published. No Targum to Chronicles was known before 1680–1683, when M. F. Beck had a manuscript of this work printed; the same Targum, according to another recension, was published by David Wilkins in 1715. With the publication of the Aramaic texts the preliminary work on the Targums had been done. No less important for the majority of students, 6 A brief survey of Jewish studies by Christians can be seen in G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism”, HTR 14 (1921), 197–254. For a conspectus of Jewish studies in Europe during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin 1845 (repr. Hildesheim 1976), 6–21.

2. Targumic Studies in Europe from the Beginnings to the Nineteenth Century

31

however, were the translations, mainly Latin, that appeared about the same time. In 1516 Augustinus Justinianus, OP published a Latin version of the Targum of Psalms.7 Between 1550 and 1559 J. Mercier, successor to his teacher Vatablus as professor of Hebrew at the Collège Royal, published Latin renderings of the Targum to the Minor Prophets.8 In 1556 J. Quinquarboreus (Cinquarbres), again of the Collège Royal, published a Latin translation of the Targums of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Ruth, and Lamentations.9 Part of the Targum of Joel in a Latin rendering was published by G. Génébrard, the Benedictine Bishop of Aix, in 1563.10 Three years later a Latin rendering of the Targum of Joel was published by A. Pontacus (Arnauld de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas, † 1605),11 and the same year saw to press a Latin version of the Targum to the Twelve Minor Prophets by J. Tremellius, Professor of Oriental Languages at Heidelberg.12 Francis Taylor (Taylerus) published a Latin rendering of the Fragment Targum at London in 1649.13 His version, however, was so imperfect that Walton could not accept it for the London Polyglot; he used instead a corrected translation by A. Chevalier. These are not the only renderings of the Targums made during the seventeenth century.14 They serve, however, to give us an idea how the Tar7

Augustinus Justinianus, in his Psalterium Octuplum, Genoa 1516. J. Mercier, Chaldea Translatio Abdiae et Jonae Prophetarum, Latino Sermone recens donata, cum scholiis haud poenitendis, per Johannem Mercerum, Paris 1550, apud Martinum Iuuenem: Aramaic text with Latin rendering in parallel columns, notes at end; Chaldaea Translatio Haggaei Prophetae, recens Latinitate donata, cum scholiis haud infrugiferis, per Iohannem Mercerum, Paris 1551, apud Iuuenem: same form as the preceding; Chaldaea Jonathae in sex Prophetas Interpretatio, Michaeam, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophoniam, Zachariam & Malachiam, Latinitate nunc primum donata, & scholiis illustrata, per Iohannem Mercerum, Paris 1559, apud C. Stephanum: Latin rendering and scholia; Ionathae Vzielis filii … Chaldaea Interpretatio sex Prophetarum, Hoseae, Joelis, Amos, Abdiae, Ionae & Haggaei, per Ioann. Mercerum … Latine reddita, Paris 1559, apud C. Moralium. 9 J. Quinquarboreus (Cinquarbres), Targum, sive Paraphrasis Caldaica … Jonathani … in Hoseae, Joelis, et Amosi, gravissimas prophetias, atque etiam in Ruthae et Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae incerto authore Caldaeo. Nunc primum latinitate donata, interprete Johanne Quinquarboreo … additae sunt etiam eiusdem Quinquarborei in singula capita annotationes non poenitendae, etc., Paris 1556. 10 G. Génébrard, Joelis Prophetae vaticinium. Et Chaldaea ejus paraphrasis … cum commentariis … Selomonis Jarhii, Abrahami Abbenezrae, Davidis Kimhii, etc., Paris 1563. 11 A. Pontacus (Arnauld de Pontac), Vaticinationes Abdiae, Jonae, & Sophoniae, Prophetarum, Caldaea expositione, quatenus variat ab Hebraeo, & commentariis trium insignium rabbinorum Selomonis Iarhhi, Abraham Aben Ezrae, & Dauidis Kimhhi illustratae, interprete Ar. Pontaco, Paris 1566, apud Martinum Iuuenem. 12 J. Tremellius, Jonathan, filii Uzielis Chaldaea paraphrasis in XII Minores Prophetas latine reddita, Heidelberg 1556. 13 Francis Taylor (Taylerus), Targum hierosolymitanum in quinque libros Legis, London 1649. 14 Others may be found noted in chapter 1 of the dissertation mentioned above (The New Testament and Palestinian Targum). 8

32

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

gums had by then come into their own. With the publication of the London Polyglot students had access both to the original Aramaic texts and to the Latin versions that accompanied them. They have ever since been indebted to this great work which has not yet been replaced. During the same period due attention was devoted to the language and character of the Targums. In 1541 Elias Levita published his Meturgeman,15 the large rabbinic dictionary which contains a wealth of citations from the Palestinian Targum. Though Elias informs us he had heard tell of PseudoJonathan, he had never seen it and doubted of its existence; his citations lead us to conclude that he had at his disposal a Palestinian Targum different in certain details from any text now known to us. He would, of course, have known the text of the Fragment Targum published by Felix Pratensis in 1517, and he may have had access to various Palestinian Targum texts no longer extant or lying hidden in some library. Codex Neofiti 1, of which I will speak later, was written in the early years of the same century for “Master Ae(g)idio”, presumably Aegidius of Viterbo. It is not easy to say whether Elias knew of this manuscript or whether he availed himself of it in the composition of his Meturgeman. In any case, this work has some Palestinian Targum citations not found in Neofiti or any other known Palestinian Targum text. Some hundred years after Elias’s magnum opus another monumental work for targumic lexicography appeared in the Lexicon Chaldaicum of J. Buxtorf, published posthumously by his son in 1640.16 While based on the twelfth-century Aruk, it made much more extensive use of the Targums than R. Nathan ben Ye iel did. It also noted all the passages in the Targums where there was reference to the Messiah. In the lexicographical field these are the two major works of this period. Mention could also be made of the contribution of Jewish scholars who wrote commentaries on the Targums, philological and otherwise; however, this information can be found elsewhere.17 During this period introductions to the Targums were also written, both as special monographs and as parts of larger works.18 By and large these introductions followed the order of those of the present day, though they were subject to all the limitations imposed by the age in which they were written. They treated of the number, the nature, the origin, and the critical and theological utility of the Targums, together with their relevance to 15

Elias Levita, Meturgeman: Lexicon Chaldaicum, Isny 1541. J. Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum in quo omnes voces chaldaicae … fideliter explicantur, in lucem editum a Johanne Buxtorfio filio. It was reedited in two parts (1869, 1875) by B. Fischer at Leipzig. 17 See chapter 1 of my dissertation The New Testament and Palestinian Targum. 18 For these introductions, etc., see M. McNamara, The New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 12–14. 16

3. The Golden Age of Jewish Studies (ca. 1850–1910)

33

New Testament studies and the problems connected with their dating. The most complete of these were the introductions of Christopher Helvicus (Helwig or Helwich)19 and of Brian Walton in the twelfth Prolegomenon to his Apparatus for the London Polyglot of which we have already spoken.20 Immanuel Schwarz (1758/59) devoted a special work to the targumic doctrine of the Messiah.21 Use was made of the Targums by Christopher Cartwright in his Electa Thargumico-rabbinica (1658),22 while J. Lightfoot (1658–1678)23 and C. Schoettgen (1733, 1742)24 noted the New Testament parallels in these Jewish paraphrases. Apart from the work of Brian Walton, the studies mentioned above are now available only in the larger libraries. It is hoped that the brief summary we have given will convey some idea of the pioneering work of the period, most of which is still relevant. These earlier studies do, of course, have serious shortcomings. To begin with, their interest in the Targums was excessively apologetical. Also, in instituting comparisons with the New Testament they considered only individual texts, from which it was impossible to construct a valid argument for the early or late character of the Targums or of the Palestinian Targum as a whole. For such an argument, the world had to await a new approach to Jewish studies in general.

3. The Golden Age of Jewish Studies (ca. 1850–1910) The era of the scientific study of Judaism was ushered in by the research of Leopold Zunz and ably continued by his successors. Zunz’ major work,

19 Christopher Helvicus, Tractatus Historicus et Theologicus de Chaldaicis Bibliorum Paraphrasibus, earum Origine, Numero, Autoribus, Antiquitate, Differentiis, Autoritate, & insigni Usu in Controversiis Theologicis, ac Scripturae Interpretationibus, Giessen 1612; also “Tractatus Historicus et Theologicus de Libris Thargumicis, Thalmudicis et Chaldaicis paraphrasibus adversus Iudaeos” in Ludovico Tena’s Commentaria … in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Hebraeos, London 1661, 857–880. 20 See n. 1 above: Brian Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta … cum Apparatu, Appendicibus, Prolegomenon XII. 21 I. Schwarz, Jesus Thargumicus, 2 parts, Torgau 1758/59. 22 C. Cartwright, Electa Thargumico-rabbinica, sive annotationes in Exodum: Ex triplici Thargum seu chaldaica paraphrasi, London 1658; see also his Mellificium Hebraicum printed in Critici Sacri, vol. 9, cols. 2943–3128 of the London edition (1660), vol. 8, part 2, cols. 1271–1426 of the Amsterdam edition (1698). Electa Thargumico-rabbinica was inserted in vol. 1, part 1, of the Amsterdam edition. 23 J. Lightfoot, Commentaries on Matthew (1658), Mark (1663), 1 Corinthians (1664), Luke (1674); Acts and Romans were published posthumously by R. Kidder in 1678. 24 C. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum, 2 vols., Dresden & Leipzig 1733–1742.

34

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden,25 was followed by others of equal worth which earned for him the title “father of modern Jewish science”. As the result of the work of his school few problems in this field were left untouched. The new movement brought into being scientific journals26 and produced works of lasting value. A. Geiger’s Urschrift27 was followed toward the end of the nineteenth century by W. Bacher’s works on the haggadoth of the Tannaim and the Amoraim and many other studies in Jewish science.28 He is justly considered to be the founder of modern Jewish haggadic study. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the publication of the Jewish Encyclopedia29 whose learned articles by the leading authorities of the day cover most aspects of Judaism. In his Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš,30 H. Strack attempted to give a systematic outline to Jewish literature. Four editions of this work between 1887 and 1908 offer some indication of the flourishing state of Jewish studies during the period.31 Targumic studies benefitted immensely from this renewed interest in Jewish science.32 Older editions of the Targums were reprinted and new manuscripts were noted and edited. Some of the Targums were translated into the vernacular. The Aramaic of the Targums was studied as was also the character of the various targumic paraphrases. The Targums were compared 25 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Berlin 1832; 2nd edition, Frankfurt on Main 1892. He had already outlined his plan for a scientific study of Judaism in Etwas über die rabbinische Literatur in 1818. Among his other writings may be mentioned Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, Berlin 1855; Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes, Berlin 1859; Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin 1845. 26 A list of the principal journals of the period is given in the dissertation (M. McNamara, The Palestinian Targum and the New Testament). 27 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Breslau 1857 (repr. Frankfurt on Main 1928, with introduction by P. Kahle and supplement by N. Czertkowsky). 28 W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, vol. 1: Die bibelexegetische Terminologie der Tannaiten; vol. 2: Die bibel- und traditionsexegetische Terminologie der Amoräer, Leipzig 1899–1905; idem, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, Leipzig 1914; idem, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., Strasbourg 1884–1890; 2nd edition 1903; idem, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 3 vols., Strasbourg, 1892–1899; idem, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer Strasbourg 1898; Frankfurt on Main 1913. 29 12 vols., New York 1901–1906. 30 H. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš, Munich 1920. 31 An English edition based on the author’s corrections of the 5th German edition was published in Philadelphia in 1931 and reprinted by Meridian Books, New York 1959. The work remained the standard but was lamentably out of date and in need of rewriting. It was eventually rewritten by G. Stemberger in 1982 (Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, Munich 1982), and this was further updated by G. Stemberger for the English translation in 1991: H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991. 32 For works on the Targums during this period see chapter 1 of the dissertation “The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch and the New Testament”.

3. The Golden Age of Jewish Studies (ca. 1850–1910)

35

with one another, with the original Hebrew, and with other early versions as well as with the halakah and other Jewish writings. Citations from the Palestinian Targum in Jewish literature from earliest times down to those of the printed editions were collected and commented on. The question of the dating of the Targums, in particular the Palestinian Targum, also received attention. Present-day students may not agree with many of the conclusions reached in these studies, but a knowledge of the work already done during this period will save them much time and labour. This initial approach to the scientific study of the Targums was not without shortcomings of its own. With certain exceptions, it may be said that it followed the tendency discernible in the study of Jewish texts in general to be too individualistic in approach. Each haggadah was considered in itself or as associated with some individual rabbi. Sufficient attention was not paid to the continuity of tradition and to the possibility that a tradition associated with a given rabbi might have become connected with him merely through an accident in the history of transmission and therefore that he might have nothing to do with the origin of the tradition. Since the oldest sources of rabbinic tradition come from tannaitic times, it followed that these were taken as the main criteria for dating rabbinic material: those first attested only by “later” sources were automatically suspect. As regards the Targums, the general view obtained that the oldest of all three was Onqelos. Next in time came the Targums of Jonathan on the Prophets. Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targum were considered to be much more recent: the former no earlier than the seventh century. That this position on the Targums to the Pentateuch should become general – despite the contrary view of such authorities as A. Geiger,33 T. Nöldeke,34 and others – was due principally to G. Dalman’s Grammatik des jüdischpalästinischen Aramäisch35 and to his other work, Die Worte Jesu.36 In the first edition of his Grammatik Dalman gave a prominent place to PseudoJonathan and the Fragment Targum, conceding that they might possibly include sections from a very early, even pre-Christian period.37 This possibility, however, he discarded completely in Die Worte Jesu38 and in the second

33

A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen, 451 ff. Cf. T. Nöldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur: In einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt, Leipzig 1868, 256. 35 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1894, 2nd rev. edition 1905. 36 G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig 1898, 2nd rev. edition 1930; English translation, The Words of Jesus, considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, vol. 1: Introduction and Fundamental Ideas, Edinburgh 1902. 37 See The Words of Jesus, 84–85. 38 Ibid., 84–86. 34

36

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

edition of his Grammatik,39 where he concluded that the earliest portions of Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targum, linguistically speaking, were those taken from Onqelos. The language of Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targum, he maintained, is a mixture of Aramaic from various dialects which cannot be taken to represent that of first-century Palestine. This conclusion led him to base his reconstructed language of Jesus on Onqelos. In doing this, however, he was quite inconsistent, since he also held that Onqelos was written in a language of the learned schools of Judea, not that spoken by the common people.40

4. Use of the Targums in Certain Modern Writings This view of the late or uncertain date of the Targums in general and of Palestinian Targum in particular has affected even the classic writings on the Judaism of Jesus’ time. In A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ41 E. Schürer omits any consideration of the Targums on principle, believing that they belong to the third or fourth centuries at the earliest, “though they often fall back on older exegetical traditions”.42 He maintains that their messianic doctrine could be considered that of the author of the Philosophoumena.43 When H.St.J. Thackeray44 cites the “Targum of Palestine” (actually Pseudo-Jonathan), he finds it necessary to remind the reader that it is a seventh-century work, whereas Onqelos goes back to the first. He notes further that the “additions” of the “Targum of Palestine” to Onqelos in loc. (that is, Num 21:16 ff.) are later accretions. He fails to note, however, that what he considers later additions are actually found in the text of Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities which he cites a page further on! The writings of J. Bonsirven evince a distrust of the Targums in his reconstruction of New Testament Judaism. In Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps 39

Cf. Grammatik, 2nd edition, 32–33. Ibid., 13. 41 E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. English translation of the 2nd rev. German edition, Division II, vol. 2, Edinburgh 1901, 153–154. This in no way detracts from the value of Schürer’s introductions to the Targums or of his excellent bibliography in the last edition of the German work, vol. 2, Leipzig 1907, 607–608. (A new English version of Schürer’s classic, under the title, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes et al., has been brought out, in three volumes [vol. 3 in two parts], Edinburgh 1973, 1979, 1986, 1987.) 42 Schürer, A History, Division II, vol. 2, 153–154. 43 Ibid. Actually, the messianic doctrine of the Philosophoumena 9.30 (which he cites) could well be that of 1st-century Palestine. The messianic doctrine of the Targums is, in fact, very old. 44 H.St.J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London 1900, 208. 40

4. Use of the Targums in Certain Modern Writings

37

de Jésus-Christ,45 while he admits that they contain certain older parts, he insists that they are to be used with reserve as witnesses of the Jewish religion for the New Testament period. He does not consider them in L’exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne,46 and he translates no part of them in his Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles.47 This same attitude of distrust is particularly evident in the standard work on Judaism in the English language: G. F. Moore’s Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim.48 The author states that the purpose of his work is “to exhibit the religious conceptions and moral principles of Judaism … in the form in which, by the end of the second century of the Christian era, they attained general acceptance and authority”.49 For this purpose he takes as his sources those works that tell us what Judaism has to say for itself: as “represented by the teachers and the writings which it has always regarded as in the line of its catholic tradition”.50 The evidence of writings outside these, when pre-Christian, “is welcome even when not intrinsically of immense importance”.51 He dismisses the Targums much more readily: “The Targums had a time of being very much overworked by Christian scholars in consequence of the erroneous notion that they antedated the Christian era; and in particular the messianic expectations of the Jews in that age were looked for in them. Afterwards they were still more abused in the search for the Jewish idea of a God-out-of-reach who negotiated with the world only through the Memra and other intermediaries. Their true value lies in the evidence they give to the exegesis of the Tannaite period – to the real understanding of what the Bible said for itself.”52

So much for his position on the Targums in general. His view of the Palestinian Targum is not too clear. He notes that in the form in which the Palestinian Targum (that is, Pseudo-Jonathan) “is in our hands it is late, containing the names of a wife and daughter of Mohammed”.53 For the purpose of his work “it is seldom of consequence; and the same is true of the Fragment Targum which is related to it”.54 Yet he admits that the bulk of the material 45 J. Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ, 2 vols., Paris 1934– 1935; in abbreviated form under the same title in DBSup 4 (1949), cols. 1143–1285, which has also been published in book form. 46 Paris 1939. 47 J. Bonsirven, Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles pour servir à l’intelligence du Nouveau Testament, Rome 1955. 48 G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass. 1927 (vol. 3: Notes, 1930). 49 Ibid., vol. 1, 125. 50 Ibid., 126. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., 176, referring to one of his articles in HTR 15 (1922), 41–85. 53 Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, 175. 54 Ibid., 176.

38

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

cannot be dated by the late references.55 Treating of targumic interpretation and the synagogue homily he notes how in the Palestinian Targums – coming, he repeats, in their present form from much later times – the interpretation freely runs into midrash, in which “they may be taken to illustrate the fashion of the older interpreters, though in their actual form the midrashic element may be largely literary contamination”.56 He clearly finds himself in a dilemma: on the one hand he accepts the general belief concerning the late origin of the Palestinian Targum, and on the other he perceives that the literary genre of the work belongs to an earlier age. This uncertain position of G. F. Moore may be explained by the date of his book: in 1927 we are at the turning point in Palestinian Targum studies.

5. Change of Approach to Jewish Studies (1930–1950) If G. F. Moore’s sole intention was to exhibit the religious conceptions and moral principles of rabbinic Judaism, no one could cavil at his choice of source material. To assume, however, that this form of Judaism was the sole, or even the principal, representative of the Jewish religion of the first century is another matter. It was, as we now know, much more variegated than this. One can, then, object to the title of his work. Later studies seem to have shown that, in many respects at least, the Palestinian Targum represents the religion of the ordinary Jew much better than do rabbinic sources which come to us in good part from Judaism as reorganised after the fall of Jerusalem and with the practical disappearance of the Sadducees and Essenes from the picture. In 1920 R. Harris wrote an article on the importance of the Targums for New Testament studies.57 He recalled Walker’s remark on the point in his article on “Targum” in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible: “We find in the N. T. traces of Aramaic readings of Heb. verses in books like the Psalms [reference to Matt 27:46, cf. Ps 22:2; Eph 4:8, cf. Ps 68:19]. The agreement of these with readings still found in Targums, which we know were not reduced to their present form until long after, cannot be purely accidental.”58 Harris himself found “Targumisms” in such passages as “the right hand of the throne of Majesty”, Heb 8:1; “he saw the Glory of God” (Fourth Gospel);59 “without blame before the throne of God”, Rev 14:4–5; cf. Eph 55

Ibid., 175. Ibid., 304. 57 R. Harris, “Traces of Targumism in the New Testament”, ExpTim 32 (1920/21), 373–376. 58 Ibid., 374. 59 Ibid., 375. 56

5. Change of Approach to Jewish Studies (1930–1950)

39

1:4; Col 1:22; Jude 24.60 He was of the opinion that “whether they [the Targums] were written or not, the Christian Church must have passed through a state of Targumism, if it emerges from the synagogue in which Targumism prevails.”61 He concluded his study with the words: “It is evident, then, that the time is ripe for a renewed critical study of the Targums, both from the point of view of textual criticism and from the standpoint of the higher criticism, and in particular further investigation is required into the reaction of the Targums on the New Testament.”62 It does not appear, unfortunately, that the time was then ripe for this work. Full ten years were to elapse before Jewish studies were to adopt a change of attitude that would make the new study desired by Harris possible. The first publication that made a real contribution in this direction was Masoreten des Westens II,63 in which P. Kahle edited fragments of written texts of the Palestinian Targum, some of which he dated to the seventh century c.e. This was to bring about a radical change in the approach to the Palestinian Targum. This same year saw to press the work of S. Rappaport on Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josefus.64 Josephus’ relation to haggadah and halakah had been studied a number of times before; Rappaport’s work, though unnoticed for a number of years, was to serve as a reminder.65 In 1931 A. Marmorstein studied some of the Palestinian Targum texts published by Kahle.66 In 1933 P. Churgin67 reopened the question of the relation of the Septuagint to the Targums and strongly favoured Z. Frankel’s view that the relation is close.68 Churgin’s research led him to recognise several old portions of PseudoJonathan, despite the later recensions and alterations to which this Targum was later subjected.69 At the beginning of the last century Marmorstein had already shown the antiquity of many traditions in Pseudo-Jonathan.70 60

Ibid., 376. Ibid., 374. 62 Ibid., 376. 63 P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930. 64 S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josefus, Vienna & Frankfurt on Main 1930. 65 Cf. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese, xx–xxii. A study of the Table of the Nations in Josephus and the Targums will show that, if Josephus used a Targum, this can scarcely have been our present Palestinian Targum. By and large in this section both Palestinian Targum and rabbinic tradition agree against Josephus. 66 A. Marmorstein, “Einige vorläufige Bemerkungen zu den neuentdeckten Fragmenten des jerusalemischen (palästinischen) Targums”, ZAW 49 (1931), 231–242. 67 P. Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint”, AJSL 50 (1933/34), 41–65. 68 Z. Frankel, Über den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851, cf. esp. 81. 69 Churgin, “The Targum”, passim. 70 A. Marmorstein, Studien zum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum. 1. Das Targum und die apokryphe Literatur, Posen 1905; cf. n. also 66 above. 61

40

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

The general attitude to Jewish studies also changed during the decade 1930–1940. The earlier approach, we have seen, was by and large individualistic, interested in single traditions rather than in the development of Jewish tradition as a whole. The latter approach was now stressed. From 1934 onwards A. Robert published various studies on the development of doctrine within Judaism, showing that phrases from earlier books of the Bible were used in later ones, where they took on a new meaning in their changed context.71 This style anthologique, as Robert called it, has much in common with what was later called midrash, and he suggested that the roots of midrash were already planted in the Bible.72 These studies laid the foundation on which R. Bloch and others later built. The Palestinian Targum fragments from the Genizah of Cairo pushed the written texts of this work back possibly as far as the seventh century, thereby changing the entire scholarly attitude towards it. In 1941 P. Kahle gave the Schweich Lectures on the Genizah finds,73 paying special attention to the Palestinian Targum. Before the tenth century, he maintained,74 the Targum used in Palestine was not Onqelos but a special Palestinian version, fragments of which he had published in 1930. The next major event that affected Jewish and targumic studies was the discovery and publication of the Qumran texts, from 1947 onwards.75 These texts, written in Hebrew or Aramaic at dates from the second century before to the first after Christ, afforded yet another means of dating Jewish traditions. Among the Aramaic texts have been identified the central portion of a Targum to Job written ca. 100 b.c.e.76 and fragments of a Targum to Leviticus.77 The translation in both cases is quite literal.78 The genre of midrashic commentaries (pesharim) frequent at Qumran was also seen to 71 Cf. A. Robert, “Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. i–ix”, RB 43 (1934), 42–68, 172–204, 374–384; 44 (1935), 344–365; idem, “Le genre littéraire du Cantique des Cantiques”, Vivre et penser: Recherches d’exégèse et d’histoire 3 (1943/44), 192–213; idem, “Littéraires (genres)”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 405–421. 72 Cf. Robert, “Littéraires (genres)”, cols. 411–412, 417–418. 73 P. Kahle. Published as The Cairo Geniza, London 1947; 2nd edition, Oxford 1959. 74 Ibid., 1st edition, 126–127; 2nd edition, 194–195. 75 We can only refer the reader to the many bibliographies for the abundant literature on these finds and their bearing on New Testament and other subjects. 76 A preliminary report on this Targum was given by J. van der Ploeg, Le Targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran (11 QtgJob): Première communication (Mededelingen der koninklijke nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen XXV,9), Amsterdam 1962. 77 Cf. A. Díez Macho, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 (1963), 95–132, at 107, n. 42. 78 This does not prove that the earlier Targums were literal renderings while later ones were paraphrastic, as the Palestinian Targum and many others of our extant texts are. We must remember that the Qumran text was for a more literate community than that for which the Palestinian Targum was destined. The latter arose in a liturgical milieu where paraphrasis was called for.

5. Change of Approach to Jewish Studies (1930–1950)

41

be strikingly similar to that of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch.79 Some writers even maintained that the pesher on Habakkuk presupposed an extant Targum to this book.80 This opened up the possibility of a preChristian date for part, at least, of the Targum to the Prophets. Another Qumran writing that was compared with the Palestinian Targum was the Genesis Apocryphon, a midrashic Aramaic rendering of portions of Genesis.81 In the second edition of his work on the Cairo Genizah Kahle took this new material into consideration.82 In 1949 Guido Kisch re-published the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo.83 The editio princeps of this work was brought out by J. Sichardus in 1527 and was reprinted a number of times in the following years, the last reprint being in 1559. It was almost forgotten until L. Cohn drew attention to it at the end of the nineteenth century,84 and it was unavailable to students in Latin before Kisch’s scholastic edition. The Latin text has been shown to be a fourth-century rendering of a Greek text which, in turn, rendered a Semitic original that dates from the first Christian century. The work contains a wealth of Jewish traditions, at times paralleling those of Josephus and Philo, but more often those known only from later rabbinic writings. Owing in part, at least, to these new discoveries and publications, the entire attitude to Jewish tradition underwent a change from 1930 onwards. Studies now became more preoccupied with history, more interested in tracing the growth of Jewish tradition through the ages than in assembling the sayings of individual rabbis. The ascription of a tradition to a particular rabbi was no longer the sole, nor even the main, criterion for determining the age of the tradition. As has already been noted, the connection of any particular type of exegesis with a particular rabbi in rabbinic tradition may be due merely to an accident in the process of transmission. At some undetermined period it became a norm in rabbinism that, whenever pos79

A comparison of the pesharim with the Palestinian Targum will make the similarity of both forms of paraphrasis evident. Cf. also G. Vermes, “A propos des commentaires bibliques découverts à Qumrân”, RHPR 35 (1955), 95–103. 80 Cf. W. H. Brownlee, “The Dead Sea Habaqquq Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan” (dissertation, Duke University 1953); idem, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan”, JJS 7 (1956), 169–186; idem, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBL Monograph Series 11), Philadelphia 1959; idem, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, BA 14 (1951), 54–76; H. Wieder, “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum”, JJS 4 (1953), 14–18. 81 Cf. M. R. Lehmann, “Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim”, RevQ 1 (1958), 249–263, at 251: “This Scroll fits squarely into the mainstream of Targumim and Midrashim, and probably represents the oldest type available to us.” 82 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, Oxford 1959. 83 G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Notre Dame 1949. 84 L. Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria”, JQR 10 (1898), 277–332.

42

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

sible, traditionists were to name their source and not hand on a tradition anonymously: “A person is bound to speak [i.e., transmit a tradition] in the language of his master” is an oft-cited rabbinic dictum.85 The rule is very practical and still retains its importance in dating otherwise undatable traditions. At most, however, it will bring us back to the earliest attested connection of the tradition within rabbinic Judaism. The more recent approach to Jewish sources has made it possible to get back beyond this. The great collection of haggadoth assembled by W. Bacher still retains its importance, though it is to be used in conjunction with later studies. The stupendous collection of Jewish legends put together by L. Ginzberg has also considerable moment.86 One defect, from our point of view, is that the author has chosen for his text the form that is more explicit rather than that which is oldest. This shortcoming is offset, however, by his invaluable notes in which is given practically every available parallel from other sources, Jewish and Christian.87 The well-known volumes of Strack and Billerbeck88 are more selective in their choice of material; they date the texts where possible and indicate when one is of uncertain value for New Testament exegesis. Targumic material, unfortunately, is given a very secondary place: some very pertinent texts are omitted and others, since they were considered to be of later origin, are deemed unimportant. The outcome of this new approach to Judaism was the desire for a new synthesis. This R. Bloch sought to provide in various articles, particularly that on “Midrash” in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible.89 She had also made a significant contribution in her detailed analysis of the criteria for dating rabbinic material.90 Her sad and untimely death left her projected work unfinished;91 it was continued, however, by the new school of thought 85 E.g., in b. Berakoth 47a; cf. H. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, New York & Philadelphia 1931 (repr. 1959), 17, 246; rev. edition: H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Edinburgh 1991, 44; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Uppsala 1961, 133, etc. 86 L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. including notes, Philadelphia 1909– 1928. 87 These notes are indispensable for tracing the age of Jewish traditions and are still our main resource for this purpose. 88 H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols., Munich 1922–1928, indices later. 89 R. Bloch, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280. (Translated into English by Mary Howard Callaway, with the assistance of J. A. Sanders: “Midrash”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green [BJS 1], Missoula 1978, 29–50.) 90 R. Bloch, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique”, RSR 43 (1955), 104–227. (Translated into English by W. S. Green with W. J. Sullivan, “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, and published in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 51–75.) 91 The plane on which she was travelling from Paris to Israel was shot down over Bulgaria in July of 1955.

6. The Present State of Targumic Studies

43

introduced by Kahle and herself. The latest attempt at a synthesis is G. Vermes’s Scripture and Tradition92 in which he takes up Bloch’s principle that the paraphrasis of the Palestinian Targum is the “point de départ” for rabbinic midrash, “une sorte d’articulation, un passage entre la Bible et la littérature rabbinique postérieure”. By various studies he puts this hypothesis to a rigorous test and finds it valid, giving in the process stringent arguments for the antiquity of blocks of targumic material.

6. The Present State of Targumic Studies Fortune had it that in 1949 Alejandro Díez Macho, MSC, of Barcelona University, should come on a complete copy of the Palestinian Targum in the Vatican Library and identify it as such in 1956.93 It had been long thought that an entire copy of this work no longer existed. (We must recall that neither Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragment Targum, nor the Genizah Fragments contain the entire Palestinian Targum.) This discovery was the most important event in the recent history, or even in the entire history, of targumic studies. Palestinian Targum material was to be further enriched in the following years with the publication of other fragments from the Cairo Genizah.94 At the same time need had been felt for critical editions of the various Targums. A. Sperber has already prepared such editions of Onqelos, the Targums to the Former and to the Latter Prophets.95 In 1966 Neofiti awaited publication in an editio princeps and in the Madrid Polyglot.96 The London manuscript British Museum (now British Library) Additional 27031 with the text of Pseudo-Jonathan, uncritically edited by M. Ginsburger, will be re-edited in the same Polyglot.97 Also in the same work it was intended to publish the Vatican manuscript Ebr. 448 of Onqelos with an older punctua92

G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (StPB 4), Leiden 1961. The find was announced by A. Díez Macho in EstBíb 16 (1956), 446–447, Sefarad 17 (1957), 119–121; cf. A. Boccaccio, “Integer textus Targum Hierosolymitani primum inventum in Codice Vaticano”, Bib 38 (1957), 237–239. The most detailed account of Neofiti 1 is that of Díez Macho in Christian News from Israel, July, 1962, no. 2; a detailed study of the text can also be found in his article, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum, its Antiquity and Relation to the Other Targums”, in Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7), Leiden 1960, 222–245. 94 Cf. A. Díez Macho, “Nuevos Fragmentos del targum Palestinense”, Sefarad 15 (1955), 31–39; W. Baars, “A Targum on Exod XV 7–21 from the Cairo Geniza”, VT 11 (1961), 340–342. 95 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: Onkelos, Leiden 1959; vol. 2: Former Prophets, Leiden 1959; vol. 3: Latter Prophets, Leiden 1962. 96 Cf. Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia: Prooemium, Madrid 1957, 9. (See below “Postscript 2010” to this chapter.) 97 Information supplied by A. Díez Macho, which I here wish to acknowledge. (See below “Postscript 2010” to this chapter.) 93

44

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

tion than in that edited by Sperber.98 A new edition of the Fragment Targum has also been promised.99 Interest has likewise been re-awakened among Jews and Christians in the language of the Palestinian Targum and its relation to that of the New Testament and of first-century Palestine. Hitherto the Aramaic literature at our disposal from New Testament times, or thereabouts, was very meagre. New light has been shed on this matter by the Aramaic documents from the Dead Sea area, in particular by the Aramaic letters written by Bar Koseba which the Jewish expedition of 1960 came upon.100 The deficiencies of the older grammars of Palestinian Aramaic have become evident, and new ones are being prepared for the type of Aramaic found in various manuscripts, Neofiti in particular.101 The results of all these recent studies have been regarded as pointing to an early date for Palestinian Targum, broadly speaking. This Targum, and not Onqelos, represents best the language and ideas of first-century Palestine. It is only natural that no small amount of study has already been given to the bearing of Palestinian Targum on Judaism and the New Testament. The first article we note with regard to its relevance for the New Testament is that of A. Wikgren in 1944.102 His balanced view on the point merits citation in extenso:103 “What may be gained … [by the use of the Targums] as over against the use of rabbinic literature as a whole, if, as is generally alleged, the ideas presented by both are much the same? In reply to these inquiries, we may observe some advantages which appear to exist in an approach through at least certain targumic texts. In the first place, although there is certainly much more material per linear foot in the Talmud, the inherent association of the Targums with the biblical text has furnished a control which obviates much of the rambling and often disconnected presentation of the talmudic writings. Again, although we may miss that ascription of sayings to individual rabbinic teachers which gives a convenient method of dating material in the Talmud, 98

Biblia Polyglotta: Prooemium, 10. (See below “Postscript 2010” to this chapter.) Cf. The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, 202. It is also to be edited in the Madrid Polyglot. (See below “Postscript 2010” to this chapter.) 100 On the discovery of these documents and their language, cf. Y. Yadin, ”The Expedition to the Judean Desert 1960: Expedition D”, IEJ 11 (1961), 40–52. The language of the letters is studied by Y. Kutscher, “Leshonan shel ha-’iggarot ha-‘ibriyyôt wa-’arammiyyôt shel Bar Kosebah û-benê dôro”, Leshonenu 25 (1961), 117–133 (in Hebrew); cf. A. Díez Macho, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 (1963), 95–132, at 109–113. 101 Grammars of Neofiti are already being prepared by students of A. Díez Macho. A grammar of the Aramaic portions of Genesis Rabba from the Vatican manuscript Ebr. 30 is also to be brought out. This manuscript preserves a purer form of Galilean Aramaic than that of the texts edited by Theodor and Albeck in the critical edition of this work, an edition used by H. Odeberg in his Grammar of Galilaean Aramaic, Lund & Leipzig 1939. (See below “Postscript 2010” to this chapter.) 102 A. Wikgren, “The Targums and the New Testament”, JR 24 (1944), 89–95. 103 Wikgren, “The Targums”, 91–92; italics by present writer. 99

6. The Present State of Targumic Studies

45

the midrashim which occur in the Targum were naturally such as had found general acceptance at the time and place of promulgation in this manner. … Moreover, we possess material among the Targums which has apparently not been subjected to as thorough a revisionary process as have most of the talmudic writings. Such data are found particularly in the Pentateuchal Palestinian Targums … These, when compared with such an ‘official’ version as Onkelos … appear to reflect more primitive ideas because of the larger element of early midrash permitted to remain in them, since they did not enjoy that official status which would have made it advisable in a later period to conform them more closely to the Hebrew text and to the then prevalent rabbinic exegesis. Readings, therefore, later castigated by the rabbis as objectionable, may still be found here. Nor do they reflect as much of the reaction to the Christian movement which resulted in the removal or modification of messianic and other allusions and interpretations originally present in the generally accepted translations. Hence, we are much more likely to find data here which originated in the first century, or, indeed, in the period of the first formulation of the Targums.”

Studies later made on individual passages of the Palestinian Targum were to bear out fully Wikgren’s conclusions, which were also those of Kahle and Bloch. M. Black stands within the Kahle school, while Bloch’s position is represented by Vermes104 and others. P. Grelot105 and S. Lyonnet106 have also made contributions, and R. Le Déaut has written a number of useful articles on the manner in which the Palestinian Targum can elucidate the New Testament.107 Particular mention must be made of the latter’s doctoral dissertation, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42.108 In 1964 Díez Macho drew up a list of the various targumic parallels to the New Testament that had been made by other writers and added some of his own.109 In his dissertation the present writer has attempted to make his own contribution to present-day Palestinian Targum studies.110 The work examines the relations between the Palestinian Targum and the New Testa104 Some of his earlier studies are to be found in his work Scripture and Tradition (see n. 92 above). 105 Cf., for example, P. Grelot, “De son ventre couleront des fleuves d’eau”, RB 66 (1959), 369–386; idem, “A propos de Jean VII, 38”, 67 (1960), 224–225; idem, “Sagesse 10,21 et le targum de l’Exode”, Bib 42 (1961), 49–60; idem, “L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe LXIII, 1–6”, RB 70 (1963), 371–380. 106 Cf. S. Lyonnet, “‘Tu ne convoiteras pas’ (Rom vii 7)”, in Neotestamentica et Patristica [Festschrift O. Cullmann], Leiden 1962, 157–165; idem, “Saint Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps”, in Mélanges bibliques: Rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert, Paris 1957, 494–506, and his exegetical notes to the students of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome. 107 Cf. the various studies of R. Le Déaut in RSR 49 (1961), 103–106; Spiritus 7 (1961), 127–144 = Assemblées du Seigneur 51 (1972), 22–38; Bib 42 (1961), 28–48, etc. 108 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome 1963. 109 A. Díez Macho, “Targum y Nuevo Testamento”, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 1 (Studi e Testi 234), Vatican 1964, 153–185. 110 M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum.

46

Chapter 1: Targumic Studies

ment from various angles: for example, how personages of Jewish tradition are viewed in both; the relation of Apocalypse to the Palestinian Targum and other targumic texts; aspects of the messianic doctrine in both Palestinian Targum and New Testament; some linguistic points of contact between the Palestinian Targum and the New Testament. The following gives some examples of the contents of the dissertation and published work: In Rom 10:6–8 it appears that Paul is following the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Deut 30:10–12 which he adapts to the New Testament situation. In the Palestinian Targum text there is reference to Moses; Paul applies it to Christ, the new Moses and lawgiver. A comparison of the text and context of 2 Cor 3:17 with Pseudo-Jonathan to Exodus 34 and the parallel passage of Num 7:89 appears to indicate that the Apostle is under the influence of the paraphrase in Pseudo-Jonathan when he affirms that “the Lord is the Spirit”. In Ps.-J. Num 7:89 we read that in the tent of meeting Moses conversed with “the Spirit” (MT: “the voice”), which for Judaism was Yahweh as he revealed his will to his people. The “Lord” for Paul in 2 Cor 3:17 would then be the God of Israel of which the Old Testament and the Targum speak, rather than Christ. In the New Testament as in the Old Testament, through his Spirit God will reveal to Israel the true role of the Mosaic dispensation. The relation of 2 Tim 3:8 (“Jannes and Jambres”) to Ps.-J. Exod 7:11 reveals that Paul is here very likely following this same Targum. The figures of Cain and Abel, Isaac and Balaam are viewed in like manner in the Palestinian Targum and the New Testament. The Apocalypse (The Revelation of John) in particular shows a very close relation with the Palestinian Targum, especially with Pseudo-Jonathan. Targumic texts tend to show that Paul is thinking in Jewish categories found in the Targums when he uses such typically Hellenistic terms as Ěċěěđĝưċ, and őĚēĠƪėďēċ. In Neofiti we find an Aramaic word (ĔĉĎ, ĔĉėĎý) that may well lie behind the ƊĢģĒǻėċē of John 12:32, 34: what is particularly interesting is the fact that Neofiti has the same word-play on ĔĉĎ (“to ascend”; ĔĉėĎý – “to be taken up”, “to die”) that we find on ƊĢģĒǻėċē in John.

The Palestinian Targum has certainly established a prima facie case for serious consideration on the part of New Testament scholars. A glance at the exegetical works of S. Lyonnet111 and D. Mollat112 among others, shows how seriously the new targumic studies are being taken by some exegetes. Their number will doubtless increase in the years ahead. Much work yet remains to be done, but we believe that the views of Kahle, the pioneer in Palestinian Targum studies, will be amply borne out. Kahle expressed his position as follows:113 “We can learn many more details from them [the Targums] than from the material collected by Billerbeck or Bonsirven. Their voluminous works only serve to indicate 111 See, for example, S. Lyonnet, Quaestiones in Epistulam ad Romanos, Series altera, Rome 1962, 103–106. He also uses them in his unpublished notes on 2 Corinthians. 112 Cf., for example, the various editions of his notes on John and the Pauline Epistles (Rome: Gregorian University). 113 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, 208.

7. Postscript 2010

47

what the conditions were at the time of the reorganization of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple: they show us how the rabbis rebuilt Judaism for the future. In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch we have in the main material coming from pre-Christian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.”

7. Postscript 2010 The material in this chapter was originally published in 1966. The following updates are now (2010) indicated (especially with regard to nn. 96, 97, 99): In general see also below, Appendix 3: “Modern Targum Critical Editions”. Editio princeps of Codex Neofiti 1: A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols., Madrid & Barcelona, vol. 1: Génesis, 1968; vol. 2: Éxodo, 1970; vol. 3: Levítico, 1971; vol. 4: Números, 1974; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978. A critical edition of the London manuscript British Museum (now British Library) Additional 27031 of Pseudo-Jonathan was published, together with the critical edition of all texts of the Palestinian Targums, in the Madrid Polyglot 1977–1989, as follows: A. Díez Macho (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio. Editio critica curante A. Díez Macho, adjuvantibus L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, T. Martínez Saiz. Pseudojonathan hispanica versio: T. Martínez Saiz. Targum Palaestinensis testimonia ex variis fontibus: R. Griño (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), Madrid, vol. 4: Numeri, 1977; vol. 2: Exodus, 1980; vol. 3: Leviticus, 1980; vol. 5: Deuteronomium, 1980; vol. 1: Genesis, 1989. An edition of the same London manuscript was earlier made by D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch copied from the London MS. (British Museum Add. 27031), Jerusalem 1974 (repr. with Hebrew translation and notes, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1984–1985). Edition of Fragment Targums: M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources (AnBib 76), 2 vols., Rome 1980. Edition of the Cairo Genizah Palestinian Targum text: M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Cincinnati 1986. Edition of the London Manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan, as noted just above: by D. Rieder and in the Madrid Polyglot. Note 98. As noted above in the introduction (p. 4) Díez Macho never succeeded in publishing the Vatican manuscript Ebr. 448. A photostatic edition of the manuscript was published in 1977.

Chapter 2

Half a Century of Targum Study* The Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, commonly known as Targums or Targumim, have in recent years been the subject of intense study. The rapid development of this branch of enquiry has, in fact, been almost incredible. An idea of the extent of this development can be gathered from the special surveys and bibliographies that have been compiled and published. In 1967 the Biblical Institute Press, Rome, published a small booklet, entitled: Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography together with a New Testament Index.1 Fourteen pages were devoted to the bibliography of writings on the subject and the remainder (74 pages) to the index of New Testament passages studied in these writings. The author was P. Nickels, OFM Conv. In 1972 B. Grossfeld’s A Bibliography at Targum Literature appeared,2 with 1054 entries. In 1977 a second volume of Grossfeld’s work was published, bringing the number of entries to 1852. Grossfeld felt the need for this second volume because of the deficiencies of his first attempt and the continued growth in this particular field of study.3 Others besides Grossfeld himself had noted the deficiencies of his first edition and his bibliography was supplemented by such Targum scholars as M. Klein4 and A. Díez Macho, MSC (1974).5 In 1974 another authority in Targum studies, R. Le Déaut, CSSp contributed two major studies on the subject: “The Current State at Targumic Studies” and “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”, both in Biblical Theology Bulletin.6 The essays represent papers delivered to the Society of Biblical Literature, evidence of the interest of this learned Society in this new branch of study. Still in 1974 a special publication in this field was begun, intended to keep interested scholars abreast of the research being published and in progress in this branch of * First published, under the same title, in Irish Bible Studies 1 (1979), 57–68. 1 P. Nickels, Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography together with a New Testament Index, Rome 1967. 2 B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography at Targum Literature, Cincinnati & New York 1972. 3 In 1990 Grossfeld published a third volume of his Bibliography of Targum Literature, with xx, 91 pages, entries nos. 1823* to 2846. 4 M. Klein, in a review of Grossfeld’s Bibliography, in Bib 55 (1974), 281–285. 5 A. Díez Macho, “Bibliographia Targumica”, in Neophyti 1: Números, ed. by A. Díez Macho, Madrid & Barcelona 1974, 11*–16*. 6 R. Le Déaut in BTB 4 (1974), 3–32 and 243–289.

1. The Situation in 1930

49

learning. It was the Newsletter for Targum Studies, edited in Victoria College, Toronto. In the entry on “Targums” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume,7 and to a lesser extent in the supplement to the second printing of The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome 1978), the present writer gave a review of recent studies on the Targums, concentrating on trends and likely future directions. The continuing interest in this new field of research is clear from the entries in the Newsletter for Targum Studies and in Elenchus Bibliographicus of the quarterly Biblica, the latter edited by P. Nober and published by the Biblical Institute, Rome. The present situation in targumic studies can best be seen in the light of the research and discoveries carried out over the past fifty years. Before considering this contemporary situation, I believe it best to review first the development over the relevant decades.

1. The Situation in 1930 The year 1930 proved to be a turning-point in targumic studies. It marked the end of one era and the beginning of a new approach that is still with us. We may begin with Targums known in 1930. The Aramaic texts of the Targums available to students in 1930 were basically those that had been known for centuries. For the Pentateuch there were the Targum traditionally ascribed to Onqelos, the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums. The Targum of Onqelos tends to be a literal rendering, sparing in paraphrase. The form of Aramaic in which it is written is related to the Aramaic of the Bible, and yet somewhat later than this in its grammatical forms. In language, as in the nature of its paraphrase, Onqelos is set off from Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum, whose form of Aramaic is related to that of Jewish Palestinian and Galilean sources. Whereas Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan contain a rendering of the entire Pentateuch, the Fragment Targum, as the very name implies, has a rendering of only certain sections, sometimes of just a few words. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan continues to present special problems, particularly with regard to its relation to the Targum of Onqelos. It is clearly a composite work. While some sections seem to be very old, there are also recent references – such as the mention of the names of the wife and daughter of Muhammad and of the six orders of the Mishnah. Portions of it are verbally identical with, or very similar to, Onqelos, both as regard language and paraphrase; others are

7

M. McNamara, “Targums”, IDBSup, 856–861.

50

Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study

similar to the Palestinian Targum as known from the Fragment Targum in 1930, and now as known from other texts also. Together with these Targums of the Pentateuch, there was also the Targum of the Prophets – the second section of the Hebrew Canon. In style and language, this Targum was similar to that of Onqelos. In 1930 there were also Targums known for all the books of the Writings (the “Ketubim”) with the exception of the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah – portions of which were in Aramaic in the original.8 A question exercising minds at that time was the date to be assigned to the Targums. The prevailing view in 1930 with regard to the dating of the Targums was that the oldest was Onqelos. Next came the Targum of the Prophets and, as much more recent, that of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum, the former not any earlier than the seventh century c.e. This dating of the Targums was due mainly to the influence of G. Dalman, a scholar who at an earlier stage in his researches thought that sections of Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Fragment Targum could well be very old, even pre-Christian but later changed his mind. It must be admitted that the date of the available texts of both PseudoJonathan and the Fragment Targum presented a formidable obstacle with regard to assigning an early date to the paraphrases. These were no earlier than the sixteenth century. It was natural that this prevailing view on the date of the Targums should affect the use made of them in New Testament studies, though in this regard a change had taken place. Earlier, some Christian scholars had freely used the Targums in the belief that they antedated the Christian era. By 1930, however, the Targums tended to be set aside, whether as witnesses for Jewish beliefs in the time of Christ or for an understanding of the New Testament itself.

8 All these Targums have been available in print for some centuries before 1930, and were all provided with Latin translations. Some of them had English translations, as for instance all the known texts of the Targums of the Pentateuch which had been translated by J. W. Etheridge (London, 1862–1865). With the exceptions of the Targums of the Books of Chronicles, all the texts had been printed, together with Latin translations, in Walton’s London Polyglot Bible (1653–1657). Only at a later date did manuscripts of the Targums of Chronicles become known. These were published respectively by M. F. Beck and D. Wilkens in 1680 and 1715. Later more easily accessible Aramaic texts of the Targums were made available, notably that of Onqelos, edited by A. Berliner (1884) and those of the Prophets and Hagiographa by P. de Lagarde in 1872 and 1873 respectively. Since the beginning of the Golden Age of Jewish Studies in 1850, quite an amount of research has been done in Jewish tradition, including the Targums. The Aramaic of Palestinian sources and of the Targums had also been studied and a grammar produced by G. Dalman: Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (1894; 2nd edition 1905). The bearing of the Targums on the study of the New Testament also received attention.

2. A New Approach 1930–1950

51

This prevailing attitude was not however shared by all. In 1921 R. Harris had written on “Traces of Targumism in the New Testament” in the Expository Times9 and other scholars re-echoed his sentiments on the utility of the Targums for New Testament research. The prevalent position, however, based as it was on a presumed late date, could only be effectively countered either by new finds, or by a new approach to the question of dating, or by a combination of both. It remained for the next two decades to provide this.

2. A New Approach 1930–1950 This period 1930–1950 opened and closed with the publication of new texts of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch.10 It was also characterised by a new approach to the study of Jewish tradition and the dating of individual Jewish traditions. The first texts to be published were the fragments of the Palestinian Targum, earlier found in the Genizah of Old Cairo.11 The texts were quite extensive and represented all five books of the Pentateuch, though the greater part was from Genesis. In Kahle’s opinion the manuscripts ranged in date from the late seventh or early eighth century to the eleventh. Thus we were provided with texts, some of which would be at least nine hundred years or so older than the manuscripts hitherto known. Yet despite being so much earlier, the type of paraphrase and language was in the main the same as that of the later texts. Another significant development during this period was a renewed interest in the presence of Jewish midrashic and haggadic material in such early Jewish writings as the Septuagint Greek translation, the works of Josephus, and the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. Studies of this sort were preparing the way for a comparative study of Jewish traditions and providing material for the dating of portions at least of the midrash and haggadah found in the Targums. It was inevitable that the finds from Qumran from 1947 onwards should in due time affect a portion of scholarly opinion in regard to the value of the Targums for New Testament research. For one thing, the Qumran texts could be precisely dated, the latest of them from the first century c.e. Then again, the Aramaic material from Qumran provided new evidence for at 9 R. Harris, “Traces of Targumism in the New Testament”, ExpTim 32 (1920/21), 373–376. 10 For this period see further above, pp. 38–43. 11 These were published by P. Kahle in 1930 in his monumental work Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930 (repr. Hildesheim 1967). Kahle published fragments from six different manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum.

52

Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study

least one form of Aramaic being used in the Palestine of Jesus’ day and slightly earlier, and furthermore in a form of Aramaic which was rather similar to that of Onqelos but significantly different from that of the Palestinian Targums. Another significant fact provided by the Qumran finds included the large sections of a Targum of Job and the small fragment of a Targum of Leviticus 16. The Aramaic of the latter was again somewhat similar to the Onqelos kind of language and rendering. And last, but by no means least, there is the evidence for the Qumran interpretation of Scripture provided by the scrolls, both in the special Scripture commentaries or pesharim and in other writings of the sect. The Targum school of exegesis, if one may be allowed so to designate it, had in the Qumran school a very definite rival or at least a body of evidence which could not be ignored, a clearly defined corpus of literature, coming from Palestine or its environs, dating in the time of Christ or shortly before it, possessing a certain understanding of the Scriptures, and, in part, written in Aramaic. Despite this, however, interest in the newly maturing targumic approach was only beginning to gather momentum. The new science was greatly aided by another chance find just two years after the discovery of the first scrolls in Qumran. This was the discovery of the manuscript now known as Codex Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. As the enumeration suggests, it is the first manuscript of the Neofiti collection of manuscripts. These once belonged to the Pia Domus Neophytorum, a house founded in Rome for converts from Judaism. The manuscripts of the house and college were sold and transferred to the Vatican Library during the tenure of its last rector who took up office in 1886. This particular manuscript was catalogued as Onqelos and this may have been the principal reason for it not attracting the attention of scholars. A scholar by the name of A. Díez Macho took a special interest in the Onqelos manuscripts and had a microfilm made of the manuscript Codex Neofiti 1 in the first instance. He gradually came to realise that it was not Onqelos, but a full copy of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, the only one known to exist. In 1956 he identified the manuscript for what it really was and made this known to other scholars in the field.

3. Contemporary Targum Studies 1950–1979 The stage for modern research in the Targums had been firmly set by 1950. The study of Jewish tradition continued and gathered momentum. Special attention was devoted to midrash, to the Jewish attitude to Scriptures, to their interpretation in the light of new situations, and to the midrashic works in which this understanding of the Scriptures was to be found. The

3. Contemporary Targum Studies 1950–1979

53

study of Jewish midrash was pursued particularly by R. Bloch in the midfifties, but she was ably supported by others, notably G. Vermes. Bloch also made a detailed study of the criteria to be used for the determination of the age of otherwise undated Jewish traditions.12 A work which was to become a classic in the presentation of the case for the use of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch in New Testament studies was The Cairo Geniza by P. Kahle. In the second edition of his work (1959), Kahle expresses himself as follows:13 “In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch we have in the main material coming from pre-Christian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.”

Coincidentally, the date of this quotation roughly marks the beginning of a new era in the use of the Targums in New Testament research, and in the use of the Palestinian Targums in particular. Two years previously (in 1957) S. Lyonnet of the Biblical Institute, Rome had written on the importance of the targumic paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 for an understanding of Rom 10:6–8.14 In Paris P. Grelot was devoting his attention to the same question.15 In the early sixties R. Le Déaut was beginning to produce the first of his many contributions on the subject. His doctoral thesis, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 4216 was the first major monograph on the subject in modern times. From the mid-sixties right down to our own day studies of the kind Kahle would have desired have come in rather rapid succession. The pace has accelerated particularly during the 1970s. The new studies tended to concentrate on the relationship of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch with the New Testament. The range of such studies can be seen from a glance at one of the surveys or bibliographies noted at the beginning of this essay. Many points of contact between the two bodies of literature were noted. In the Targums, for instance, extensive use is made of such expressions as “The Word (Memra) of the Lord”, or of 12

See further above p. 42 and below pp. 91, 413–414. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, Oxford 1959, 208. 14 S. Lyonnet, “Saint Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps: À propos de Rom. 10,6–8”, in Mélanges bibliques: Rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert, Paris 1957, 494–506. 15 P. Grelot, “De son ventre couleront des fleuves d’eau”, RB 66 (1959), 369–386; idem, “A propos de Jean VII, 38”, RB 67 (1960), 224–225; idem, “L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe LXIII, 1–6”, RB 70 (1963), 371–380; idem, “Sagesse 10,21 et le targum de l’Exode, Bib 42 (1961), 49–60. 16 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale, Rome 1963. 13

54

Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study

the Lord’s Glory (Shekinah), possibly with the intention of safeguarding the divine transcendence. These terms and expressions were seen to have relevance for the understanding of the use of “Logos”, “glory” and so forth, in the Fourth Gospel. It is probably for the same reason that the Targums speak of God communicating his will to his people through his Word (Dibbera, Dibbura) or through his Spirit. In this, too, a relationship was seen with certain New Testament texts, for instance 2 Cor 3:17. In the Palestinian Targum God is occasionally spoken of as “your (their, his …) Father in heaven”. We read of persons having merit “before their Father in heaven”. We even find the expression: “Be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful.” The corresponding New Testament phrases naturally come to mind, and it was natural to conclude that Jesus and the early Christian community were merely using phrases current in the religious vocabulary of the Jews of their time. Other good targumic phrases and terms of the same sort are “the great day of judgement”, “this world – the world to come”, Gehenna, Paradise, redeemer, redemption. The relationship between the two bodies of literature went far beyond such phrases and isolated terms. In the Targums we find a certain theology or tradition woven around certain persons or events in the biblical narrative, for instance, the events of the Garden of Eden, the Sacrifice or Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22), the ladder of Jacob (Genesis 28), the well of Jacob, circumcision, the well believed to have followed the Jews during the desert wanderings (see 1 Cor 10:4) and others besides. The Binding of Isaac in Jewish tradition was looked on as expiatory and this tradition was regarded by some scholars as the background against which Paul considered the death of Christ. The Targums have much to say on the Torah, identified with divine wisdom, regarded as the tree of life and thus salvific. These attributes of the Torah were regarded by scholars as affording St Paul material for some of his statements on Christ. Thus Paul would have transferred to Christ what Jewish tradition, as found in the Targums, predicated of the law. Targumics was becoming a branch of study in its own right, emphasis now being placed on the once neglected tradition of the Palestinian Targum, with special attention being devoted to the text of Neofiti.17 17 The text of Neofiti 1 was published in five volumes between 1968 (Genesis) and 1978 (Deuteronomy), together with Spanish, French and English translations and with extensive introductions by the editor (A. Díez Macho), introductions with an indication of recent writings on the subject: A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Madrid & Barcelona, vol.  1: Génesis, 1968; vol.  3: Levítico, 1971; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978. The same editor has also prepared a critical edition of all the Palestinian Targums. The first volume with the Palestinian Targum of Numbers (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, Genizah texts, Fragment Targums, with a Spanish translation of Pseudo-Jonathan) has already appeared as part of the Madrid Polyglot (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, Madrid 1977). The entire Pentateuch in the Madrid Polyglot has

3. Contemporary Targum Studies 1950–1979

55

Another point that has received attention is the transmission of the Palestinian Targum. As noted earlier, most of the major texts are late – from the sixteenth century. However, with the aid of early rabbinic citations and later Jewish writings, its history can be traced back beyond this late date. It is reasonably certain that a text of the Palestinian Targum, almost identical with that of Neofiti, was used by Rabbi Nathan ben Ye iel († 1106) in the compilation of his dictionary known as the Aruk. The Genizah texts and some early rabbinic citations take us back beyond this date. The relationship of the Targums to Jewish midrashic (haggadic and halakic) tradition has also been studied. Here the most detailed study has been made by Rabbi M. Kasher, author of the huge thirty-five volume work, Torah Shelemah, described in the sub-title as a “Talmudic-Midrashic Encyclopedia of the Pentateuch, … containing a complete collection of commentaries and notes from the earliest Hebrew works up to the Geonic period”. He was already well advanced in his researches when he made the acquaintance of Neofiti. He soon came to believe that its paraphrase was very old and treats of it in detail in volume 24 of his work. The work is devoted to a study of the Aramaic versions of the Bible, with a comprehensive study of Onqelos, Jonathan (that is, Targum of the Prophets), Jerusalem or Palestinian Targums, and the full Jerusalem Targum of Vatican manuscript, Neofiti 1. The title page further tells us that Kasher’s work treats of “the original methods of these Targums, their relation to one another, and the analysis of their use as sources in post-biblical literature”.18 Kasher’s position is that Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti are basically from the time of Ezra, that the Mishnah depends on the Targums, likewise early (Beth Hillel, Beth Shammai) and later Jewish tradition. Together with these different studies, attempts were also made to refine the criteria for dating Jewish and targumic traditions. been published as follows: A. Díez Macho (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio. Editio critica curante A. Díez Macho, adjuvantibus L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, T. Martínez Saiz. Pseudojonatan hispanica versio: T. Martínez Saiz. Targum Palaestinensis testimonia ex variis fontibus: R. Griño (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), Madrid, vol. 4: Numeri, 1977; vol. 2: Exodus, 1980; vol. 3: Leviticus, 1980; vol. 5: Deuteronomium, 1980; vol. 1: Genesis, 1989 (after Díez Macho’s death in 1984). Other editions of the Targums have also been made. Grammars of Neofiti have also been written, but as yet for the most part have been unpublished, with the exception of D. M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti, Chico 1985. Studies too have been made of the age to be assigned to the form of Aramaic found in the Palestinian Targum. 18 Of special importance is vol. 24, and later vol. 35: M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 24: Aramaic Versions of the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of Onkelos, Jonathan, Jerusalem Targums and the Full Jerusalem Targum of the Vatican Manuscript Neofiti 1, Jerusalem 1974; idem, Torah Shelemah, vol. 35 (= Aramaic Versions of the Bible, vol. 2), Jerusalem 1983.

56

Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study

In what is sometimes referred to as “the Kahle School” a certain attitude was discernible with regard to the Palestinian Targum and its relationship to the New Testament. The interpretative tradition enshrined in this Targum, if not the Targum itself, was generally assumed to be very old and basically pre-Christian. The Aramaic, in which the tradition is now found, tended to be regarded as representing the spoken dialect of Galilee, if not of all Palestine, in the first century c.e. Qumran Aramaic could then be a literary language rather than a spoken vernacular. The first position – regarding the antiquity of the tradition – was more strongly adhered to than the latter. Writing in 1970, as a rule of thumb on the antiquity of Jewish midrash in general, Vermes could give the following working hypothesis: “unless there is specific proof to the contrary, the haggadah of the Palestinian Targums is likely to antedate the outbreak of the Second Jewish Revolt in a.d. 132”.19 Positions were less dogmatic with regard to the date to be assigned to the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum. While this may conceivably be later than New Testament times – say post-200 c.e. – the tradition it enshrined was not thereby shown to be recent. The language could change, while the tradition it transmitted was older. It was inevitable that the positions and presuppositions of the so-called “Kahle” School should in time be challenged, both as regards the date to be assigned to the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum and then to the tradition itself. And with the antiquity of the targumic tradition called into question, the very utility of the Targums for New Testament research would naturally be queried. The early date assigned to the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum was an obvious target for attack, since abundant material from Qumran was available for comparison. Some specialists in the history of Aramaic maintained that its peculiar forms showed that it was post-200 c.e. at the earliest. As against this, others maintained that the use of the Qumran material in this discussion was not decisive and possibly not justified. The Qumran material represented the literary form of the language, whereas the Aramaic of the Targums would represent the spoken language, at least of Galilee. Another form of the argument for a late date for the Palestinian Targum runs as follows: the Qumran and literary documents represent the literary Aramaic of the schools of Judea prior to the destruction of these in the Bar Cochba revolt (135 c.e.), when the centre of Jewish life and literary activity moved to Galilee. Any literary work prior to 135 c.e. would be in this literary language. Since the Palestinian Targums are not, they are to be dated as 19 G. Vermes, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. by P. R. Acroyd & V. F. Evans, Cambridge, England 1970, 199–231, at 231.

4. Criticism of Criticisms

57

post-135 c.e. In a doctoral dissertation on the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, A. Tal (Rosenthal) concluded that the Targum of the Prophets and Onqelos were composed before 135 c.e., while Neofiti is to be assigned a date later than this.20 The objection, however, was not limited to the question of language. The methodology used by scholars in their employment of targumic evidence in New Testament studies was queried. It was stated that they presumed rather than proved that the targumic tradition was old. They were accused of circular reasoning, proving from their relationship to the New Testament that the Targums were old and using them in New Testament research since they were presumed to be ancient. The absence from Qumran documents of such typically targumic concepts and expressions as Memra, Shekinah, and Dibbera led some to query the age of the usage of these in Judaism. Another point made in these criticisms is that because an identical or similar expression or tradition is found in both Targums and the New Testament, the dependence must be on the part of the latter. Could it not as easily have been the other way around – that the relationship is due to the dependence of Jewish tradition on the New Testament? This observation has been made with regard to such expressions as “Father in heaven”. It has more recently been put forward with regard to the Aqedah or Binding of Isaac theology, that is, the Jewish theology found in the Palestinian Targum on the expiatory nature of the sacrifice of Isaac and, for that reason, used as a presumed background to Paul’s teaching. This Jewish theology has been considered as later than the New Testament and formed precisely as a Jewish reaction to New Testament and patristic teaching on the atonement. Thus it is that at the present moment (by 1980) we had reached a critical stage in the study of the Targums in their relationship to the New Testament. On the one hand serious New Testament scholars were turning ever more to the Targums in their study of the New Testament message, while the relevance of the Targums and of the whole operation was being called into question by others.

4. Criticism of Criticisms Ours is an age of criticism, so much so in fact that some are calling for the criticism of criticisms. In the Biblical field we are seeing the relevance of 20 Dissertation published as: A. Tal (Rosenthal), The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects, Tel Aviv 1975 (Hebrew, with an English summary at vii–xii).

58

Chapter 2: Half a Century of Targum Study

archaeological evidence for biblical research being called into question, for instance in the evaluation of the patriarchal traditions, and of the traditions relating to the Exodus and the settlement. The strengths and weaknesses of such established methods as Source and Form Criticism are queried. It is not in the least surprising that such a new science as that of targumic research should have its presuppositions, methods and conclusions called into question. In fact it is only good and proper that it should, since it is only by criticism that methodology is refined. Genuine criticism raises real problems. New sciences tend to make some sweeping assertions. What, we may ask, is likely to be the outcome of this criticism with regard to the value of the Targums for New Testament studies? Will it be shown, or has it been shown, that the targumic tradition, and that of the Palestinian Targum in particular, is too recent to be used prudently in this research? Is the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum definitely post-200 c.e.? I do not think that the ground gained by this recent targumic research will so easily be shown to be irrelevant. The arguments in favour of the antiquity of the tradition are too strong for this. The evidence with regard to individual instances of a relationship, the Aqedah tradition for instance, will have to be seriously evaluated to see whether we can show that Jewish tradition is really dependent on Christian teaching, not vice versa. This is work that must go ahead, but scarcely calls for suspension of judgement on the relevance of the Targums, and of the Palestinian Targum in particular, for New Testament study. There is one important truth, however, that these new criticisms point up, and that is that the methodology to be employed in the use of targumic evidence in New Testament research needs to be further studied and refined. This is a matter to which I intend to return at a later date.21

5. Postscript 2010 This essay was published originally in 1979, with a minimum of footnotes. I have decided to retain the original format for the greater part. A number of the issues mentioned will be considered in greater detail in later essays.

21 This was attempted by the present writer on a number of occasions, most recently in “Contemporary Approaches to Targums and New Testament. Methodological Considerations”, in M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 9–19; and below, in chapter 22, pp. 480–517.

Chapter 3

The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study* The literatures of many countries have been laid under contribution by students of the New Testament in their efforts to find the cultural background from which the New Testament writings sprang. The writings and traditions of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Palestine all have been seen at one time or another to have influenced the New Testament writings in a greater or lesser degree. The case for Egypt and Babylon never appeared too strong. For Persia a better case could be made, but her glory and fascination had faded by New Testament times. That Greek civilization should have influenced the New Testament writers to a fair degree seems evident. After all, Paul was born in the Greek world and became a Greek to the Greeks when preaching the Gospel. What wonder if we find evidence of Greek culture – distinct from Jewish – in his epistles. Some have even thought the author of the Apocalypse (The Revelation of John) was drawing in good part on Greek imagery and ideas when describing his visions. And it may not appear strange that Greek ideas can be seen in the Gospels, particularly that of St John. The relative importance of Hellenism and Judaism in the New Testament writings is a well-known bone of contention among the learned. Recent researches in the Fourth Gospel, at any rate, tend to show that Jewish culture predominates where some earlier students saw evidence of Hellenistic influence. The richest source of Jewish parallels to the New Testament is found, it would appear, in rabbinic writings. To those we can add the apocalyptic writings and, in recent years, the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the Dead Sea literature and the apocalyptic writings really belong to marginal, rather than to normative Judaism. While they parallel the New Testament in word and concept in certain places, there are other New Testament phrases to which they offer no parallel, such as the invocation of God as “Father in heaven”, to mention only one. In other words, we must go beyond them for a reconstruction of Jewish belief of the New Testament period.

* First published, under the same title, in Scrip 18 (1966), 47–56 (= Irish Ecclesiastical Record 109 [1968], 158–165).

60

Chapter 3: The Aramaic Translations

Rabbinic writings, such as the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud and homiletic midrashim offer a wealth of New Testament parallels; a glance at Billerbeck’s Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch is proof of this.1 The value of these writings is limited, since they represent Judaism as it was formulated after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. The bulk of the homiletic midrashim, in fact, comes from the Jewish schools of the third or fourth Christian centuries. Of course, we can trace a certain amount of this back to pre-Christian times and even when proof of a pre-Christian date cannot be established, it can in many cases be presumed. None the less, the difficulty remains and together with it we must reckon with the fact that rabbinic material is linked with the Jewish schools, and was not necessarily known to the ordinary people.

1. The Targums in Jewish Life A more promising line of enquiry in the search for a source which reflects the religious ideas of the Jews of Our Lord’s time would appear to be the Targums, that is the translations of the Old Testament into Aramaic, the vernacular of Palestine in the time of Christ. When the Hebrew Bible first came to be translated into the Aramaic vernacular we cannot say. Certain it is, though, that the recitation of an Aramaic rendering of the portion of the Hebrew Text read in the synagogue on the Sabbath was an established custom in the days of Christ. In the regular Sabbath synagogue service portions of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets were read, and immediately afterwards rendered into the Aramaic vernacular, somewhat as a vernacular rendering of the Epistle and Gospel used be given on Sundays in the Catholic Church in the days of the all-Latin Mass. The custom of this vernacular Aramaic translation was to make the common people understand the message of the Hebrew Text.2 From this it would follow that the translation would be paraphrastic rather than literal; recent ideas and religious expectations would be introduced and contemporary place names would replace older ones. At the beginning of the institution of the vernacular rendering, it would appear that the paraphrase served both as translation and homily. It is not then surprising that the paraphrase would be done in a style to hold the attention of the audience, and in the everyday language of the people. The targumic method is then midrashic, showing particularly all the characteristics of the genre as listed in R. Bloch’s article “Midrash” in the Supple1 H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols., Munich 1922–1928, indices later; reprinted 1961. 2 See Neh 8:8.

2. The Date of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch

61

ment to Vigouroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible.3 This form of “translation” or “targumizing” is very old. A number of the characteristics noted above can be found in the Septuagint rendering, notably in the Book of Isaiah which has been described by some as a Greek Targum.

2. The Date of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch At the present moment we have Targums for all the books of the Old Testament, excepting Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, portions of which were already in Aramaic. We have more than one Targum for some books: thus for the Pentateuch we have the rather literal rendering of Onqelos and the very paraphrastic Palestinian Targum. The former is written in a rather scholastic Aramaic dialect of Palestine. The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch is somewhat like the Vetus Latina. It never got a recension to reduce its varying texts to a unity and is now extant in its entirety in the recently discovered Codex Neofiti 1. It is also extant in fragments to certain verses in the so-called Fragment Targum, and in a different form of text in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, whose text has a number of paraphrases proper to itself. The question that will immediately occur is why we do not turn to the paraphrastic Targums as evidence of the language and ideas of ordinary people of New Testament Palestine. After all, Targums were then in common use and must have nurtured the spirituality of those who attended the synagogues. The long neglect of the Targums in general, of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch in particular, is easily explained. There can be no doubt that some Targums, notably those to the Five Scrolls (the Megilloth), are comparatively recent compositions, being dependent on the Talmud, and coming from the seventh or eighth century c.e. Pseudo-Jonathan makes mention of the wife and daughter of Muhammad. This all led to a distrust of the Palestinian Targum as a witness of New Testament Judaism. This distrust is due mainly to the authority of G. Dalman, who considered Onqelos as much older than the Palestinian Targum, this latter coming in his view from the fourth or fifth century c.e. In 1930 P. Kahle published some fragments of the Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah, the oldest of which he dated to the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century. If the Targum was being committed to writing at this time the tradition it enshrines must be far older. From the date of Kahle’s publication, the general approach to Jewish studies 3 R. Bloch, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280. (Translated into English by M. H. Callaway, with the assistance of J. A. Sanders: “Midrash”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green [BJS 1], Missoula 1978, 29–50.)

62

Chapter 3: The Aramaic Translations

was also undergoing a change. The comparative and retrogressive methods were coming into vogue and one study after another indicated that much material, at least, in the Palestinian Targum was very old and pre-Christian. New Testament scholars were also turning to it to find there striking parallels to New Testament texts, parallels often not traceable elsewhere. The researches of R. Bloch, P. Kahle, M. Black, G. Vermes, S. Lyonnet, P. Grelot, R. Le Déaut, A. Díez Macho, J. Ramón Díaz among others made all this clear.4 The Palestinian Targum was by now seen to be, basically, an older rendering than Onqelos, and one to which students could turn in the task of building a reliable picture of Judaism of the first century c.e. and for the elucidation of New Testament problems. The words of P. Kahle are borne out by results. In the book The Cairo Geniza he writes of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch as follows:5 “We can learn many more details from them [Palestinian Targum texts] than from the material collected by Billerbeck or Bonsirven. Their voluminous works only serve to indicate what the conditions were at the time of the reorganization of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple: they show us how the Rabbis rebuilt Judaism for the future. In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch we have in the main material coming from pre-Christian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.”

3. Recent and Forthcoming Publications of Targums Students of the Targums labour under many handicaps due to the long neglect of this field of Jewish literature. To begin with they will find no good recent introduction to the Targums in which they can find ready reference to the problems involved and the present state of targumic studies. Unless the students are able to handle an Aramaic text they will be faced with the difficulty of finding translations. The standard work is still Brian Walton’s London Polyglot (1653–1657; reprinted 1964, 6 vols., folio) where the Aramaic text and a Latin translation of all Targums, except that of Chronicles, can be found. If they are lucky they may come on an English translation of the Targum of Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch (i.e. Pseudo-Jonathan), made by J. W. Etheridge and published in two volumes in 4 For greater detail on the Targums and on their bearing on New Testament studies see the present writer’s dissertation: The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966. 5 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd rev. edition, Oxford 1959, 208.

3. Recent and Forthcoming Publications of Targums

63

1862–1865. This English rendering is far from perfect, but as yet (1966) no other translation of the Palestinian Targum or of Onqelos exists in the English language. Neither is there any in French; German fares somewhat better, having a translation of portions of the Targum of the Pentateuch. Nor is the position regarding the Aramaic text much more satisfactory. The Aramaic text of Onqelos was first printed in 1492 and has been published a number of times since. A critical edition has been brought out by A. Sperber in volume 1 of The Bible in Aramaic. In 1517 an editio princeps of the Fragment Targum was edited and revised in later editions. Then in 1590–1591 the Aramaic edition of Pseudo-Jonathan was first printed. All these were reproduced in Walton’s Polyglot. The Paris manuscript of the Fragment Targum (Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Hébr. 110) was printed by M. Ginsburger in 1899 together with the variants from the other manuscripts of this Targum, that is, Vatican Ebr. 440, Nürnberg, Stadtbibliothek Solger 2.2o and Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek B. H. fol. 1. Four years later Ginsburger published Pseudo-Jonathan according to a British Museum manuscript (British Library ms. Additional 27031). Both Ginsburger’s editions are useful; the former has a good list of earlier citations from the Palestinian Targum and the other is provided with a useful introduction. Both, unfortunately, fail to reproduce the manuscripts faithfully – new critical editions were called for. The most serious drawback for the student, however, is that until recent years no text of the entire Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch was known to exist; all we had were portions of it relating to the different books. It is surely a singularly good stroke of fortune that A. Díez Macho, MSC found a manuscript in the Vatican Museum in 1949 that he later (1956) identified as the Palestinian Targum to the entire Pentateuch. The manuscript in question is Codex Neofiti 1. According to the colophon, it was completed in Rome in 1504 for one “Master Ayyidio”, very probably Giles (Egidio) of Viterbo, OSA, the well-known Italian humanist, later to become a Cardinal. The language of this manuscript has been recognised as a rather pure form of Galilean Aramaic, but somewhat more recent than that of the fragments of the Palestinian Targum of the Cairo Genizah. A. Díez Macho read a paper on the Targum at Oxford in 1959, and W. F. Albright informed him that the geographical data of the work pointed to the second century c.e. as the date of the final recension of Neofiti. Díez Macho himself considers the Targum to be on the whole a pre-Christian version. Rabbi Menahem Kasher, a specialist in rabbinic studies, goes further and considers Neofiti to be older than all the halakic midrashim, earlier than the Mishnah, and as having its origins some centuries before the Christian era. These are remarkable claims that will surely be greatly modified in the course of time.

64

Chapter 3: The Aramaic Translations

Whatever its date of origin, the present text of Neofiti shows clear evidence of later (third to fourth centuries c.e. or later) rabbinic recension. Be that as it may, the basic text of Neofiti, and of the Palestinian Targum in general, appears to be very old and pre-Christian.

4. A New Critical Edition of the Targum Díez Macho has already (1966) prepared Codex Neofiti 1 and the Targums of the Pentateuch for publication. The text of Neofiti for the editio princeps of the Aramaic will be accompanied by Spanish, English and French translations. The centenary year of publication of Etheridge’s second volume (1865; 1965) would then see the preparation of a new English translation of the entire Palestinian Targum, and this from the best manuscript available.

5. A Critical Edition of the Targum to the Pentateuch It was his editorial work on the New Madrid Polyglot Bible that led Díez Macho to identify Neofiti 1 as the complete Palestinian Targum. Work on the edition of the Targums for this Polyglot has been going steadily ahead for years earlier. The first part of the section on the Targums had appeared in the form of a specimen copy (of 23 pages) containing the first chapter of Deuteronomy.6 Here we have a de luxe edition of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. The lay-out permits the student to see the texts of all the Targums to any verse at a single glance. The text of Neofiti is printed in two columns in large type on the upper portion of the left-hand page. Underneath this, in smaller type, we find first the numerous glosses to Neofiti, accompanied by any necessary observation; then follow the extant texts of the Fragment Targum from Paris ms. Hébr. 110 in a new and critical edition, that of Ginsburger, as we have said, being untrustworthy. The Vatican (440) and Nürnberg manuscripts of the same Targum are also printed in full, as is also the British Museum manuscript (Or. 10.794, fol. 8), imperfectly edited by M. Gaster in 1900. Also included in this page are the citations of the Palestinian Targum given by M. Ginsburger in his edition of the Paris manuscript. This left-hand page,

6 Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum. Adduntur Targum Pseudojonatan, Targum Onkelos et Targum Palaestinensis hispanica versio (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), vol.  5: Deuteronomium: Caput I. Editio critica curante Alexandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1965. (The final text of the Madrid Polyglot did not quite follow the specimen. It omits Onqelos and has a Spanish translation of Pseudo-Jonathan.)

5. A Critical Edition of the Targum to the Pentateuch

65

then, gives us the entire text of the Palestinian Targum as found in Neofiti and other extant sources. Facing this, on the right-hand page, we have three columns of text. In that on the left we find printed the corresponding text of Pseudo-Jonathan direct from the London manuscript which was so imperfectly edited by Ginsburger. In the central column stands the text of Onqelos according to the Vatican manuscript (Ebr. 448) with transliteration in Tiberian vowelsigns of original Babylonian superlinear signs. The very early vocalization will add special significance to this edition of Onqelos. In the third column to the extreme right we have a Spanish translation of Neofiti. Footnotes to the Spanish rendering give the identification of the place names, the reason underlying the Aramaic version of the Hebrew Text, the Hebrew Text translated, reference to other targumic texts and such like. The columns bearing Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan also carry occasional footnotes. The former are mainly on the vocalization; the latter give midrashic parallels (as Ginsburger’s edition already did), or note when the manuscript is corrected. The lay-out necessarily requires that one or other page, very often both, have a fair amount of blank space. This, I suppose, is unavoidable, but will add considerably to the bulk of the work. It is to be regretted that the variant readings from the editio princeps (1593)  of Pseudo-Jonathan are not given, those of major importance at any rate. This would add considerably to the value of an already excellent production and would also help to fill in some blank space. Onqelos is not accompanied by any critical apparatus, but it appears that Onqelos is to be printed again, with apparatus, in series 5 of the Polyglot (the present specimen is from series 4). But why print the text of Onqelos twice, especially when there is space for the apparatus in the present volume? Another point: the first verse of Deuteronomy of Paris ms. Hébr. 110 was printed according to Ginsburger’s edition before it was decided to reproduce the original manuscript instead. Though in this single verse alone Ginsburger’s edition has no fewer than seven errors (noted by Díez Macho on p. 2, n. 2), the Ginsburger text is left unchanged. It is hoped that in the definitive edition these errors will be rectified, preferably by substituting the correct manuscript reading; if not, by a note at each word referring to the correction at p. 2, n. 2. The writer has been able to check Neofiti against photostats of the original. The reproduction is extremely faithful: no misprint has been detected. We may presume the same holds good for the other texts. No mention is made of any plans for a translation of the texts of Onqelos or Pseudo-Jonathan, or of the other Targums in the Madrid Polyglot. Such translations, however, are sure to appear in the not too distant future. Students will then have as easy an access to this body of literature as to

66

Chapter 3: The Aramaic Translations

the other branches of Jewish learning. It has taken a long period of time to establish the importance of the Targums, of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch in particular, for the study of Judaism of the New Testament period and for an understanding of the New Testament. In these texts of the ancient Targum to the Pentateuch we have conserved those ideas that nurtured the spiritual life of the ordinary Jews of Christ’s day. It is for research students and others to work on this and bring out even more its full significance for New Testament exegesis. The groundwork has been done. The case for a new approach to these old Aramaic versions is established. We may rest assured that we are entering a new age in targumic studies in which these Targums will stand beside the writings of the Apocalyptists, of the monks of Qumran, and of the rabbis, as traditions that are traceable in the words of Christ, the evangelists and the other writers of the New Testament.

6. Postscript 2010 This essay was first published in 1966, and republished in 1968. A postscript was added to the latter text, noting that proofs of the translation of Genesis (Neofiti) for the editio princeps had already been corrected. English renderings of Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan (Genesis), made by the present writer and Michael Maher, MSC were prepared. The 1968 Postscript expressed the view that they would probably be published that same year. Publication of the translation of Pseudo-Jonathan (Genesis) referred to did not then materialise. The 1966/1968 essay is here presented as it first appeared, apart from minor changes and the addition of a few footnotes. It states the situation regarding the Targums, and the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch in particular, a little over four decades ago. It helps us understand the major developments that have taken place since then. One change regards the designation of the writings in question, with the accepted abbreviations. Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum(s) at an earlier stage tended to be abbreviated as TJI and TJII, now generally as Ps.-J. and Frg. Tg(s). Given the multiplicity of texts for the Palestinian Targum traditions the texts tend to be designated as plural, Palestinian Targums, rather than singular. The same holds for the Fragment Targum tradition, now referred to generally as the Fragment Targums. The situation has entirely changed with regard to the critical edition of the various texts of the Palestinian Targums. Edition of these has now been completed. The editio princeps of Codex Neofiti has appeared in five volumes, each volume carrying the Aramaic text, the marginal and interlinear

6. Postscript 2010

67

variants, and a Spanish, English and French translation.7 The situation has equally changed with regard to the critical edition of all the Palestinian Targum texts in the Madrid Polyglot (1980–1988), but not in the manner proposed in the specimen opening chapter of Deuteronomy, circulated by Díez Macho, and spoken of in the body of the essay. The text of Onqelos is not included with the texts of the Palestinian Targums in Series IV of the Madrid Polyglot, and the text of Pseudo-Jonathan is accompanied with a Spanish translation.8 Each of the volumes, as Appendices, has all the citations of the Palestinian Targums from the different sources, and the last volume published, that is vol. 1, Genesis, 1988, as Appendix III has a Spanish translation of the Fragment Targums (that is ms. 440 of the Vatican Library and and ms. 110 of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), as well as of the Cairo Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targums. M. Klein has produced critical editions of all the texts of the Fragment Targums9 and of the Cairo Genizah Palestinian Targum texts.10 There have been concordances of Targum Neofiti11 and of Pseudo-Jonathan.12 All the rabbinic Targums have been translated into English, accompanied by introductions and notes, in the Aramaic Bible series.13 There has also been, under the directorship of J. C. de Moor, a bilingual concordance of the Targum of the Prophets, in 21 volumes, the last volume being dedicated to introductory questions.14

7 A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols., Madrid & Barcelona, vol. 1: Génesis, 1968; vol. 2: Éxodo, 1970; vol. 3: Levítico, 1971; vol. 4: Números, 1974; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978. 8 A. Díez Macho (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio. Editio critica curante A. Díez Macho, adjuvantibus L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, T. Martínez Saiz. Pseudojonatan hispanica versio: T. Martínez Saiz. Targum Palaestinensis testimonia ex variis fontibus: R. Griño (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), Madrid, vol. 4: Numeri, 1977; vol. 2: Exodus, 1980; vol. 3: Leviticus, 1980; vol. 5: Deuteronomium, 1980; vol. 1: Genesis, 1988. 9 M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols., Rome 1980. 10 M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Cincinnati 1986. 11 S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti: A Guide to the Complete Palestinian Aramaic Text of the Torah, Baltimore & London 1993. 12 E. G. Clarke, with W. E. Aufrecht, J. C. Hurd & F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, Hoboken 1980. 13 See the list of the publications Appendix 2 below, p. 538. 14 J. C. de Moor (Project Director), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 vols., Leiden, New York & Cologne 1995–2005; vol. 21: Introduction, Additions and Corrections, Indices, ed. by A. Houtman & J. C. de Moor.

Chapter 4

Some Recent Writings (pre-1980) on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums* In this essay we shall consider rabbinic literature and the Targums as used in the study of the New Testament in recent centuries and in modern study (until 1980) and also look at the likely developments in these branches of learning in the years ahead. By the term “Targums” in this present context, unless otherwise specified, I mean the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible which have been traditionally known, translations sometimes referred to as “rabbinic” or “classical” Targums. The clarification is necessary since we now have from Qumran an Aramaic translation (hence a Targum) of good part of the Book of Job and of part of Leviticus 16. These traditionally known Targums can legitimately be considered together with rabbinic literature, that is the body of literature contained in such halakic texts as the Mishnah, Tosefta, the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds and in the midrashim. Although there are differences between the Targums and rabbinic literature, they may be considered together for the following reasons: both have been transmitted by rabbinic circles; the traditional Targums contain specifically rabbinic doctrines, for instance emphasis on the Law and mention of the resurrection of the dead. Together with this, the same, or similar, biblical exegesis and points of haggadah are to be found in both Targums and rabbinic literature. Despite these affinities, however, the Targums should not be simply taken as products of the rabbinic schools. They may have originated elsewhere, in non-rabbinic circles or in circles less strongly influenced by rabbinic principles than those which produced the other texts. The Targums in fact may lie at the base of rabbinic midrash. The Targum fragments that have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in recent times belong to a quite different tradition of translation from that found in the “traditional” Targums. They cannot, thus, be considered as rabbinic and will not be considered here, except in passing.

* First published in English, under the same title, in Milltown Studies 9 (1982), 59–101. Original copy of the essay published in Italian translation in Problemi e prospettive di Scienze Bibliche, ed. by Rinaldo Rabris, Brescia 1981, 67–109. Printed by kind permission of the publishers.

1. From the Beginnings until the 1950s: General Studies

69

Rabbinic and targumic tradition differs from the Qumran texts and from the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in that for these latter, by and large, a definite date of composition can be assigned and in that the majority of them can be presumed to antedate 100 c.e. Rabbinic and targumic tradition, on the other hand, was primarily oral and was transmitted orally before being consigned to writing. The earliest of the works to be committed to writing was the Mishnah – towards the end of the second century c.e. Much of the rabbinic tradition itself is older than this. Yet, only with difficulty can an individual tradition be dated or shown categorically to antedate the Christian era. For this reason some scholars are loathe to use rabbinic evidence in the reconstruction of the Jewish religion of the New Testament period, or are willing to use it only with extreme caution. The arguments for or against the use of this material in New Testament studies have not varied remarkably over the past century, and for this reason I believe it best to begin this essay with a survey of the use of rabbinic and targumic material in New Testament studies from the seventeenth century, and in particular over the past hundred years (1880–1980).

1. From the Beginnings until the 1950s: General Studies1 The use of rabbinic material in the interpretation of the New Testament began in the mid-seventeenth century. As notable examples in the early history of its use we may instance C. Cartwright’s Mellificium hebraicum, seu observationes diversimodae Hebraeorum, praesertim antiquorum, monumentis desumptae, unde plurima cum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti loca … explicantur,2 which was published in 1649. The title gives an idea of the content. More extensive use of Jewish and rabbinic material in the elucidation of the New Testament was made by J. Lightfoot in Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,3 published in parts: Matthew 1658; Mark 1663; 1 Corinthians 1 For this section see G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism”, HTR 14 (1921), 197–254; J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954, esp. 5–34; H. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš, 5th edition, Munich 1920, English translation, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, Philadelphia 1931, 179–182. New edition by G. Stemberger: H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991. 2 C. Cartwright’s Mellificium hebraicum, seu observationes diversimodae Hebraeorum, praesertim antiquorum, monumentis desumptae, unde plurima cum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti loca … explicantur. Printed also in Critici Sacri, London edition 1660, vol. 9, cols. 2943–3128; in the Amsterdam edition, 1698, vol. 8, part 2, cols. 1271–1426. 3 Acts and some notes on Romans were published posthumously by Richard Kidder in 1678 (in M. Simonis Episcopii S. S. Theologiae in academia Leydensi quondam professoris opera theologica, London 1678).

70

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

1664; John 1671; Luke 1674. This new approach to the study of the New Testament was continued by C. Schoettgen, who presents his work Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (1733)4 as a supplement to Lightfoot’s. A noteworthy feature of Schoettgen’s work is the extent to which it draws on the Zohar (and Kabbalah) for rabbinic parallels to the New Testament. The next work worthy of note is J. J. Wettstein’s edition of the Greek text of the New Testament (1751, 1752)5 containing a second apparatus with abundant illustrations to the text drawn from rabbinical sources among others. This second apparatus is intended as a “commentarius plenior … historiam et vim verborum illustrans”. Wettstein was dependent on earlier scholars and compilations for the texts which he included in this apparatus. What was important about it was not so much its originality as the pattern it set and that it was mainly through it that Jewish and rabbinic material came to be known by Christian writers on the subjects for centuries after the author’s day. The work both set a method and provided the material. From among the later writers in this tradition we may mention the book by F. Nork, with a title indicative of its content and method: Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen (1839).6 It makes extensive use of the Zohar and Kabbalah as sources for rabbinical teaching. From later decades we have C. Siegfried, “Analecta Rabbinica ad Novum Testamentum et Patres Ecclesiasticos spectantia” (1876).7 Mention may also be made of F. Delitzsch’s “Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae”, published in the Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche for 1876–1878.8 The culmination of this approach came with the celebrated Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch9 under the names of H. Strack († 1922) and P. Billerbeck, although the entire work was done by Billerbeck alone. The plans for it, however, were worked 4

The full title is: Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (in Theologiam Judaeorum dogmaticam antiquam et orthodoxam de Messia). Quibus Horae J. Lightfooti in libris historicis supplentur, Epistolae et Apocalypsis eodem modo illustrantur, 2 vols., Dresden & Leipzig 1733 and 1742. 5 J. J. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1751–1752. 6 F. Nork, Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig 1839. 7 C. Siegfried, “Analecta Rabbinica ad Novum Testamentum et Patres Ecclesiasticos spectantia”, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 2 (1876), 476–480 (first published in Gymnasio inlustrissimo cathedrali Magdeburgensi altera saecularia faustissima …, Leipzig 1875, 1–18). 8 F. Delitzsch, “Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae”, Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche for 1876–1878. Referred to, but unavailable to, Doeve (Jewish Hermeneutics, 9). 9 H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munich 1922–1929; reprinted in 1961.

1. From the Beginnings until the 1950s: General Studies

71

out by Strack and Billerbeck in 1906. The first volume, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, appeared in 1922, to be followed by volumes on Mark, Luke, John, Acts in 1924 and on the remainder of the New Testament in 1926. The volume with excursuses was published in 1928. Billerbeck died in 1932 and the two volumes of indexes were compiled under the editorship of J. Jeremias and published in 1956 and 1961. In the introduction to volume 1 Strack and Billerbeck profess themselves to be in the tradition of J. Lightfoot (1699), J. C. Meuschen (Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum, 1736),10 C. Schoettgen (†  1751), J. J. Wettstein (†  1754), and in more recent times of that of F. Delitzsch († 1890) and A. Wünsche. As a collection of rabbinic texts, believed to have a bearing on the understanding of the New Testament, Billerbeck’s work has not been surpassed. From the Jewish side, a work of much smaller compass was made by C. G. Montefiore in Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching (1930).11 P. Fiebig concentrated on a limited area for comparison between the New Testament and rabbinic material in his work Jesu Bergpredigt (1924).12 He goes beyond the question of mere parallels, however, into the study of formal resemblances. M. Smith’s dissertation, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (defended in 1944 and published in revised form as a monograph in 1951)13 also goes beyond material parallels, and attempts to classify the parallels according to their various natures. M. Smith regards classification as one of the most important respects in which his work differs from those of his predecessors. He has chapters and examples on verbal parallels, parallels of idiom, parallels of meaning, of literary form and so forth. During the late 1930s and the 1940s D. Daube had been writing on various aspects of the bearing of rabbinic literature on the understanding of the New Testament. In 1956 he republished some of these and added others in his book The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism.14

10 J. C. Meuschen, Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum, Leipzig 1736; see Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 12; Strack, Introduction, 179. 11 C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching, London 1930. 12 P. Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche übersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen dargeboten, Göttingen 1924; see Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 10–11. 13 M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels. Published as SBLMS 6; corrected reprint by Scholars Press, 1968. 14 D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1956.

72

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

2. Thematic Approach: Rabbinic Literature and St Paul (1880–1980)15 In the Acts of the Apostles we hear Paul boasting that he was a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees (Acts 23:6; cf. 26:5). He does likewise in his letter to the Philippians (3:5). It would appear only natural, then, that his writings should have been compared with those emanating from the rabbis, the successors of the Pharisees. The comparison, however, did not begin until late in the nineteenth century. This lack of interest in the subject may have been due to the absence of a systematic presentation of Judaism and of Jewish rabbinic religion, although it may also have been occasioned by an exaggerated view of Paul’s direct divine inspiration. This could have made scholars little inclined to consider the Apostle’s dependence on any human religious doctrine – be it Jewish, Pharisaic or rabbinic. Writing in 1880 G. Heinrici could stoutly deny that late Judaism or “soulless rabbinism” exercised a dominant influence on Paul.16 Such a view, however, was not even then universally held. Already in 1870 F. Delitzsch had published his Hebrew translation of the Epistle to the Romans and had it accompanied with illustrative examples from the Talmud and Midrash.17 Then in 1880 there appeared F. W. Weber’s systematic presentation of rabbinic Judaism, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud.18 In 1873 O. Pfleiderer published the first edition of his study of Pauline theology, Der Paulinismus.19 On reading Weber’s work he came to the conclusion that the key to Pauline theology lay in the form of Judaism revealed by Weber’s study. In 1890 he published a second edition of his work, in the preface conceding that Paul was much more dependent on contemporary Jewish thought than he had previously believed. In his work, St Paul’s Conception of Christianity (1894) A. B. Bruce reacted 15

Some of these works are considered by A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, Tübingen 1911; English translation, Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History, London 1912. 16 G. Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Göttingen 1880, 8th edition 1896; cf. Schweitzer, Paul, 45–46, 67–68. 17 F. Delizsch, Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer aus dem Griechischen in das Hebräische übersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert, Leipzig 1870. The illustrations from rabbinic literature, 73–100, after the translation. In Schweitzer’s opinion (Paul, 47–48), “the net result is not great. The parallels adduced are so uncharacteristic that they throw no new light on the Apostle’s ideas.” 18 F. W. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud, Leipzig 1880. The second edition (1897)  bears the title: Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. 19 O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christliche Theologie, Leipzig 1873; 2nd edition, Berlin 1890. English translation of first German edition: Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology, 2 vols., London 1877.

2. Thematic Approach: Rabbinic Literature and St Paul (1880–1980)

73

strongly to Pfleiderer’s change of view.20 “St Paul”, he wrote, “was not the slave of Rabbinic theology”. He goes on to say that the servile use of Talmudic theology as a key to the interpretation of Paulinism “makes the new edition of Pfleiderer’s work in some respects the reverse of an improvement on the first”. Bruce cited approvingly the remark made by W. Beyschlag in 1891,21 that “it does too little honour to the creative power of the Christian spirit of St. Paul to lay so much stress on the points of resemblance between his views and the Pharisaic theology”. The evidence for a relationship between Paul and Pharisaism or rabbinism could not, however, be so easily dismissed. In 1900 H.St. John Thackeray studied the question as part of his work, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought.22 He notes Dr Bruce’s reservations and because of the then prevalent neglect of the Jewish dimension in Pauline studies devotes his work to an examination of the relationship of Paul to Judaism as revealed by Palestinian apocryphal literature, rabbinical literature and by Alexandrian literature. His description of rabbinical sources is brief (pp. 25–27). He does, however, have a good chapter on Paul the haggadist, and other sections on various connections between Paul and rabbinic Judaism. He candidly faces the problem involved in the use of rabbinic material in any such study because of the late date of the final compilation of such sources, the early conflict between Judaism and the new Christian society, the influence of the final destruction of the Jewish state and the manifest signs of the development of messianic doctrine among the Jews in the first century c.e. Despite these difficulties, he does not believe that the similarities or cases of close contact can be explained by non-Christian Jewish borrowing from Christian ideas. This he considers to have been exceedingly improbable. Hence he concludes that if we find in rabbinic writings of the second or third centuries c.e. ideas agreeing with those of Paul, we may unhesitatingly assert that these doctrines were in existence in rabbinic circles in St Paul’s time and that they have not found their way into rabbinism through the teaching of St Paul. J. Wellhausen (1907) saw the evidence for Paul’s relationship with rabbinism as too strong to be denied.23 “Paul”, he notes, “has not been able to free himself from the rabbinic method of exegesis. He employs it in his 20 A. B. Bruce, St Paul’s Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh 1894, 133; cf. 132, 216 and 302. 21 Ibid., 217, with reference to W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2 vols., Halle 1891–1892; 2nd edition 1896; English translation, New Testament Theology, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1895. 22 H.St.J. Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London 1900. 23 J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 6th edition, Berlin 1907; cf. Schweitzer, Paul, 46.

74

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

argumentation, especially in connection with justification by faith. The inner essence of his religious convictions, however, was not affected by it.” Obvious examples of rabbinic tradition in Paul are instanced: the Law given by angels (Gal 3:19), reference to the rock following the Israelites in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4) – some of the texts already studied by Thackeray. In his work Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart (1911),24 A. Schweitzer expresses the opinion that the rabbinic literature of which we have knowledge is of no importance for the understanding of Paul’s thought, and this because it cannot be taken to represent New Testament Judaism. In his study Judaism and St Paul: Two Essays (1914), C. G. Montefiore gives a description of rabbinic Judaism (which in his view dates from the period 300–500 c.e.), but owing to the differences which he perceives between this and the Judaism Paul objects to, does not believe that Paul knew Palestinian rabbinic Judaism.25 Billerbeck’s Kommentar, of course, made a knowledge of the rabbinic parallels to Pauline teaching more widely known and it was mainly through this work that rabbinic parallels were drawn in the decades that followed. Its influence can be seen in a number of the entries in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, which commenced under the editorship of G. Kittel in 1932. The rabbinic characteristics in Pauline literature were by now impressing themselves more and more on scholars. E. von Dobschütz commented explicitly on the matter in an essay in 192326 and D. Windfuhr three years later,27 and in 1929 in his study Paulus und seine Bibel O. Michel brought out the close connection between Paul’s use of Scripture and that of the rabbis.28 In 1939 J. Bonsirven devoted an entire work to a comparison of rabbinic and Pauline exegesis.29 Some years previously H. Windisch in Paulus und das Judentum (1935)30 had stressed the indisputable rabbinic traits in Paul. J. Klausner, too, in his book From Jesus to Paul (1939) noted the existence of pharisaic (rabbinical) characteristics in Paul’s writings.31 Some queries, or reservations, were, however, raised at the same time. J. Parkes in Jesus, Paul and the Jews (1936),32 made the point that if the 24

A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung; cf. n. 15 above. C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St Paul: Two Essays, London 1914. 26 E. von Dobschütz, “Zum paulinischen Schriftbeweis”, ZNW 24 (1923), 306–307, at 306. 27 D. Windfuhr, “Paulus als Haggadist”, ZAW N. F. 3 (1926), 327–330. 28 O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel, Gütersloh 1929 (repr. 1972). 29 J. Bonsirven, Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne, Paris 1939. 30 H. Windisch, Paulus und das Judentum, Stuttgart 1935. 31 J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul. English translation from the Hebrew by W. F. Stinespring, London 1942 (American edition 1944), 453–460; for Pharisees see also Index under “Pharisees”. 32 J. Parkes, Jesus, Paul and the Jews, London 1936. 25

2. Thematic Approach: Rabbinic Literature and St Paul (1880–1980)

75

Judaism attacked by St Paul really is rabbinic Judaism as known to us from the extant sources, then his criticism of it was unmerited. From the Jewish side a similar point had previously been made by S. Schechter in Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909).33 The major contribution to the study of the question in recent times has come from the pen of W. D. Davies: Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (1948).34 Davies indicates that it is unnecessary to make a false dichotomy between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism and shows that Hellenistic influences had already penetrated Palestinian Judaism by New Testament times. It follows that a number of elements in Paul which might be thought to derive from Hellenistic influence (for instance dissatisfaction with the law, transcendentalism, pessimism and “mysticism”), and were regarded by Montefiore to have come from Hellenism, might well emanate from Pharisaic Judaism. Davies’ approach is to study certain themes in Paul under the headings “The Old and the New”, showing their relationship with rabbinic doctrine: The Flesh and Sin; First and Second Adam; the Old and New Israel; the Old and the New Man; the Old and the New Torah; the Old and the New Obedience: I. The Lord the Spirit; II. The Death of Jesus; the Old and the New Hope; Resurrection. Davies’ work has been rightly hailed as a major contribution to the field of study and has been quite influential. One major dissenting voice was that of S. Sandmel in The Genius of Paul (1958)35 who pronounced himself unconvinced by Davies’ arguments on the similarity in Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism and the affinities between Paul and the rabbis. The relationship between Paul and the rabbis and the influence of rabbinic tradition on Paul’s theology was taken up by H. J. Schoeps with an essay in 1946 on “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology”36 and later in his study “Paulus als rabbinischer Exeget” (1950),37 to be followed by a further treatment in his best-known book: Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte (1959).38 E. E. Ellis devotes 33 S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, London 1909; new edition, New York 1961, with introduction by Louis Finkelstein. 34 W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London 1943; 2nd rev. edition 1958; the Torchbook edition, New York & Evanston 1967, has an introduction on “Paul and Judaism since Schweitzer” which originally appeared in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. by J. P. Hyatt, London 1966, 178–186. We may also note Davies’ essay “Apocalyptic and Pharisaism”, in his book, Christian Origins and Judaism, London & Philadelphia 1962, 19–30. 35 S. Sandmel, The Genius of Paul, New York 1958. 36 H. J. Schoeps, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology”, JBL 65 (1946), 385–392. 37 H. J. Schoeps, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit, Tübingen 1950, 221–238. 38 H. J. Schoeps, Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen 1959; translated into English as Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, London 1961.

76

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

a chapter to Paul and Judaism in his book Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (1957).39 In this he treats of contemporary Jewish exegesis, including rabbinic interpretation, and makes comparison of Pauline and Jewish literary methods. We shall round off our review of a century of study on Paul’s relationship to Judaism with the major contribution of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which appeared in 1977,40 and by noting the important article of G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research” which was published that same year.41 We shall return to both studies again in the course of this essay.

3. Systematic Presentations of Rabbinic Doctrines The studies thus far considered concerned the relationship of rabbinic literature (or certain portions and texts of it, to be more precise) with New Testament texts, and with St Paul in particular. The danger with such comparative study is that it can give only a partial, and even a contorted, view of rabbinic thought. It is an approach that cannot satisfy those who seek to know the rabbinic system of religion and thought for its own sake. In point of fact, however, at the very beginnings of the comparisons between the New Testament or Paul and Judaism in the modern era stands a systematic presentation of rabbinic theology, one already referred to – namely, F. Weber’s System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud (1880).42 Another very influential work was to follow in Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1903)43 by W. Bousset. Jewish religion is also treated by E. Schürer in his very influential work, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (1874), which from the second edition (1886) onwards bore the title: Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi.44 The very title of Weber’s work indicates his regard for rabbinic material. Bousset was critical of rabbinic literature as a witness for New Testament Judaism, which he believed was best represented by the apocalyptic writings. 39

E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh & London 1957, 38–84. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patterns of Religion, London 1977; review by present writer in JSNT 5 (1979), 67–73. 41 G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, BTB 7 (1977), 110–122. 42 See n. 18 above. 43 W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Berlin 1903; 2nd edition 1906. 44 Leipzig; English translation of 2nd edition, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh 1885–1891; revised English translation and edition by G. Vermes, Fergus Millar & Matthew Black, Edinburgh, vol. 1, 1973; vol. 2, 1979. 40

3. Systematic Presentations of Rabbinic Doctrines

77

In an essay of fundamental importance on “Christian Writers on Judaism”,45 in 1921, G. F. Moore severely criticised what he regarded as the unsympathetic and even biased attitude of Christian writers on Judaism, particularly from Weber’s System onwards. While a polemical note was present before him, Weber presents Judaism as the antithesis of Christianity, a legalistic religion in which God was considered remote and inaccessible. The means of earning salvation were the Torah, the Temple cultus, the works of the Law and repentance, the individual’s relation to God determined by his relation to the Torah. This antagonistic attitude, Moore contended, was continued by Schürer and Bousset. Within a decade of this essay, Moore himself had produced his own synthesis of Jewish life and doctrine in his monumental study, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim.46 Moore’s aim is to represent Judaism as it presents itself in the tradition which it has always regarded as authentic, that is the rabbinic tradition. His sources are primarily rabbinical, which he believes present us with what he calls “normative Judaism”. These he supplements by what he regards as extraneous sources. The apocalyptic writings he regards with suspicion and believes that it would be a fallacy of method for the historian to make of them a primary source for the eschatology of Judaism, and much more to contaminate its theology with them. Moore’s work, although some of its shortcomings and errors in methodology were rightly pointed out, is one of those few epoch-making studies. A somewhat similar work, but with greater regard for non-rabbinic material, was produced in French by J. Bonsirven in 1934/35: Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ.47 There is no need to mention here the number of similar works on Jewish theology during recent decades from the pens of Christians and Jews. Because of the authoritative standing of its author we may, however, mention R. Bultmann’s Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen (1949).48 It has a section on Judaism, with mention of Schürer’s classic as the basic work on the history, religion and literature of Judaism and with a reference also to Bousset’s Die Religion des Judentums (3rd edition by H. Gressmann, 1926).

45

See n. 1 above. G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, Cambridge, Mass., vols. 1 and 2, 1927; vol. 3: Notes, 1930. 47 J. Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ, 2 vols., Paris 1934– 1935. 48 R. Bultmann, Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen, Zurich 1949; English translation, Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting, London & New York 1956. 46

78

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

With this rapid survey we can now return to E. P. Sander’s work Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patterns of Religion, published almost a century after Weber’s synthesis of rabbinic theology.49 In fact, Sanders is very much concerned with Weber’s synthesis, which he considers as a false and prejudiced presentation of the religion of Judaism, a false presentation perpetuated through Schürer, Bousset, Billerbeck and Bultmann. One of the aims of Sanders’ work is to show that the Weber / Bousset / Billerbeck view of Judaism as a religion of works-righteousness (also as this applies to tannaitic literature) is based on a massive perversion and misunderstanding of the evidence. He believes that the texts, books and reference works in which this view of rabbinic Judaism is found and where it is presumed to be proved (principally Bousset’s Religion des Judentums, Billerbeck’s Kommentar, Schürer’s History and several articles in Kittel’s Wörterbuch) are, as far as they deal with rabbinic religion, completely untrustworthy. He is particularly severe on Billerbeck. “Billerbeck”, he writes, “may retain some usefulness as a collection of passages on individual points, with several provisions: that the user be able to look up the passages and read them in context, that he disregard as much as possible Billerbeck’s own summaries and syntheses, and that he be able to imagine how to find passages on the topic not cited by Billerbeck.”50 And again: “To say that, to use Billerbeck, one must be able to find passages not given by Billerbeck is really to say that Billerbeck’s Kommentar should not be used by those it was designed to serve: New Testament scholars who have no ready independent access to Rabbinic material.” This is not the occasion to evaluate Sanders’ book, which because of its many merits, is assured of a place in Jewish studies for a long time to come.

4. Midrash and the Study of the New Testament: 1940–1980 The opening sections of the present survey took us into the 1950s. From the mid-1950s onwards a change was taking place in the manner in which the New Testament was being studied from the point of view of rabbinic studies. In fact one could say that this new approach to New Testament studies gave new impetus to the study of Jewish midrash – that typically Jewish way of studying and expounding the Scriptures. In part this new emphasis was aided by the study of the Qumran scrolls and the pesher form of commentary so typical of the Qumran monks.

49 50

See n. 40 above. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 234–235.

4. Midrash and the Study of the New Testament: 1940–1980

79

We may take J. W. Doeve’s monograph Jewish Hermeneutics in the Gospels and Acts (1954)51 as a pioneering work in this field. Doeve begins his study with a good survey of “the use of the knowledge of Rabbinical Judaism in the exegetical study of the New Testament since Lightfoot”. He then considers in detail the question of the admissibility and “the serviceableness of the Rabbinic data for the examination of the New Testament”. He goes on to treat of the Scripture exegesis of the early Tannaim; the Jewish interpretation of Scripture and the New Testament. He studies such themes as the Kingdom of God, the Son of Man, the Messiah, two midrashim relating to the resurrection of Christ in Acts and, finally, the examination of Scripture and the fixation of traditional material. The importance of Doeve’s work lies in the stress it lays on midrash study and on the importance of Jewish exegetical methods for the understanding of the Gospels. Many years later (1971) M. P. Miller could write:52 “Doeve’s work has been largely ignored, yet his pointing to the significance of Jewish exegetical method has opened up a new possibility for understanding the pre-literary form in which Gospel traditions may have circulated. He made some far-reaching suggestions which no doubt will be taken up in time by others who will attempt to give these a more solid foundation.” The very year that Doeve’s work was published R. Bloch published a study on “Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Glimpses on the Origin of Midrash”.53 The following year she published a very important study: “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”,54 in which she gives criteria for dating otherwise undated rabbinic traditions. Then, some years later she published the now famous essay on rabbinic midrash,55 with the attempt to define and make clear its fundamental characteristics. These she gives as follows: (1) its point of departure is Scripture; (2) it is homiletical; (3) it is a study which is attentive to the Scripture text; (4) its aim is practical, adapting the biblical text to the contemporary situation. For Bloch, rabbinic midrash had its origins in the Bible. In this latter point, the way was prepared for her by various studies made by A. Robert during the 1930s. At the same time that Bloch was publishing the results of 51

J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954. M. P. Miller, “Targum, Midrash and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”, JSJ 2 (1971), 29–82; 58 text cited. 53 R. Bloch, “Écriture et tradition dans le Judaïsme: Aperçus sur l’origine du Midrash”, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), 9–34. 54 R. Bloch, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique”, RSR 43 (1955), 194–227; translated into English (“Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”) by W. S. Green with W. J. Sullivan and published in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green (BJS 1), Missoula 1978, 51–75. 55 “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280; translated into English by M. Howard Callaway, and published in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. by W. S. Green, 29–50. 52

80

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

her researches, G. Vermes was working in the same field. The outcome of his researches appeared in various essays and then in book-form in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (1961).56 Vermes accepts Bloch’s understanding of midrash and in particular the central place, “a sort of hinge, a bridge between the Bible and later rabbinic midrash”, which she assigns to the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch in the development of midrash. He asks whether her hypothesis really works, and in a series of studies on (1) the symbolism of words; (2) the rewritten Bible; (3) the Bible and tradition; (4) theology and exegesis, he keeps four problems of general importance in mind: the origin and development of exegetical symbolism; the structure and purpose of the rewriting of the Bible; the historical bond between the Bible and its interpretation; the impact of the Bible on exegesis and vice versa. Vermes has continued with his studies both on rabbinic midrash and the Dead Sea Scrolls and has treated of the Bible and midrash in volume 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible (1970).57 During the past three and a half decades much has been written on various aspects of midrash and of its importance for the understanding of the New Testament. A survey of the literature has been made by M. P. Miller in 1971 (“Jewish Exegetical Tradition; Significance for New Testament Study”)58 and again in 1976 in his entry under “Midrash” for the Supplementary Volume of The Interpreter;s Dictionary of the Bible.59 R. Bloch spoke of midrash as a genre and also of “the midrashic genre”, without defining what precisely she meant by genre in the context. Later, in 1967, A. Wright published in book form two articles which appeared the previous year in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly under the title “The Literary Genre Midrash”,60 understanding “literary genre” in the strict sense and speaking of midrash as “a literature about a literature”. Wright’s book was the occasion of an important review article by R. Le Déaut,61 in which he argued strongly against limiting the meaning and application of the term midrash, and thus moving away from the broad traditional meaning of the word. Of midrash Le Déaut writes:62 56 G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), Leiden 1961. 57 Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. by P. E. Ackroyd & C. F. Evans, Cambridge 1970, 199–231 (“Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”). 58 M. P. Miller, “Targum, Midrash” (n. 52 above), 36–64. 59 IDBSup, 856–861. 60 A. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, Staten Island 1967. The original publication in CBQ 28 (1966), 105–138, 417–457. 61 R. Le Déaut, “À propos d’une définition du Midrash”, Bib 50 (1969), 395–413; translated into English (“A propos a Definition of Midrash”) by M. Howard Callaway and published in Int 26 (1971), 259–282. 62 R. Le Déaut, “À propos”, 401–402.

4. Midrash and the Study of the New Testament: 1940–1980

81

“Il fait partie d’une ‘constellation mentale’ spécifique ou il est doté d’une charge affective et religieuse qui oblige, pensons nous, à lui conserver exclusivement sa signification traditionelle. Or, celle-ci, est une signification très large, celle qu’ont adoptée les auteurs juifs et chrétiens qui lui ont consacré les études les plus importantes (Zunz, Bacher, Albeck …). Le midrash est en effet tout un univers que l’on ne découvrira qu’en acceptant d’emblée sa complexité. Il envahit toute l’approche juive de la Bible qu’il pourrait même désigner dans son ensemble. On ne peut en séparer les techniques et les méthodes, même si celles-ci conduisent à des genres littéraires différentes. Le midrash se décrit et ne se définit pas, car il est aussi une façon de penser et de raisonner, pour nous souvent déconcertante.”

The quest for a satisfactory definition of midrash still goes on. It is recognised that it permeated the rabbinic approach to the Bible – indeed one can say the general Jewish approach. What seems called for in the present state of research is to ensure that the term is not made so all-embracing as to be emptied of any meaningful content, as if midrash were a character of all literature or of any reflection on earlier tradition. In this climate of general interest in midrash some studies were made on the bearing of Jewish midrash on the New Testament and of the presence of the phenomenon of midrash in the New Testament itself. There are two studies of this sort in Vermes’ work Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, that is “Circumcision and Exodus iv. 24–26: Prelude to the theology of Baptism” and “Redemption and Genesis xxii: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus”. Both M. Gertner and E. E. Ellis wrote under the influence of Doeve. The former published an essay in 1962 on “Midrashim in the New Testament”,63 in which he seeks to explain texts which seem to lack topical, structural or stylistic coherence (James; Mark 4:1–22; the Benedictus, Luke 1:67–79; and 1 Cor 15:55–56) by postulating a midrashic structure or origin for them. They would be hidden midrashim, that is they interpret a text midrashically without citing it. Thus James may be a midrash on Psalm 12, itself taken as a reworking of Hos 10:1–4. Ellis, too, wrote on “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Citations” (1969).64 B. Gerhardsson regards Matt 4:1–11 and parallels as an example of an early Christian midrash (1966)65 and asks if the Parable of the Good Samaritan or Good Shepherd is a midrash on Ezekiel 34 (1958).66 B. Malina (1967)67 suggests that Matthew 2 63

M. Gertner, “Midrashim in the New Testament”, JSS 7 (1962), 267–292. E. E. Ellis, “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Citations”, in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 61–69. 65 B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Matt. 4:1–11 & par.): An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash (ConBNT 2), Lund 1966. 66 B. Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan – The Good Shepherd? (ConBNT 16), Lund & Copenhagen 1958. 67 B. Malina, “Matthew 2 and Is 41,2–3, a Possible Relationship?”, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 17 (1967), 291–303. 64

82

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

is a midrash, in rabbinic fashion, on Isa 41:2–3, and J. Bowker (1963)68 sees rabbinic homiletic patterns in Acts 2, 3, 13 and in Romans 4.

5. Postexilic Biblical Interpretation André Robert,69 Renée Bloch and others had made the point that midrash had its origins in the Bible itself. During the decades following on this pioneering work on biblical interpretation, scholars have turned their attention to the question of inner biblical interpretation and to the interpretation of Scripture in the early translations of the Scriptures. Obvious cases of inner-Old Testament interpretation are Trito-Isaiah as an interpretation or adaptation of Deutero-Isaiah and of the re-interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the Seventy Years (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10) in Dan 9:2 ff. Recent study, however, finds much more re-interpretation of Old Testament texts in the post-exilic period. Deutero-Zechariah (Zechariah 9–14) has been regarded as a re-interpretation of Proto-Zechariah.70 Dan 12:2–3 has been seen as the midrashic reuse of Isa 52:13–53:12 and other texts of Daniel are seen in a similar light.71 G. W. Buchanan, following on a lead by A. Robert (who himself refers to F. Delitzsch), speaks of pretannaitic midrashim when considering the relationship of Proverbs 1–9 to Deuteronomy.72 The midrashic nature of the later writing The Wisdom of Solomon is now generally recognised. It would appear, then, that the nearer we approach the New Testament era the greater is the extent of the midrashic interpretation of the earlier Hebrew Scriptures. A further step forward has been taken when the early translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Septuagint, were considered in this light. The books of the Septuagint most studied from

68 J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelamedenu Form”, NTS 14 (1968), 96–111. 69 A. Robert, “Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. i–ix”, RB 43 (1934), 42–68, 172–204, 374–384; 44 (1935), 344–365; idem, “Le genre littéraire du Cantique des Cantiques”, Vivre et penser: Recherches d’exégèse et d’histoire 3 (1943/44), 192–213; idem, “Littéraires, genres”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 405–421, esp. 413–416. 70 See, for instance, R. A. Mason, “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to the Proto-Zechariah”, ZAW 88 (1976), 227–239; idem, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah IX– XIV: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis”, Ph.D. dissertation, King’s College, London, 1973. 71 See, for instance A. Lacoque, The Book of Daniel, London 1979, 243, with reference to H. L. Ginsberg. 72 See also G. W. Buchanan, “Midrashim pre-tannaïtes: À propos de Prov. i–ix”, RB 72 (1965), 227–239.

6. Rabbinic Tradition in Recent Study (to 1980): Select Questions

83

the point of view of their interpretative nature have been Isaiah,73 Job74 and Proverbs.75 This new approach to the ancient translations of course is still only in its infancy. The evidence is, however, growing that in the centuries preceding the New Testament era the tradition on the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures was growing ever stronger, so that by New Testament times the Scriptures and their interpretation were inherited by any given generation. The interpretation, of course, was not always the same; it would have varied from one religious group to another. But it seems to have been always there, together with the written text.

6. Rabbinic Tradition in Recent Study (to 1980): Select Questions 6.1 General Introduction While there is general agreement that H. L. Strack’s Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš 76 (of which five editions were published between 1887 and 1920) needed to be redone, by 1980 it had not as yet been replaced. In 1975 G. Stemberger, in his essay “La recherche rabbinique depuis Strack” gave a review of the more recent research in the field.77 His essay was intended as a supplement to Strack’s Einleitung and it indicates the most important publications and basic tendencies in research on the Mishnah, Tosefta, halakic midrashim, and on both Talmuds, together with some comments on the importance of rabbinic literature for New Testament study. As yet, however, we had no fully satisfactory introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Despite this, the English-reading student of rabbinics is relatively well provided for with modern material. G. F. Moore has a good treatment 73

See I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden 1948; chapter IV: “The Translation as a Document of Jewish-Alexandrian Theology”, 95–121. 74 See D. H. Gard, The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBL Monograph Series 8), Philadelphia 1952 (repr. 1967); idem, “The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job”, JBL 73 (1954), 137–143; see also H. S. Gehman, “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15”, JBL 68 (1949), 231–240. 75 G. Gerleman, “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic Document”, Oudtestamentische Studien 8 (1950), 15–27. 76 An English translation, based on the 5th German edition but incorporating corrections made by the author especially for this translation, was published in Philadelphia in 1931. 77 In RHPR 55 (1975), 543–574. As indicated above in n. 1 a revised edition has been published by Stemberger: H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991.

84

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

of rabbinic literature, with an indication of editions and translations, in the first volume of his work Judaism.78 J. Bowker also has a good treatment of rabbinic literature in The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (1969),79 again with indication of editions and translations. There is an updated treatment of talmudic literature and midrashim, together with an indication of editions and translations and an exceptionally rich bibliography in the new English version of Schürer’s History of the Jewish People, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black (vol. 1, 1973).80 The second volume of the same revised work (1979) treats of the Torah scholars and their work, halakah and haggadah, the major Torah scholars, the Pharisees and so forth,81 again with updated bibliographies. Useful information on rabbinic literature, and an indication of editions and translations, are also included in E. P. Sanders’ work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.82 The Sources Chrétiennes edition of Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities also has a serviceable list of editions and translations of rabbinic and other material.83 6.2 Rabbis and Pharisees In recent decades a number of questions concerning the relationship of the rabbis to the Pharisees have been considered:84 Are the rabbis the successors of the Pharisees? How much of the rabbinic tradition known to us existed in New Testament times? How representative was Pharisaic or rabbinic religion and doctrine of Palestinian Judaism of Christ’s day?, and so forth. Through Josephus we can trace the history of the Pharisees back to the mid-second century b.c.e. or so and may presume that their tradition is also basically as old. Josephus’ first reference to the Pharisees is in connection with the reign of Jonathan the Maccabee, 160–142 b.c.e. (Ant. 13.5.9, §§ 171–172). Even at that time they seem to have been a force in the land. As a party they appear to have enjoyed the favour of the Hasmoneans until the latter part of the reign of John Hyrcanus, 134–104 b.c.e. (Ant. 13.10.5–6, §§ 289–298), when they fell from favour because of a remark made by one 78

G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, 125–216. J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969, 3–92. 80 Schürer, History I, 68–118. 81 Schürer, History II, 314–422. 82 Pp. 59–84, 557–561. 83 C. Perrot & P. M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquités Bibliques, Paris 1976, vol. 2, 256–261. 84 On the Pharisees see A. Michel & J. Le Moyne, “Pharisiens”, DBSup 7 (1966), cols. 1022–1115 (with rich bibliography, cols. 1110–1115); E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes et al., vol. 2, Edinburgh 1979, 381–403 (with recent bibliography); E. Rivkin, “Pharisees”, IDBSup, 657–663. 79

6. Rabbinic Tradition in Recent Study (to 1980): Select Questions

85

of their members that Hyrcanus should resign from the High Priesthood. In this context Josephus makes mention of their influence over the masses. He also notes that Hyrcanus joined the Sadducees. Having deserted the Pharisees “he abrogated the regulations which they had made for the people and punished those who observed them”. Josephus goes on to note that the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Law of Moses (Ant. 13.10.6, § 297). These legal regulations of Hyrcanus’ days are also mentioned in the Mishnah (m. Maaser Sheni 5:15; m. So ah 9:10). From this it would appear that already by 120 b.c.e. or so the Pharisaic legal tradition was quite developed and something which even monarchs had to reckon with. The Pharisees regained the royal favour again under Alexandra, 76–67 b.c.e., when their regulations were again restored (Ant. 13.16.2, § 408; War 1.5.2, § 111) and the people commanded to obey them. Their influence over the masses seems to have continued, since writing of the reign of Archelaus, Josephus notes that because of their doctrinal views the Pharisees were extremely influential among the townsfolk, and all prayers (or “vows”) and sacred rites of divine worship were performed according to their exposition (Ant. 18.1.4, § 15). It is generally assumed that the rabbis are the successors of the Pharisees and rabbinic Judaism the continuation of Pharisaism – this of the three Jewish “parties” being the only one to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be argued that this, too, is the rabbinic view which traces its history back through Gamaliel, Shammai and Hillel – all three otherwise known to have been Pharisees. This general view is queried by certain modern scholars, or is admitted only with certain reservations. One reason for the doubt is that persons called “Pharisees” (in Hebrew perushim) are attacked in rabbinic sources as vigorously as the Pharisees are in the New Testament.85 As against this argument, however, it may be noted that perushim (often rendered “Pharisee”) of these anti-perushim rabbinic texts may not refer to a group existing before 70 c.e. The traditional view has in its favour that major emphases of Pharisaic doctrine (tradition of the elders, orally transmitted; the Law of Moses; resurrection of the body) are also those of rabbinism. 6.3 How Representative of New Testament Period is Pharisaism / Rabbinism? Even if we grant the Pharisaism-rabbinism sequence, a number of questions still remain. One concerns the representative nature of Pharisaism of 85 Thus, for instance, G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature …”, BTB 7 (1977), 121, n. 27, citing J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, Cambridge 1973, 1.

86

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

the New Testament period, or at least of pre-70 c.e. Judaism. J. Jeremias86 reckoned the population of Palestine in Christ’s day to have been about 500,000 or 600,000. From Josephus (Ant. 17.2.4, § 42) we gather that the number of Pharisees in Herod’s day was about 6000. Proportionately this was not very high, and only marginally higher than that of the Essenes, given by Josephus (Ant. 18.1.5, § 20; cf. Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 12, 75) as over 4000. However, it would be unwise to argue from the low numbers. From Josephus we know that their influence was very great. We may presume that a good portion of the population followed their teachings on matters of halakah as well as their specific non-legal teachings, for instance the resurrection. It would be going beyond the evidence, though, to assume that the only articulate form of “mainstream” Judaism was Pharisaism. There probably were many Jews who did not belong to any of the traditional groups. At one time scholars tried to attach the individual apocryphal or non-canonical writings (for instance Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, 4 Esdras, 2 Baruch) to one or other of these groups. Very few make any such attempt today. A further question is: how representative of pre-70 Pharisaism is rabbinic literature? A point often made in this regard is that rabbinism as we know it has come to us through the activity of one man, or one man and his school, namely Jo anan ben Zakkai of the School of Hillel. It cannot be assumed that the tradition as transmitted by him and his school was as rich and varied as that of the earlier part of the century. In the pre-70 period there were two schools of Pharisaism, those of Shammai and Hillel, and it would appear that the dominant school was the former. The Palestinian Talmud (y. Gittin 9,11) presents the School of Shammai as the ancient Palestinian School. And even before 70 c.e. the halakah was being developed and positions and opinions of Christ’s day were probably already falling into the background or into oblivion. The Jewish scholar S. Zeitlin has rightly reminded us that rules formulated in rabbinical literature cannot always be regarded as the norm for the time of Jesus.87 A similar point has been made by F. C. Burkitt.88 We know that the halakah continued to be developed and sifted until its codification in the Mishnah in the second century c.e. It might be well to observe in this regard that this seems to hold principally for the halakah. There would appear to have been less need or occasion to develop 86 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London & Philadelphia 1969, 205 (original title: Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, Göttingen 1962). 87 S. Zeitlin, “The Halaka in the Gospels and its Relation to the Jewish Law at the Time of Jesus”, HUCA 1 (1924), 357–373. 88 F. C. Burkitt, “Jesus and the ‘Pharisees’”, JTS 28 (1927), 392–397. On the question of the relationship of Pharisees and rabbis see also E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 60–62; G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant, Leiden 1970, 259–267.

6. Rabbinic Tradition in Recent Study (to 1980): Select Questions

87

haggadah (non-legal Jewish tradition), and this section of Jewish tradition one could thus more readily presume to be older. J. Neusner, while not denying that even though a considerable amount of several tractates of the Mishnah may be pre-70 c.e., makes the point that this does not mean that they are specifically Pharisaic, since some of these pre-70 Mishnaic laws have to do with areas of public life which were not specifically subject to Pharisaic control.89 One area in which later rabbinism differed most probably from Pharisaism and early rabbinism was in its suspicion of mysticism and apocalyptic writings. Jo anan ben Zakkai himself was a devotee of mysticism and the rabbinic antagonism to apocalyptic appears to have developed only after 70 c.e.90 6.4 Rabbinic Studies, Selectivity, and Polemics Down the centuries, Christian writers have made use of Jewish and rabbinical sources for polemical ends, be it to refute Jewish claims or to highlight the superiority of Christianity. We have already seen how G. F. Moore, and after him E. P. Sanders, took Christian writers severely to task for their unsympathetic approach and for presenting the view that rabbinic religion was one of legalistic works-righteousness. We have seen also Sanders’ severe strictures on Billerbeck. The danger of selectivity, and even of false presentation of the evidence, is present in most comparative studies. Once this danger is recognised it can be the more easily avoided. It is important to recognise that selectivity can operate on either of the two sides – on the Jewish as well as the Christian. This was clearly pointed out by G. W. Buchanan in an essay on “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, published in 1977 – the same year as Sanders’ study on Paul. Buchanan admits that Billerbeck was selective, according to his aim, and that students using him and assuming that his abbreviated list was complete and his references accurate, selected from Billerbeck’s list the passages which supported their arguments, in so doing sometimes misrepresenting the rabbinic point of view.91 But Buchanan also points out in this essay that rabbinic scholars like Abrahams, Finkelstein, Ginsburg, Herford and Moore have been selective in their choice of texts used by them in their defence of Judaism, by arguing that it 89

The Modern Study of the Mishnah, ed. by J. Neusner, Leiden 1973, xv. See W. D. Davies, “Apocalyptic and Pharisaism”, in his Christian Origins and Judaism, 19–30. On Judaism and mysticism see G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 1941 (repr. 1961); idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, New York 1965; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 220–221. 91 G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature …”, BTB 7 (1977), 111–112. 90

88

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

should not be identified with the Pharisees whom Jesus attacked. They did so, Buchanan notes, by selecting those passages in rabbinic literature which suited their purpose and by dismissing contrary evidence. Together with this danger of selectivity there is another weakness in the traditional approach to rabbinics to which Jacob Neusner has alerted us,92 and it is this: the approach and content of these studies have been determined by Christian interest in the New Testament and in the Jewish material calculated to illustrate it. “Both the questions they [that is New Testament scholars] bring to the rabbinic literature”, writes Neusner, “and the historical epistemological suppositions in accord with which they read that literature quite naturally emerge from their prior and more important interest, which in the main has been in the character and teachings of Jesus.”93 This Christian need was served by Jewish scholars, thus determining a Jewish approach to rabbinical literature as well. In Neusner’s opinion, by this union of interests the study of rabbinic tradition paid a heavy price. Attitudes of mind and questions of investigation came to be imposed on the historical study of rabbinic sources which are wholly congruent neither to the character of these sources, nor to their principle concerns. Neusner further remarks that rabbinism and the New Testament are separated from one another by different ontologies. “For what begins now to emerge” (from Mishnah and Tosefta), he writes, is “a kind of [Jewish] piety which simply is quite different from that represented by the Gospels, an expression of a Judaic ontology entirely distinct from that operative in the Judaism of what is assigned to Jesus. … For what the Pharisees evidently stood for is an ontological conception, a set of ultimate concerns, distinct from, but not necessarily in conflict with, that of the earliest church of Jerusalem.”94 When he goes on to define this Pharisaic ontology which, he believes, stands at the centre of the rabbinic picture of the first-century Pharisees, he instances their stress on eating food suitable for the cult and eating it in conditions of cultic cleanness, which for him means that their central metaphor is the cult, by analogy to which what is clean is deemed clean and what is unclean deemed unclean. Such an ontology is realised ultimately in that permanent, recurrent and perfect world created by the cult. The central ontological affirmation of the Gospels, he continues, centres on a profoundly disruptive historical event: the passion and the resurrection of Christ.95 One may disagree with what Neusner has to say on these ontologies. The need for 92

J. Neusner, “The Use of the Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of First-Century Pharisaism”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green, Missoula 1978, 215–225. 93 Ibid., 215. 94 Ibid., 223. 95 Ibid., 224–225.

7. The Question of Methodology

89

students of rabbinical literature to be mindful of the possibility of apparently identical or similar words, concepts and imagery being at the service of quite different understandings of reality should, however, be borne in mind.

7. The Question of Methodology96 The use of rabbinical literature in New Testament studies has needed to be justified. The admissibility of rabbinic evidence was not a self-evident truth. To begin with, the rabbinic material is undated, as against other Jewish literature to which a date could be assigned. Its use had to be justified and the method of its employment in New Testament studies refined. The process and the questions with which we are conversant today have been there for the past hundred years. A rapid look at the questions raised concerning the use of rabbinical literature over the past century will help us understand the present-day situation. Whereas both C. Schoettgen (1733) and F. Nork (1839) freely drew on the Zohar and Kabbalah as sources for rabbinical ideas, A. F. Gfrörer (1838) was more discerning and urged caution in the use of the Kabbalah.97 In his work, The Jewish Messiah (1877), J. Drummond does not reject the rabbinic writings outright as sources for information on the subject but prefers the apocalyptic writings, since he believed that these were closer to the aspirations of the people than the rabbinical writings.98 W. Bousset was critical of the use of rabbinical material as sources for a knowledge of Judaism of the New Testament period. He raises three objections in his work Die Religion des Judentums (1903): the late date at which the traditions were consigned to writing; the lack of critical editions of this literature; the fact that Jewish religion has been in a state of flux, so that one cannot presume that no changes took place after the fall of Jerusalem.99 E. Schürer had, perforce, to confront the question in his Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (1873–1886). He notes that the origins of rabbinic literature date almost without exception from the earliest years of the period after that treated in his history (that is New Testament period). Almost the whole of the rabbinic literature that has been preserved, he says, reaches no further back than the last decade of the first century c.e. Nevertheless, he reckons it an invaluable source for the times of Christ, since the fountain of these traditions reach back beyond 96

See G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature …”, BTB 7 (1977), 110–122. A. F. Gfrörer, Geschichte des Urchristentums, Stuttgart 1838. 98 J. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah: A Critical History of the Messianic Idea among the Jews from the Rise of the Maccabees to the Closing of the Talmud, London 1877. 99 For a criticism of Bousset’s position on these points, see Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 38–39, 42–43. 97

90

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

the time of Christ.100 In Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung (1911) A. Schweitzer says that the rabbinism of our sources can be neglected in the study of St Paul.101 Weber’s sketch of the rabbinic world of ideas makes it clear that they add nothing to the understanding of Paul’s thought. And in any event it would be quite impossible to prove that parallels from the rabbinic sources date from the beginning of the first century. It is not denied that Paul had his roots in the Jewish theology of his time; what is denied is that later rabbinism represents that of Paul’s day. The continuity he regards as broken with the fall of Jerusalem; later rabbinism he looks on as ossified, confining itself to a mere unproductive commentating on the Law. A very similar position was defended by E. Bischoff in 1905 in his work Jesus und die Rabbinen.102 Jesus, he says, did not derive a single essential element of his teaching from the rabbis, since the rabbinic dicta brought forward in the argument in Bischoff’s opinion are later than Jesus, being ascribed to later rabbis in the sources. In part Bischoff was right. In 1911 A. Drews, in his work Die Christusmythe,103 argues from rabbinic parallels that ideas ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are to be found also in the Talmud and midrash, and may not have come from Jesus at all. This he does without worrying about the date of the rabbinic parallels. I have already noted the study of S. Zeitlin, under the title “The Halaka in the Gospels and its Relation to the Jewish Law at the Time of Jesus”, in which he makes the point that laws formulated in our rabbinic sources cannot always be regarded as having been the norm in the time of Jesus. Likewise F. C. Burkitt in his essay on “Jesus and the ‘Pharisees’”, reminds us that “vast and varied as the Talmudic literature is, it all goes back to Johanan ben Zakkai and his School. Johanan ben Zakkai was a loyal and orthodox Jew, and he may be described as a ‘Pharisee’, but he did not represent in himself all the tendencies of the not-unorthodox Judaism of the 1st century”.104 Scholars had to live with the unresolved tension in rabbinic studies: the obvious affinity between the New Testament and rabbinic literature on the one hand and the problem that this literature became fixed in writing after 100

E. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1890, Erster Theil, 86–87; English translation, A History of the Jewish People, Division I, vol. 1, Edinburgh 1890, 117–118; new translation ed. by G. Vermes et al., Edinburgh 1973, vol. 1, 69. 101 Schweitzer, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung (see n. 15 above), 36–39; English translation, Paul and His Interpreters, 48–51. 102 Jesus und die Rabbinen: Jesu Bergpredigt und “Himmelreich” in ihrer Unabhängigkeit vom Rabbinismus, dargestellt von Erich Bischoff, Leipzig 1905. 103 A. Drews, Die Christusmythe, Jena 1909; English translation by C. Delisle Burns, The Christ Myth, London 1910; Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 18, refers us especially to pp. 341–391. 104 F. C. Burkitt, “Jesus and the ‘Pharisees’”, JTS 28 (1927), 392–397, at 394.

7. The Question of Methodology

91

the New Testament period on the other. A methodology was called for. In the second chapter of his book on Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (1954) J. W. Doeve takes up this problem. After a survey of the material, he lists the objections against rabbinic sources in New Testament research as follows:105 “These sources did not begin to be fixed in writing till the end of the second century, that is to say at a comparatively late period; both on the point of textual criticism and of isagogics the rabbinic literature still offers many unsolved problems; the importance of the break in Jewish history in the years 65 to 70 must not be underestimated; the tradition of the data from before 70 has come to us by the hand of one man, Johanan ben Zakkai; for historical research the rabbinic literature is of small value; apocalyptic is taken to represent popular piety and to be related to occurrences of deep import in the history of the people; and finally: Jesus is thought to be closer to this popular piety.”

Doeve evaluates these objections critically and shows that a number of them had already been refuted. His own work, we have seen, came at the beginning of the emphasis on midrash in Judaism and in the New Testament. In any event, the following year R. Bloch published her basic study: “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, in which among other things she gives her comparative method for dating otherwise undated rabbinic traditions.106 In the intervening decades the stress was on midrash. And when objections to part of the rabbinic tradition were again voiced, these were directed chiefly against the Targums in particular. However, some very strong objections were made against the use of rabbinic literature in general as a witness for Judaism of the pre-70 c.e. era. Some of these must be mentioned here. S. Sandmel’s Presidential Address to the Society of Biblical Literature in 1961 on “Parallelomania” has been often cited in recent studies.107 Parallelomania he defines as “that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction”.108 He has much to say on rabbinic literature in this regard and is particularly severe in his judgement of Strack-Billerbeck’s Kommentar. In 1963 M. Smith in a review essay of B. Gerhardsson’s Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala 1961) criticises Gerhardsson’s supposition “that the Jewish milieu of the first century was predominantly Pharisaic and that the Pharisaic practice of the first century is represented with substantial 105

Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 41. See n. 54 above. 107 Published in JBL 81 (1962), 1–13. 108 Ibid., 1. 106

92

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

accuracy by the rabbinic documents of the third”.109 In his view, to read back into the period before 70 the developed rabbinic technique of about 200 c.e. (that is the technique which rabbinic Judaism developed for memorization and oral transmission of the unwritten Law) is an anachronism. In Smith’s view a radical change in this matter took place after 70. In writing on Pharisees and rabbinic literature in 1970, G. W. Buchanan has this to say: “It is very difficult, if not impossible, to learn the character of the Pharisees in the first century of the Christian Era in Palestine from rabbinic literature, which was mostly edited or originally composed in the diaspora sometime between the third and the seventh century a.d., and which seldom mentioned the Pharisees by name. Some early tradition may be preserved in this literature, but it must be demonstrated point by point by comparison with Josephus, Philo, or some other earlier writer. A statement attributed to an early rabbi may have been composed, as well as attributed to him, by a later rabbi. Literature written and preserved by the rabbis may or may not have been written by Pharisaic rabbis, and the date of its composition must still be established by some other criterion than the date at which the rabbi in question lived.”110

In the same writer’s later (1977) and excellent essay on “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, his position has been somewhat mollified, but not radically changed: “there is preserved in rabbinic literature some material which has been faithfully copied from sources which predate the New Testament. When this has been isolated it can be used …; but this is not easy to identify or establish”.111 At the end of a century of research on the use of rabbinic material in New Testament studies, we see that the position of scholarship is somewhat the same as it was at the very beginning: Rabbinic material is being used, but there are some scholars who do not see how it can be, given the difficulty in dating rabbinic evidence.

8. The Targums and New Testament Studies 8.1 The Beginnings112 The history of targumic study and the use of the Targums in New Testament study is more or less parallel with that of rabbinic studies. Today we have 109 “A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Traditions”, JBL 82 (1963), 169–176. 110 G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant, 265. 111 Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature …”, BTB 7 (1977), 112. 112 For a history of targumic research, see M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966 (repr., with supplement, 1978), 5–33; idem, “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19 (above pp. 27–47).

8. The Targums and New Testament Studies

93

“rabbinic” Targums of all books of the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra and Nehemiah. We have the official rabbinic Targum of Onqelos for the Pentateuch and of Jonathan for the Prophets (Former and Latter). Together with this there is the other Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan for the Pentateuch and also the Fragment Targum. The Aramaic texts of those and Latin translations had been printed by the seventeenth century. The Targum of Chronicles was published and translated later (1680, 1683, 1715). The use of the Targums for New Testament study begins about the midseventeenth century, and by the same authors as used rabbinic tradition for this purpose. A special difficulty regarding the use of the Targums was soon perceived, viz. evidence of a post-first-century c.e. date for some of them. Writing in 1657 on the matter in the Apparatus accompanying the London Polyglot,113 B. Walton notes that there are some texts in the Targums which support Christian claims against the Jews, for instance texts in which the Word (that is Memra) of God is spoken of as a distinct person, messianic interpretations of certain texts. But this does not mean that the Targums are old. Rather are these passages the remnants of older traditions and interpretations coming down from the Prophets inserted in later writings. Onqelos and Jonathan he regards as much older than the Targum of the Hagiographa and Pseudo-Jonathan. G. Dalman studied the language of the Targums of the Pentateuch in his work Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch.114 In the first edition of this (1894) he gave a prominent place to the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum (both also known as Palestinian Targums, since their Aramaic in which they are written is Palestinian), thinking that they may contain certain very old, even pre-Christian sections. This opinion he soon abandoned, and the Palestinian Targum was later not considered very important. In fact, the Targums in general were not reckoned admissible as evidence for Judaism of the New Testament period, and this mainly because of the late date of the earliest manuscripts – the sixteenth century – for Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum. The Targums, consequently, do not figure as sources in Jewish religion in the works of Moore or Bonsirven. 8.2 A New Approach The situation changed in 1930. In that year P. Kahle in Masoreten des Westens II,115 edited Cairo Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targum(s), 113 Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, Prolegomenon XII, London 1657, 81–87. Texts cited in McNamara, The New Testament, 5–7 (cf. above pp. 28–29). 114 In the 2nd edition, Leipzig 1905 (repr. Darmstadt 1960). 115 Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930.

94

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

some of which he believed dated from the seventh century c.e. This showed up the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch in a new light. Likewise, in the thirties and later a new approach to biblical interpretation and to Jewish midrash was making itself felt. This led to respect for traditions, despite the recent age of the manuscripts in which they first appear in writing. Her researches in midrash led R. Bloch to believe that the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch was at the very heart of Jewish midrash. She wrote in 1955:116 “During a study of the Jerusalem [Palestinian] Targum, it became obvious to us that this Targum lies at the base of later aggadic tradition, that by serving as an immediate extension of the scriptural given, it acts as a sort of hinge, a bridge between the Bible and later rabbinic literature, and that it represents a starting point, not of the midrashic genre as such (which is already present in biblical literature), but of midrash, properly so-called, all of whose structure and themes it already contains.”

Research in Targum studies along the line begun by Renée Bloch was continued by G. Vermes, and others as well. Two events towards the end of the 1940s were to effect the future course of Targum studies in no small way. One was the finding of the Scrolls at Qumran from 1947 onwards; the other the finding in 1949 of a complete copy of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch in the Neofiti Collection of Manuscripts of the Vatican Library (a manuscript known as Codex Neofiti 1). From these beginnings the modern interest in targumic studies has grown. 8.3 Targum Studies 1950–1980117 The rapid development in the field of targumic studies in recent years is almost incredible. An idea of the extent of this can be gathered from the special survey and bibliographies which have been compiled and published. In 1967 the Biblical Institute Press, Rome, published a small booklet by P. Nickels entitled: Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography together with a New Testament Index. The work had 14 pages of bibliography and 74 pages of an index on the New Testament texts studied in the bibliographical entries. In 1972 B. Grossfeld published A Bibliography of Targum Literature,118 containing 1054 entries. Because of omissions in the first edition and the growth in the study of the subject he brought out a second volume in 1977, bringing the total number of entries to 1852. Two major surveys of developments in the field were made by R. Le Déaut, CSSp, one of the leading specialists 116

RSR 43 (1955), 212; English translation, “Midrash” (n. 54 above), 60–61. Together with the literature noted below, see also M. McNamara, “Half a Century of Targum Study”, Irish Biblical Studies 1 (1979), 157–168 (reproduced above, pp. 48–58). For the later period see R. Hayward, “Major Aspects of Targumic Studies 1983–1993: A Survey”, Currents in Research 2 (1994), 107–122. 118 B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, Cincinnati & New York. 117

8. The Targums and New Testament Studies

95

in the subject, and published in 1974. The first was entitled: “The Current State of Targumic Studies”,119 the other “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”. In that same year a Newsletter for Targum Studies was begun, intended to keep interested students abreast of the research being published and in progress. The present writer has given a review of recent studies, with concentration on trends, in the entry “Targums” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (1976),120 and to a lesser extent in the supplement to the second printing of The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (1978).121 In 1959, in the second edition of The Cairo Geniza, P. Kahle expressed himself as follows on the date and importance of the Palestinian Targum:122 “In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, we have in the main material coming from pre-Christian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.”

A new era in the use of the Targums, particularly of the Palestinian Targum or Targums of the Pentateuch, in New Testament research commences about this time. In 1957 S. Lyonnet had written on the importance of the targumic paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 for the understanding of Rom 10:6–8.123 In the early sixties R. Le Déaut was beginning to publish the earliest of his many contributions on the subject. His doctoral dissertation La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (1963)124 was the first major monograph on a targumic subject in modern times. In the years that followed the studies and monographs increased, particularly during the past decade (1970–1980). The new studies tended to concentrate on the relationship of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch with the New Testament. Many points of contact between the two bodies of literature were noted. In the Targums, for instance, extensive use is made of such expressions as “the Word (Memra) of the Lord”, or “the Glory of the Lord”, Shekinah (Presence) – possibly with the intention of safeguarding the divine transcendence. These were seen to have a bearing on the use 119

The essays published respectively in BTB 4 (1974), 3–32, 243–289. IDBSup, 856–861. 121 M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2nd edition, Oxford & Rome 1978; supplement, 287–303. 122 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, Oxford 1959, 208. 123 S. Lyonnet, “Saint Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps”, in Mélanges bibliques: Rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert, Paris 1957, 494–506. 124 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale, Rome 1963. 120

96

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

and the understanding of such terms as Logos, Glory, and so forth in the Fourth Gospel. The Targums also speak of God communicating his will to his people through his word (in Aramaic Dibbera, Dibbura), or through his spirit or holy spirit. It may be possible to use these targumic terms and expressions in the interpretation of 2 Cor 3:17. In the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums God is occasionally spoken of as “your (their, his …) Father in heaven”; we read of persons having merit “before their Father in heaven”. It would seem natural to conclude that Jesus and the early Christians were merely using the current religious vocabulary of their time when they used these terms – although the revelation of the Father by Jesus would have put new content into them. We even meet in the Targums such an expression as: “Be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful.” We may also instance other targumic phrases and terms such as “the great day of judgement”, “this world – the world to come”, Gehenna, redeemer, redemption. The relationship between the Targums and the New Testament was seen as going far beyond these phrases and isolated terms. The Targums came to be regarded as carrying a particular theology, a special understanding of religion, in the traditions it contained concerning certain biblical rites, persons or events, for instance the narrative of the Garden of Eden, the sacrifice or the Binding (Aqedah) of Isaac (Genesis 22), Jacob’s ladder (Genesis 28), the well of Jacob (Genesis 28), circumcision, the well believed to have followed the Jews during the desert wanderings (cf. 1 Cor 10:4; Pal. Tg. Num 21:16–20, and so forth), and others besides. In Jewish tradition the Binding (or Sacrifice) of Isaac was regarded as expiatory, and some students of the New Testament believed that it was in the context of such a Jewish tradition that Paul formulated his understanding of the death of Christ. The Torah is mentioned quite often in the Targums; it is identified with divine Wisdom (as already in Sirach), regarded as the Tree of Life and as possessed of saving power. Some scholars expressed the view that these Jewish traditions on the Torah provided St Paul with material for some of what he has to say about Christ (Wisdom of God, fragrance that brings life, and so forth). Paul would have transferred to Christ what Jewish tradition as found in the Targums predicated of the Law. Together with these comparative studies, the Targums and targumic tradition were receiving attention in their own right during these recent decades. The Aramaic texts were being critically edited and translated into vernaculars. The grammar of the Targums was also being attended to. Grammars of Neofiti have been made, although as yet not published fully. The debate concerning the age of the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targums was carried on. The history of transmission of the Palestinian Targums was traced as far as the evidence would permit. Studies have indicated that a text of the Palestinian Targum almost identical with Neofiti (copied ca. 1500) was used

8. The Targums and New Testament Studies

97

by Rabbi Nathan ben Ye iel († 1106) in the compilation of his dictionary known as the Aruk. With the help of the Cairo Genizah Targum texts, and of some early rabbinic citations, it has seemed possible to take the history of the Targum back beyond this, into the seventh century, and earlier with regard to some texts at least. The relationship of the midrash of the Targums, of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch in particular, to rabbinic midrash has also been considered and debated. Rabbi Menahem Kasher studies the midrash of the Targums in general, and of Neofiti in particular, in vol. 24 of his 35-volume work, Torah Shelemah (1974).125 His position is that the Targums of Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti are basically from the time of Ezra; that the Midrash depends on the Targums, as does also early (that of Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai) and later Jewish tradition. Not everyone would feel as confident as Rabbi Kasher in assigning an early date to the Targums. Certain arguments were put forward (by A. Díez Macho and R. Le Déaut in particular) in favour of an early (or pre-Christian) date for the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch: (1) anti-mishnaic passages, taken as pre-mishnaic; (2) messianic interpretations; (3) relationship with the New Testament; New Testament borrowings; (4) geographical and historical names; (5) Greek and Latin loan words; (6) they presuppose a different Hebrew Vorlage. Together with such arguments for the early age of the Targum as a whole, the arguments for the age of individual traditions introduced by Bloch continued to be used. In what is sometimes referred to as “the Kahle School”, there grew up a certain attitude with regard to the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch and its relationship to the New Testament. To begin with, the interpretative tradition enshrined in this Targum, if not the actual Targum itself, was generally assumed to be very old and basically pre-Christian. Writers of this “School” tended to speak of the Palestinian Targum (in the singular), ignoring the differences between Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, the Fragment Targum and the Genizah texts. A further point regarding certain members of this “school” is that they tended to regard the Aramaic in which the Targum is written as representing the dialect of Galilee, if not of all Palestine, in Jesus’ day. Qumran Aramaic would represent a literary language rather than a spoken vernacular. With regard to the age of the tradition they would tend to agree with the judgement of G. Vermes: “The student of midrash 125 Jerusalem; in Hebrew. The full title on the English title page is: Aramaic Versions of the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of Onqelos, Jonathan, Jerusalem Targums and the Full Jerusalem Targum of the Vatican Manuscript Neofiti I. The origin and methods of the three Targums, their relation to one another, and an analysis of their use as sources in PostBiblical Literature. A chapter-by-chapter summary of the work is given by A. Díez Macho in Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 5: Deuteronomio, Madrid 1978, 41*–82*.

98

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

may deduce that he is entitled to begin his investigation with the following working hypothesis: unless there is specific proof to the contrary, the haggadah of the Palestinian Targums is likely to antedate the outbreak of the Second Jewish Revolt in a.d. 132.”126 8.4 Early Date and Relevance of Targums Queried It was inevitable, almost, that the validity of a number of the assertions made concerning the Targums, and the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch in particular, should be queried, particularly by students working with texts and material of first century c.e. or pre-Christian origin, such as was the Qumran literature. The objections came in the course of reviews of works on the Targums,127 and in studies on Qumran Aramaic. In 1974 A. D. York devoted an essay to the subject: “The Dating of Targumic Literature”.128 The arguments against the early dating of the Targums have, if anything, become more articulate in 1978 and 1979. The objections varied in kind. An obvious target was the assertion that the Aramaic of the Targums, of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch (and of any particular one of them, for instance Neofiti), represented the Aramaic of Palestine in the first century c.e. The Aramaic of the Palestinian Targums is closely related to Galilean Aramaic as found in the Palestinian Talmud and midrash. There is no evidence for the peculiar form of this Aramaic dialect in texts before 200 c.e. at the earliest, and specialists of Aramaic give ca. 200 c.e. as the date of the emergence of the dialect. The Aramaic of Onqelos and Jonathan (on the Prophets), on the other hand, is related to Qumran Aramaic. It has been maintained that Qumran Aramaic represents the literary Aramaic of Palestine up to the destruction of the schools of Judea at the defeat of the Bar Cochba revolt, 135 c.e. Any pre-135 document must be presumed to have been in this standard Aramaic; any Palestinian text not in this form of Aramaic must be presumed to be post-135. One Jewish scholar, going on this principle has argued for a pre-135 c.e. date for Onqelos and Jonathan; more than one has argued for it for a post-135 date for the Palestinian Targums. The language, of course, might well be late while the tradition it enshrines is much older. But, then again, we do have a very old pre-Christian Targum, and part of another, from Qumran (11Qtg Job; 4QtgJob; 4QtgLev). The fact that these are very literal translations with none of the typical character126

G. Vermes, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. by P. R. Acroyd & V. F. Evans, Cambridge 1970, 199–231, at 231. 127 See, for instance, the reviews of J. Fitzmyer in TS 29 (1968), 322–326; CBQ 30 (1968), 417–428; 32 (1970), 107–112; JBL 91 (1972), 575–578; 95 (1976), 315–317. 128 JSJ 5 (1974), 49–62.

8. The Targums and New Testament Studies

99

istics of the “traditional” Targums, may indicate that these latter originated later. And these Qumran texts are in older, not Galilean, Aramaic.129 Much more important, however, is the absence from these Targums found in Qumran (where composed, in Qumran or outside is another matter) of such characteristics of the traditional Targums as “buffer words” such as “Memra”, “Shekinah”, and so forth. The Aramaic word m’mr (ĕċýċ) does occur twice in 11QtgJob (col. XXVIII 9: Job 36:2; and col. XXXIII 8: Job 39:27), but in the sense of “word”, “command”. Neither case is an example of the “buffer usage” so frequent in the traditional Targums. Because of this, the antiquity and pre-Christian date of the usage of “Memra” as a “buffer word” or concept can be queried, and with it the antiquity of related words and concepts such as Shekinah, Dibbera, and possibly others (for instance Holy Spirit). The Palestinian Targums, and other Targums known to have been used in the synagogue liturgy, are generally supposed to have had their origin in the synagogue. Recently, one scholar has asserted that while this is one possibility it has not been demonstrated that the written rabbinic Targums are oral in origin or that the targumic method as such derived from the synagogue liturgy.130 This is connected with a further statement that the actual synagogue liturgy of the first century is not known and that there is no evidence that the readings from the Law and the Prophets were at that time rendered into Aramaic. The methodology used by scholars in their use of targumic evidence in New Testament study has been called into question. It is maintained that they presume rather than prove that the targumic method is old. They are accused of circular reasoning, petitio principii, proving from their relationship with the New Testament that the Targums are old, and using them in New Testament research since they are presumed to predate it or be very ancient. As a final point regarding objections I may note that certain scholars have observed that some of the parallels brought forward for the influence of the targumic tradition on the New Testament may very well be explained through New Testament or Christian influence on rabbinic and targumic tradition. In 1972 J. Murphy O’Connor had asked that this possibility be seriously considered.131 In 1977 G. W. Buchanan remarked that thus far “little effort has been made to note the extent that Christian literature has influenced Jewish literature”.132 Since then, some scholars have argued that 129

See J. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 5–21, esp. 18–20. 130 See L. L. Grabbe, “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its Date”, JBL 98 (1979), 393–401, at 394, n. 6. 131 In a review of McNamara, Targum and Testament, in ITQ 39 (1972), 398. 132 G. W. Buchanan, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature …”, BTB 7 (1977), 121, n. 33.

100

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

this precisely is what has happened in the Jewish tradition on the Binding (Aqedah) of Isaac. Away back in 1872 A. Geiger maintained that this is what has happened: Aqedah theology was Christian in origin. This view was rejected in 1912 by I. Levi,133 who also argued that St Paul used the current Jewish Aqedah tradition to express his theology. Levi’s position was later defended by J. Schoeps (1946, 1950), G. Vermes (1961), R. Le Déaut (1963) and others. In recent times it has been defended by R. J. Daly as part of his doctoral dissertation,134 in a book based on this,135 and in an essay in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1977)136 under the title: “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac”. This essay occasioned another lengthy article in the same journal in 1978 by P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, entitled: “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History”.137 This was followed by a further essay by B. D. Chilton in Biblica (1980)138 on the reference to the Aqedah in the “Poem of the Four Nights” (Pal. Tg. Exod 12:42). Among the sources used in the discussion are Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and 4 Maccabees, which these scholars date respectively to 70–135 and 70–117 c.e. The contention of Davies and Chilton is that in the non-rabbinical sources there is no significant haggadic development beyond the biblical account before 70 c.e. After this it is possible to see a development portraying Isaac as a martyr. With regard to rabbinic (which would include the targumic) evidence, they suggest that the Aqedah came into existence when it entered the reformed liturgy after 70 c.e. as a deliberate and explicit substitute for the Tamid, the previous source of expiation for Israel’s sin. This would have occurred almost certainly during the second century c.e. and the Aqedah was then part of the New Year liturgy. During the following amoraic period (200–500 c.e.) a further development would have taken place to give us our present targumic Aqedah tradition. It was during this period that the Aqedah would have become associated with the Passover. This later development would have been intended to counter the Christian proclamation of the death of Jesus. A further study along the same lines is that of L. L. Grabbe (1979) who, in a critique of the present writer’s contention that Pal. Tg. Exod 1:15 and 133

I. Levi, “Le sacrifice d’Isaac et la mort de Jésus”, REJ 64 (1912), 161–184, at 161–162 for Geiger’s position. 134 R. J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen, Washington 1978. 135 R. J. Daly, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, Philadelphia & London 1978, 47–72. 136 R. J. Daly, “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac”, CBQ 39 (1977), 45–75. 137 P. R. Davies & B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History”, CBQ 40 (1978), 514–546. 138 B. D. Chilton, “Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration”, Bib 61 (1980), 78–88.

9. The Rabbis, Targums, and New Testament Studies

101

7:11–12 is a very early tradition, argues that it is in fact late (seventh century) and depends on the New Testament text of 2 Tim 3:8–9, which it is supposed to elucidate.139

9. The Rabbis, Targums, and New Testament Studies From the survey just made of rabbinic and targumic studies and their relevance for the understanding of the New Testament, two facts stand out clearly: on the one hand, the branches of learning in question are flourishing; on the other, some scholars doubt that either the rabbinic or targumic traditions known to us can be traced back to New Testament times and consequently deny either explicitly or implicitly the relevance of their use in the scientific study of the New Testament – except, that is, in individual cases where a given rabbinic or targumic tradition can be traced back to the first century of our era. At the end of sections 7 and 8 of this essay I have given the objections against use of the respective material in the study of New Testament Judaism or in New Testament studies. No attempt was made to answer the objections. To do so would require more space than can be afforded in an essay like this, and would in any case probably achieve little. The relative positions for or against the use of rabbinic material in the study of the New Testament are strongly held ones generally and are arrived at by masters in their own fields after years of reflection on the subject. The gap separating the sides may well be bridged not by new arguments being brought forward, but rather by a new look at the old evidence. What are the prospects for rabbinic and targumic studies in the years ahead, both as disciplines in their own right and in relation to the study of the New Testament? The answer to this seems to be that they shall continue to flourish. The critical study of rabbinic literature from a number of points of view is only in its infancy. The form-critical study of this literature has only begun. The same can be said of the attempt to determine the age of rabbinic traditions in this way. This field of study is not now likely to lose any of its momentum. The same holds true of the study of the Targums. The critical study of these, too, will most likely continue. Much more attention must be given to an analysis of the language of the Targums. It is also likely that both rabbinic and targumic literature will continue to be used in the study of the New Testament. Some of the objections against this use are no longer new and do not seem to have deterred students in the two decades under consideration in this essay (1960–1980). The most recent objection 139

L. L. Grabbe, “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition” (n. 130 above).

102

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

is the contention that rabbinic and targumic tradition is in some instances dependent on the New Testament or on Christian tradition. The cases instanced have yet to be critically examined, to see whether the point made is valid. What we need here is a study of the relationship of rabbinic and Patristic tradition. Some of the Fathers of the Church were in close contact with the Jews and their traditions but do not appear to have been aware of borrowing on the Jewish side. R. J. Loewe believes that the Targum of the Song of Songs is dependent on Origen.140 This particular Targum, however, has been shown to be a late work.141 It may legitimately be asked whether the use of rabbinic and targumic evidence in New Testament study is justified in view of the fact that the pre-70 c.e. age of this material has not been established, at least in the sense that the age of Qumran material or most apocryphal texts can be. One of the reasons for the difference of opinion in the evaluation of rabbinic and targumic evidence may lie in the manner of evaluating the age of traditions. The Qumran texts can be dated palaeographically and by their language. The manifold connection between rabbinic and targumic literature and that of the New Testament will for other scholars be an argument or very cogent pointer that central tradition is here pre-70 or contemporary with the New Testament period, even if individual items in this tradition can be shown to be later. The many points of contact between the two bodies of literature established over the centuries (terms, concepts, phrases, points of halakah, the manner of thinking and reasoning, use of the Hebrew Scriptures and so forth) point, it would seem, to more than a haphazard relationship. To this consideration we may add the extreme likelihood that what happened after the disaster of 70 c.e. and at Jamnia was consolidation of a tradition, not a new creation: a consolidation of the pre-70 central tradition. The consolidation would have meant a narrowing of the tradition, a selection, but not the creation of new traditions to the neglect of what was there. From this one can argue to the continuity with what was going on for generations previously – in matters of halakah on the Sabbath observance, vows, oaths, qorban, cleanness and such like. Details of halakah could vary, while the central interests remained the same. Granted this likelihood, I believe the students of the New Testament are justified in turning to this tradition in seeking to recreate the world in which the Gospel message was born and developed. To say this, naturally, does not mean that there can be any neglect in the critical use of rabbinic and targumic sources. The material must be evaluated in accord with critical criteria, which are still being refined. 140 R. J. Loewe, “Apologetic Motifs in the Targums to the Song of Songs”, in Biblical Motifs, ed. by A. Altman, Cambridge, Mass. 1966, 159–196. 141 See R. Le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Rome 1966, 140–141.

10. Some Relevant Studies on Issues examined

103

10. Some Relevant Studies on Issues examined 1. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First and Second Series), Cambridge 1917–1924. 2. B. J. Bamberger, “The Dating of Aggadic Materials”, JBL 68 (1949), 115–123. 3. (H. L. Strack &) P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vols.  1–4, Munich 1922–1929 (repr. 1961); vols.  5–6: Indexes, 1956–1961. 4. M. Black, “Pharisees”, IDB 3 (1962), 53–74. 5. R. Bloch, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique”, RSR 43 (1955), 194–227: English translation, W. S. Green & W. J. Sullivan, “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green (BJS 1), Missoula 1978, 51–75. 6. –, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1281; English translation, M. Howard Callaway in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 29–50. 7. J. Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ, 2 vols., Paris 1934–1935. 8. Idem, Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne, Paris 1939. 9. J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969. 10. Idem, Jesus and the Pharisees, Cambridge 1973. 11. G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup 20), Leiden 1970. 12. Idem, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, BTB 7 (1977), 110–122. 13. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1956. 14. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd edition, London 1958; Harper Torchbooks, New York & Evanston 1967. 15. Idem, “Apocalyptic and Pharisaism”, in idem, Christian Origins and Judaism, Philadelphia & London 1962, 19–30. 16. Idem, “Paul and Judaism”, in The Bible and Modern Scholarship, ed. by P. Hyatt, Nashville 1965, 178–186. 17. A. Díez Macho, El Targum: Introducción a las traducciones aramaicas de la Biblia, Barcelona 1972. 18. J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954. 19. A. Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (AGJU 4), Leiden & Cologne 1964. 20. L. Finkelstein, Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays, New York 1972. 21. J. Fitzmyer, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501–531. 22. Idem, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, NTS 20 (1974), 382–407. 23. Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979. 24. Idem, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 5–21. 25. J. Goldin, “The Thinking of the Rabbis”, Judaism 5 (1956), 3–12. 26. R. T. Herford, The Pharisees, New York 1924 (repr. paperback, Boston 1962). 27. M. Kadushin, Organic Thinking: A Study of Rabbinic Thought, New York 1938. 28. Idem, The Rabbinic Mind, 2nd edition, New York 1965.

104

Chapter 4: Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums

29. R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963. 30. Idem, Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament, Rome 1965. 31. Idem, “The current State of Targumic Studies”, BTB 4 (1974), 3–32. 32. Idem, “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”, BTB 4 (1974), 243–289. 33. Idem, “A propos d’une définition de midrash”, Bib 50 (1969), 395–413. English translation by M. Howard: “A propos a Definition of Midrash”, Int 26 (1971), 256–282. 34. J. Le Moyne & A. Michel, “Pharisiens”, DBSup 7 (1966), cols. 1022–1115. 35. H. Loewe, “The Dating of Rabbinic Materials”, in A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. by C. G. Montefiore & H. Loewe, Cleveland, New York & Philadelphia 1963, 709–713. 36. R. Marcus, “The Pharisees in the Light of Modern Scholarship”, JR 32 (1952), 153–164. 37. N. J. McEleny, “Orthodoxy in Judaism in the First Christian Century”, JSJ 4 (1973), 19–42. 38. M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966 (repr. with supplement, 1978). 39. Idem, “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19. 40. Idem, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972. Italian translation, Targum e il Nuovo Testamento, Bologna 1978. 41. Idem, “The Spoken Aramaic of the First Century Palestine”, in Church Ministry, ed. by A. Mayes (PIBA 2), Dublin 1977, 95–138. 42. Idem, “Targums”, IDBSup, 856–861. 43. M. P. Miller, “Targum, Midrash and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”, JSJ 2 (1971), 29–82. 44. C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St Paul: Two Essays, London 1914. 45. G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism”, HTR 14 (1921), 197–254. 46. Idem, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass. 1927–1930. 47. J. Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, Leiden 1962; rev. edition 1970. 48. Idem, The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, 3 vols., Leiden 1971. 49. Idem, “Types and Forms in Ancient Jewish Literature: Some Comparisons”, HR 11 (1972), 354–390. 50. Idem, “The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 a.d.: The Problem of Oral Tradition”, Kairos 14 (1972), 57–70. 51. Idem, “The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees in Modern Historiography”, Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal 19 (1972), 78–108. 52. Idem, From Politics to Piety: The Emergency of Pharisaic Judaism, Englewood Cliffs 1973. 53. Idem (ed.), The Modern Study of the Mishnah, Leiden 1973. 54. Idem, First Century Judaism in Crisis: Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of Torah, Nashville 1973. 55. Idem, “Introduction”, in Understanding Rabbinic Judaism: From Talmudic to Modern Times, ed. by J. Neusner, New York 1974, 5–26. 56. J. Parkes, Jesus, Paul and the Jews, London 1936.

10. Some Relevant Studies on Issues examined

105

57. Ch. Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century”, in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai & M. Stern, vol.  2, Philadelphia 1976, 1007–1039. 58. E. Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources”, HUCA 40–41 (1969– 1970), 234–238. 59. Idem, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees’ Search for the Kingdom Within, Nashville 1978. 60. Idem, “Pharisees”, IDBSup, 657–663. 61. A. J. Saldarini, “The End of the Rabbinic Chain of Tradition”, JBL 93 (1974), 97–106. 62. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, London 1977. 63. S. Sandmel, The Genius of Paul, New York 1958. 64. Idem, The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainties, New York 1969. 65. Idem, Judaism and Christian Beginnings, New York & Oxford 1978. 66. H. J. Schoeps, “Paulus als rabbinischer Exeget”, in idem, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Tübingen 1950, 221–233. 67. Idem, Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Licht der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen 1959. English translation, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, London 1961 (repr. Philadelphia 1979). 68. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, London 1955 (repr. New York 1961). 69. Idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, New York 1965. 70. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Revised translation, ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar & M. Black, Edinburgh, vol.  1, 1973; vol.  2, 1979; original title, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1886–1890. 71. M. Smith, “On the Problem of Method in the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, JBL 92 (1973), 112–113. 72. H. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš, 5th edition, Munich 1920. English translation of 5th edition: Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Philadelphia 1931. Rev. edition, H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991. 73. H.St.J. Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London 1900. 74. W. S. Towner, “Form-Criticism of Rabbinic Literature”, JJS 24 (1973), 101–118. 75. E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1975. 76. G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), Leiden 1961; 2nd rev. edition 1973. 77. Idem, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”, in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1970, 199–231. 78. H. Windisch, Paulus und das Judentum, Stuttgart 1935. 79. A. G. Wright, The Literary Form Midrash, Staten Island 1967. 80. A. D. York, “The Dating of Targumic Literature”, JSJ 5 (1974), 49–62.

Chapter 5

The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections* In another essay entitled “On Englishing the Targums”,1 written earlier than this one in a volume in memory of Professor A. Díez Macho, I wrote briefly on English translations of the Targums that had been published prior to 1978. English translations of individual Targums had been made, especially of the Megilloth: of the Targum of Canticles in 1751,2 18573 and 1908;4 of Targum of Qohelet in 1861;5 of Targum Sheni of Esther in 1888;6 of the Targums of Ruth and Jonah in 1886;7 of the Targum of Lamentations in 1893,8 of Targum of Ruth in 1928.9 In 1973 Professor B. Grossfeld brought together the previously published editions of these Targums.10 A translation of the Targum of Isaiah was published in 1871,11 and in 1949 J. Stenning * Originally published under the same title in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 103–115. 1 Published in D. Muñoz León (ed.), Salvación en la Palabra: Targum  – Derash  – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 447–461 reproduced below, pp. 118–131. 2 J. Gill, as part of his work Exposition of the Book of Solomon's Song, 2nd edition, London 1751. 3 By C. D. Ginsburg in his commentary on the Song of Songs, London 1857 (repr., together with the commentary on Coheleth, New York 1970), with a translation of ch. 1 of the Targum. 4 By H. Gollancz, as part of his work Translations from Hebrew and Aramaic, London 1908, 15–90. 5 By C. D. Ginsburg, as part of his commentary on the biblical book Coheleth, London 1861. 6 A translation by A. Bernstein of Cassel’s German translation of Targum Sheni in An Explanatory Commentary on Esther, Edinburgh 1888, 263–344. 7 O. T. Crane, The Targums on the Books of Ruth and Jonah: Literally translated from the Chaldee, New York 1886. 8 By A. W. Greenup (transl.), The Targum of the Book of Lamentations, Sheffield 1893. 9 A. Saarisalo, “The Targum to the Book of Ruth”, Studia Orientalia (Helsinki) 2 (1928), 88–104. 10 B. Grossfeld, The Targums of the Five Megilloth, New York 1973, with the translations noted above of Targum Ruth by A. Saarisalo, of Lamentations by A. W. Greenup, of Ecclesiastes by C. D. Ginsburg, of Esther (Targum Sheni) by P. S. Cassel and A. Bernstein, and of Canticles by H. Gollancz. 11 C. W. H. Pauli, The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Prophet Isaiah, London 1871.

The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

107

published an edition of the Aramaic text of this Targum, together with an English translation.12 Probably the best known of earlier English translations of the Targums is that of Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums made by J. W. Etheridge,13 which has been republished by Ktav Publishing House, but without any addition or prolegomenon. The renewed interest in the Targums in the late 1960s and in the 1970s led to new editions of the Aramaic text of some of the Targums as well as to new English translations. In his important work, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature14 J. Bowker published a new English translation of selected chapters of Pseudo-Jonathan. E. Levine has edited some texts of the Targums, together with English translations, introductions and notes.15 Between 1968 and 1978 the editio princeps of Codex Neofiti 1 was published (Genesis 1968, Exodus and Leviticus 1971, Numbers 1974, Deuteronomy 1978), together with Spanish, French and English translations, the English translation by M. Maher and the present writer. By 1980 the situation regarding English translations of the Targums was improving, at least with regard to the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. In 1980 M. Klein published the critical edition of the Fragment Targums together with an English translation,16 and in 1986 he performed a similar task for the Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targums.17 Between 1978 and 1980 a French translation of the Palestinian Targum of Codex Neofiti 1 and of Pseudo-Jonathan made by R. Le Déaut and J. Robert was published (Genesis, 1978; Exodus and Leviticus, 1979; Numbers, 1979; Deuteronomy, 1980).18 The situation in 1980 regarding English translations of the Targums fell far behind that of other branches of Jewish literature for which good modern English translations had been available for some time, for instance

12

J. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford 1949. J. W. Etheridge, The Targum of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum, 2 vols., London 1862–1865. Reprinted in one volume, New York 1968. 14 J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969. 15 E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth, Rome 1973; idem, The Aramaic Version of Jonah, Jerusalem 1975; idem, The Aramaic Version of Lamentations, New York 1976; idem, The Aramaic Version of Qohelet, New York 1978. 16 M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources (AnBib 76), 2 vols., Rome 1980. 17 M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Cincinnati 1986. 18 R. Le Déaut & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions palestiniennes complètes avec introduction, parallèles, notes et index, 4 vols. (SC 235, 256, 261, 271), Paris 1978, 1979, 1979, 1980. 13

108

Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

Canon H. Danby’s translation of the Mishnah,19 the Soncino translation of the Babylonian Talmud from 1935 onwards under the editorship of I. Epstein;20 the Soncino translation of the Midrash Rabbah under the editorship of H. Freedman and M. Simon from 1939 onwards,21 not to speak of J. Neusner’s translation of the Tosefta (1977, 1981, and later),22 and his work on the English translation of the Palestinian Talmud ongoing over several years.23 The published Qumran writings have also been made available in easily accessible English translations, for instance that of G. Vermes.24 An obvious desideratum in the field of Targum was at least a usable English translation of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, or even of all the Pentateuch Targums (including Onqelos), and if this was not possible, then at least of the more paraphrastic sections of these Targums. During the late 1960s and in the 1970s I was interested in bringing out a translation of the Palestinian Targums – in conjunction with the publication of the editio princeps of Codex Neofiti 1. The work that was published under the title Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament25 was originally intended as an introduction to such a translation of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. The plan to publish the translation, however, did not come to fruition. In retrospect this failure to publish can be regarded as gain. Targum studies in most aspects, but especially in grammar and lexicography, have made significant progress during the intervening decades.

1. Michael Glazier’s Interest in the Project Michael Glazier had his publishing house at Wilmington, Delaware, USA. During the seventies and eighties he had become ever more involved in the publication of theological works and of commentaries on the Bible. One of his more successful series was New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, in 22 volumes, edited by W. Harrington, OP and D. 19

H. Danby (transl.), The Mishnah, Oxford 1933. I. Epstein (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, 18 vols., London 1978. 21 H. Freedman & M. Simon (eds.), The Midrash Rabbah, 5 vols., London 1977. 22 J. Neusner (transl.), The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, 6 vols., New York 1977–1986. 23 J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, 35 vols., Chicago & London 1982–1995. 24 G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Harmondsworth 1975; 3rd edition, Sheffield 1987. 25 M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland, & Grand Rapids 1972; rev. edition, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Grand Rapids 2010. 20

1. Michael Glazier’s Interest in the Project

109

Senior, CP. When this series was completed in 1979, the publishers planned a similar one for the Old Testament, and I was asked to be co-editor, together with C. Stuhlmueller, CP. In 1980, while teaching at John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, I discussed with Michael Glazier the possibility of publishing English translations of some of the Targums, for instance the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. He expressed keen interest in the project and said we should meet to discuss it in greater detail. In November 1980 we discussed the situation regarding Targums in general, and he expressed his conviction that a translation project should go beyond the Palestinian Targums and embrace the entire targumic corpus. It was agreed that as a first step towards publication an editorial board should be set up, which would present a concrete plan to him by the end of January 1981. I returned to Dublin from Cleveland at the end of December 1980. The editorial board for the new project was based in Dublin, and comprised Dr K. Cathcart, Professor of Semitic Languages at University College, Dublin, M. Maher, MSC, Lecturer in Scripture and head of the Scripture Department, Mater Dei Institute of Religious Education, Dublin, and myself. Its first task was to draw up a plan for the project to be submitted to Michael Glazier. This work was completed by 23rd January. From the outset it was seen as desirable that consultants be added to the editorial board proper. Progress should be by stages, for instance completing the translation of the Palestinian Targums before planning the translation of the others. We were privileged to enlist as editorial consultants A. Díez Macho, MSC, D. J. Harrington, SJ, and B. Grossfeld. A concrete plan for the publication of all the (rabbinic-type) Targums was drawn up over 1981, together with provisional guidelines for contributors. By the end of 1982 a final text of the guidelines was complete and the panel of translators agreed on. Seventeen scholars, sixteen of whom continued throughout the project, were recruited: P. S. Alexander, D. R. G. Beattie, K. Cathcart, B. Chilton, R. P. Gordon, B. Grossfeld, D. J. Harrington, R. Hayward, J. F. Healey, P. S. Knobel, S. H. Levey, J. S. McIvor, M. McNamara, M. Maher, C. Mangan, A. J. Saldarini and M. Wilcox. E. G. Clarke and D. Stec joined later. The guidelines for contributors made the following points: 1. The plan in the present project was to translate all the traditional Targums (that is excluding those from Qumran) into modern English. No such translation had as yet been made. 2. The aim of this translation was to render the Aramaic text faithfully into acceptable, modern English. 3. The projected readership of the translation would be students of Jewish literature; students of the Old Testament, particularly those with an interest in textual matters and in the history of interpretation; students of the New

110

Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

Testament, in particular in its relationship to its Jewish origins. Apart from those formally studying these subjects, it was expected that the translation of the Targums would also interest a wider public. 4. The work intended would be strictly a translation, without an accompanying Aramaic text or text of the Bible. Neither would there be any lemmata for the individual verses. 5. As examples of what kind of translation was intended, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah or the Soncino translations of the Babylonian Talmud and of the Midrash Rabbah could be instanced. 6. It was noted that the format, layout and number of volumes for the entire work were not of immediate interest for translators and that a final decision on the actual number of volumes would be taken when the project was at a more advanced stage. 7. The translation of each Targum or group of Targums would be preceded by an appropriate introduction; an apparatus would accompany each translation, printed at the foot of the page; there would be appropriate explanatory notes on the text. It was noted that the edition of the Pentateuch Targums (including Onqelos) presented a difficulty, and it was thought at first that a synoptic presentation of these would be preferable, with all four representatives (Neofiti, Fragments including Genizah texts, PseudoJonathan and Onqelos) on facing pages. It was recognised, however, that the technical problems involved would necessitate careful planning. Other Targums presenting similar problems could be treated similarly, for instance the Targums of Esther and Targums with longer and shorter recensions. 8. There was detailed consideration in the guidelines of the translation itself, which was seen to be the principal matter. The translator’s attention was directed to the Aramaic text to be translated. The translator had to see whether this had been critically edited or not, and whether the Aramaic text was stable or varied according to manuscripts. It was understood that the translator would be in contact with the critical work currently being carried out on the Aramaic texts. The English translation itself was expected to be literal, faithful to the Aramaic text, in good English, of the rsv type of translation, but avoiding archaisms (for instance thou, thee, etc.). Attention was to be paid to the peculiarities of the Aramaic version and, insofar as consonant with acceptable English, these should be reproduced in the English rendering. In cases where the Targum by reason of its manner of rendering had deviated from normal canons of the language, these should be reproduced in the translation. As examples the guidelines cited such phrases as “It was revealed / manifest before the Lord”. Peculiarities of language, such as “debt” for “sin”, should be retained in the translation. Attention was drawn to the problems attending the translation of the expression bar nasha (ýóčĕþ) and it was noted that it would be well if the translators in

1. Michael Glazier’s Interest in the Project

111

this series followed some common principle. At least, the translator should indicate in a note that, literally, the text had “son of man” in cases where the expression was rendered in some other way, for instance “man”, “any one”. The translators were asked to pay attention to the manner in which the Targums translated a given term or phrase of the Hebrew Text (for example ėċýĂĀĎĄ, esed we’emet; ČĂýĆĉďđ, po‘ale ’awen …) and care taken to represent the targumist’s manner of translation (that is, if the same Hebrew term or phrase is always translated in the same manner in Aramaic, the same should be done in the English translation). Targumic deviations from the Hebrew Text, whether by interpretation or paraphrase, should be indicated by italics. The tetragrammaton, or letters representing it, should be translated as “the Lord”. Technical terms such as Memra, Shekinah (Shekinta), Dibbur(a), Dibber(a) should be left untranslated. Their meaning could be explained in a glossary accompanying each volume. 9. The apparatus would indicate the relationship between the English translation and the Aramaic original, noting variant readings in the original, emendations and such like. 10. The notes to the text should pay attention to a variety of matters, for instance to the relation of the Aramaic translation to the original Hebrew, to other early versions, to parallel passages in Jewish and Christian tradition, to the presence of foreign loan words (Greek, Latin, for example, in the Aramaic text), or the reason for the particular Aramaic paraphrase. The notes, in their extent and nature, would vary from one Targum and translator to another. 11. The introductions were expected to contain all the information necessary and useful for the understanding of the particular Targum or group of Targums. Each introduction would attend to the following: the use of the particular biblical book in Jewish life – in the liturgy, schools, and such like – and in the history of Jewish interpretation; early citations of the particular Targum; the number and nature of the known manuscripts of the Targum; the nature of the Aramaic of the particular Targum manuscripts; the nature of the Aramaic paraphrase and its relation to the Hebrew Text; the relation of a particular Targum to Jewish exegesis as known from other sources; the theological concepts and teaching of the particular Targum; the probable date and place of composition of the Targum; editions of the Aramaic text; translations of the particular Targum, especially in English translation; and finally, a bibliography of writings (particularly recent and in English) on the particular Targum, or group of Targums. These guidelines were drawn up at the inception of the project. It was to be expected that they would be modified as the individual Targums were being translated and annotated. Among other things considered at this early period was the question of deadlines for the submission of manuscripts for

112

Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

the various Targums, the date of publication of the individual works and of completion of the entire project. After various attempts and suggestions the editorial board agreed on dates from late 1984 to 1986 for the submission of manuscripts. In an essay published in 1986,26 but completed some time before, I ventured to say that the entire project could well be completed and in print by the end of 1987! At an early period a logo design by Florence Bern for the Aramaic Bible series was adopted; this came to the publisher through the good offices of Professor B. Grossfeld.

2. Progress in Publishing: 1987–1988 Manuscripts of completed works began arriving with the editors in 1984. The first four of these to be submitted to the publisher were the Targums of the Prophets, which were published in the Aramaic Bible series in 1987: Vol. 10: Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Introduction, translation, and notes. By D. J. Harrington, SJ, and A. J. Saldarini. Vol. 11: The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, apparatus and notes. By B. D. Chilton. Vol. 12: The Targum of Jeremiah. Translation with a critical introduction, apparatus and notes. By R. Hayward. Vol. 13: The Targum of Ezekiel. Translation with a critical introduction, apparatus and notes. By S. H. Levey.

Four volumes by Professor B. Grossfeld with the Targum Onqelos followed in 1988, as follows: Vol. 6: The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Translated with a critical introduction, apparatus and notes. Vol. 7: The Targum Onqelos to Exodus. Translated, with apparatus and notes. Vol. 8: The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers. Translated, with apparatus and notes. Vol. 9: The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Translated, with apparatus and notes.

3. Troubled Interlude 1988–1990 After publication of the first eight volumes of the series, there was a lull in the number of manuscripts being submitted. Only one volume was published in 1989, vol. 14: The Targum of the Minor Prophets (translated with a critical introduction, apparatus and notes, by K. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon). 26

“On Englishing the Targums”, reproduced below, pp. 118–131.

3. Troubled Interlude 1988–1990

113

Already, in a letter of 6th November 1988 the publisher drew the attention of the editors to the problems affecting the continuation of the Aramaic Bible Project arising from the fact that a specially commissioned typesetter did not have sufficient manuscripts to work on. The editorial board took note of the situation and definite new deadlines were considered. Discussions continued during the first part of 1989 and by August it became clear that changes in plans were required to ensure a speedier completion of the project. It was agreed that I should seek a benevolent author to do the notes for Neofiti 1, at least for the Books of Exodus and Leviticus, and that a similar solution for all the material of Pseudo-Jonathan, Numbers and Deuteronomy be sought. R. Hayward, who had already completed a volume in the series on Targum of Jeremiah, kindly agreed to take on the notes of Neofiti for Exodus and Leviticus, and E. G. Clarke did likewise for all the material for Pseudo-Jonathan, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Problems of another kind were soon to confront the publisher. The Philadelphia Inquirer carried a news item in October that one of Mr Glazier’s staff had been charged with defrauding the company. The large sums involved put the financial viability of Michael Glazier, Inc. in jeopardy; and after appraising the situation, Michael Glazier accepted a friendly takeover offer from The Liturgical Press, St John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota, a distinguished company that shared his commitment to scholarly biblical publishing. In early 1990 correspondence continued with Michael Glazier on the continuation of the project according to the latest schedule of the editorial board. During this period volume 15 (Targums of Job, Proverbs, Qohelet) was being typeset and the material for the “Two Targums of Esther”, Targum of Ruth and Targum of Chronicles, Targums Neofiti and PseudoJonathan of Genesis were with the publisher. In April Michael Glazier informed his contributors of the transfer to The Liturgical Press. A letter from Revd M. Naughton, OSB, Director of The Liturgical Press, dated 26th April 1990, contained the following information for those who published with Michael Glazier: “An agreement was signed earlier this month between Michael Glazier, Inc. and The Liturgical Press. The Liturgical Press has purchased the religious titles of Michael Glazier, Inc. both those already published and those in process. We will honor all contracts and agreements made by Michael Glazier, Inc. pertaining to works-inprocess, and will be in touch with the parties involved in the near future.”

With regard to the Aramaic Bible series, the changeover from Michael Glazier, Inc. to The Liturgical Press was extremely smooth, due in great part to the courtesy and efficiency of Mr Mark Twomey, Managing Editor and Mr John Schneider, Copy Editor for the Aramaic Bible series. It was under-

114

Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

stood, however, that publication of the remaining volumes would have to be within the overall publication schedule of The Liturgical Press. The new publishers set to work on production of the volumes in hand. In 1991 two volumes appeared: Vol. 15: The Targum of Job by C. Mangan, OP. The Targum of Proverbs by J. F. Healey. The Targum of Qohelet by P. S. Knobel. Vol. 18: The Two Targums of Esther. Translation, with apparatus and notes. By B. Grossfeld.

In 1992, two further volumes were published: Vol. 1A: Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translation, with apparatus and notes. By M. McNamara, MSC. Vol. 1B: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translation, with introduction and notes. By M. Maher, MSC.

In 1994, two further volumes were published: Vol. 19: The Targum of Ruth. Translation, with introduction, apparatus, and notes. By D. R. G. Beattie. The Targum of Chronicles. Translation, with introduction, apparatus, and notes. By I. S. McIvor. Vol. 2: Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Translation, with introduction and apparatus, by Martin McNamara, MSC, and notes by R. Hayward. Targum PseudoJonathan: Exodus. Translation, with notes. By M. Maher, MSC. Volume 3: Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus. Translation, with introduction and apparatus by M. McNamara, MSC, and notes by R. Hayward; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Translation, with notes by M. Maher, MSC was with the publisher and was due to be in print by 1995. The material for volumes 4 and 5 (Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers and Deuteronomy, by M. McNamara for Neofiti 1, and E. G. Clarke for PseudoJonathan) was scheduled to be with the publisher by the end of 1994 and should be available in print in 1995. In 1992 it was believed that the entire project should be complete in 20 volumes or so by late 1995 or 1996. This would be later than was initially envisaged, but still only 15 years after inception of the project.

4. The Aramaic Bible: A Monument to Michael Glazier In the Preface to the first volume in number (vol. 1A, 1992) in the Aramaic Bible series I thought it proper to pay due tribute to Michael Glazier for his enterprising spirit in undertaking the publication of the English translation of all the Targums. I wrote:27 “In this, the first volume in number in the Aramaic Bible Series, full credit must be given to the publisher Michael Glazier, without whose initiative and resourcefulness 27

Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, ix.

5. A Collaborative Effort

115

this project would never have been begun. Not only did he take up with enthusiasm the suggestion put to him in 1980 to publish a translation of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, but he proposed that the entire corpus be translated and published with appropriate introductions, critical apparatuses and notes. It was an immense undertaking. Let the volumes already published and the entire corpus stand as a monument to his dedication to the publication of scholarly works.”

From the very beginning he worked in close conjunction with the editorial board at all stages in the preparation of the plans. He noted that we were involved in a most important project, which will not be done again for generations.28 The work of course, in 1992, still awaited completion. Yet the situation then obtaining seemed to be an occasion for some reflections.

5. A Collaborative Effort The Aramaic Bible series stands as a monument to the selfless dedication of those involved in its production. In the foreword at the beginning of each volume the three members of the editorial board (K. Cathcart, M. Maher and myself) say: “By their translations, introductions and critical notes the contributors to this series have rendered an immense service to the progress of targumic studies. It is hoped that the series, provisional though it may be, will bring nearer the day when the definitive translation of the Targums can be made.”

For me personally, involvement in the project has given great pleasure. It would not have advanced this far without the encouragement and help of a great many people. In the exploratory stage in the late 1980s advice and encouragement came from Dr J. J. Collins and Fr D. J. Harrington. The two co-editors, K. Cathcart and M. Maher devoted many hours in putting together the initial plan, in drawing up the guidelines and preparing the volumes for the press. The editors are especially grateful to the advice and help received from our consultants, B. Grossfeld, D. J. Harrington, and in the initial stages A. Díez Macho (who died in 1984). A special word of gratitude is due to Professor B. Grossfeld. We requested him to join the project as consulting editor on 25th April 1981; he replied on 11th May. Since then he has taken a most active part in the project through his help and advice on the many occasions in which he has been approached. He has also contributed five volumes to the series – four on Targum Onqelos and one on the Targums of Esther. In 1982 I met and discussed the project with 28

Letter to the writer of 31st May 1981.

116

Chapter 5: The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project

Professor M. Hengel (Tübingen), A. Díez Macho, Dr J. Ribera and Dr L. Díez Merino (Barcelona). The project has been an inter-confessional effort. Three of the eighteen contributors are Jewish, but these have been involved in the production of over one third of the works – seven of the projected 19 volumes. It brings together scholars from Ireland, Great Britain and from three Continents. Nine of the eighteen contributors are Irish, two are English, five from the USA, one from Australia and one from Canada. In Ireland the project gave rise to a Targum seminar, which, over seven years, provided an opportunity for interested scholars from Belfast and Dublin to come together and discuss targumic issues. Between 1982 and 1989 seventeen meetings were held. There are many ways in which the volumes in the project could have been produced differently. Some criticisms will be made of individual volumes and of the entire project. Some disappointment has been expressed that no Aramaic text accompanies the translations. The omission was deliberate. Inclusion of the Aramaic would have increased the price, and have introduced copyright problems in the case of texts critically edited, as well as being of doubtful value if inferior editions of Aramaic texts were reproduced. Many lessons are learned from actual translation and books have been written out of such undertakings.29 Similar works could be written on Targum translation and on one’s experience in translating, transposing, the concepts and Aramaic language of the Targums into English, in a manner meaningful for modern readers. Some of the lessons learned would not be without relevance to the understanding of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels. It was the hope of the editors that this series, provisional though it may be, will bring significantly nearer the day when definitive translations of the Targums can be made. Let us hope that this cooperation which has been so real over the past decade (1982–1992) or so continues and even becomes structured – for instance in the form of an International Organization for Targumic Studies.

6. Postscript 2010 As noted above in the Introduction,30 the Aramaic Bible Project was not completed in 1995–1996, as envisaged in the 1994 essay. Three volumes were 29 A few need be mentioned here: B. F. Westcott, Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament, London 1898; R. Knox, On Englishing the Bible, London 1949; A. R. Hulst, Old Testament Translation Problems, Leiden 1960; E. A. Nida & C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden 1969. 30 See above pp. 10–11.

6. Postscript 2010

117

published in 1994 (vols. 2, 3, 19), one volume was published in each of the years 1995, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2004 (respectively vols. 4, 5A, 5B, 17A, 16), and the final volume (vol. 17B: Targum of Lamentations) in 2008, twenty years after the project was first planned to be completed. As narrated above in the introduction, the International Organization for Targumic Studies was formally established in 1995.

Chapter 6

On Englishing the Targums* Professor A. Díez Macho (born 1916) died in 1984, while his colleagues and admirers were preparing for a festschrift to honour his seventieth birthday and his retirement. I was requested to contribute to the volume, and began the essay noting that I felt greatly honoured in having been invited to contribute to the volume of essays in honour of my esteemed colleague and dear friend, Professor A. Díez Macho, MSC. It was then (1986) over thirty years since I first made his acquaintance and our association has grown ever closer over the past quarter of a century. I was a student in Rome with the young Juan Arias in the mid-1950s when Fr Alejandro was having Codex Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library examined for the second time, an examination which would lead in 1956 to the identification of the manuscript for what it really was – a complete text of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. I had the pleasure of being present at the Oxford Vetus Testamentum Congress in 1959 when Professor Díez Macho spoke of the newly-identified work, of its antiquity, and its relationships with the other Targums. The association grew closer still from 1961 onwards, when Professor Alejandro supplied me with photocopies of the newly-found text of the Palestinian Targum for use in the preparation of my doctoral dissertation on the New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. During the summer of 1963 I had the good fortune of being able to use his personal library at his residence, Misioneros del Sagrado Corazón, Rosellón, Barcelona. I have had since then many occasions to experience his help and kindness and his readiness to give advice and information in any way he could. He was unsparing in his help. His unspoken motto could have been that of the author of the Book of Wisdom (7:13): “quam sine fictione didici et sine invidia communico”, “… what I have learned without guile I impart without grudging …”

The project of which I here write would scarcely have been possible without the labours of Professor A. Díez Macho over the past decades. It gave * Originally published under the same title in Salvación en la Palabra: Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, ed. by D. Muñoz Leon, Madrid 1986, 447–461.

1. Latin Translations of the Targums

119

me great pleasure to write it for inclusion in a volume originally planned to honour him on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, and to dedicate it to him as a token of gratitude for all the advice and help he had given me over the years. Now that God has seen it fit to call him to his eternal reward before this celebration here on earth, I dedicate it to his memory – to the memory of one who will always remain an example to be followed in his dedication to the truth, and to him who was the Way, the Truth and the Life.

1. Latin Translations of the Targums The Aramaic texts of the Targums were first presented to European scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and almost always accompanied by Latin translations. This was principally through the great Polyglot Bibles, one of the glories of Spanish scholarship. Since later targumic scholarship was heavily dependent on these texts and translations I feel justified in listing them here. The first Polyglot Bible, the Complutensian (1514–1517) contained (in volume 1) the Targum of Onqelos, together with a Latin translation, generally attributed to Alphonso de Zamora, a convert from Judaism. The next Polyglot, the Antwerp Polyglot or the Biblia Regia (Antwerp 1569–1572), in 8 volumes, edited by Arias Montano, had the following Targums, accompanied by Latin translations: In volume 1 the Latin translation of the Complutensian Polyglot was reproduced, but with emendations by Arias Montano. Volumes 2 and 4 contained the Targums of the Prophets, including Ruth (volume 2) and Lamentations (volume 4) together with Latin translations commissioned from three Jewish converts, but principally by Alphonso de Zamora. Volume 3 contained the Targums of the Hagiographa: Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Qoheleth and Song of Songs, together with Latin translations. It was once believed that the Latin translations of the Targums of the Hagiographa were by Alphonso de Zamora. Although Arias Montano had commissioned such translations from Alphonso, it does not appear that he published them. The Latin translations of the Hagiographa printed in the Antwerp Polyglot seem to have been made by Arias himself. The Aramaic Targum texts prepared by Alphonso together with the Latin translations are still extant and are being edited by Fr L. Díez Merino, CP – Fr Alejandro’s nephew.1 1 They have been edited as follows: L. Díez Merino, Targum de Salmos: Edición Príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil no. 5 de Alfonso Zamora (Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica 6), Madrid 1982; idem, Targum de Job: Edición Príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil no. 5 de Alfonso Zamora (Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica 8), Madrid 1984; idem, Targum de Proverbios: Edición Príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil no. 5 de Alfonso Zamora (Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica 11), Madrid

120

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

The Paris Polyglot (1629–1645) is essentially the same as the Antwerp edition, apart from the inclusion of the Samaritan Targum which had been brought to Europe in the meantime. The London (also called the Walton) Polyglot (1645–1657) reproduces from the Antwerp Polyglot the following Latin translations: Onqelos (in volume 1), Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (in volume 2), the Targums of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Song of Songs, Targum Jonathan of the Latter Prophets, Targum of Lamentations (in volume 3). For Targum of Ruth (volume 2) the Walton Polyglot has a translation by Johannes Mercer, and for Targum Sheni of Esther (volume 2) a translation by Francis Taylor. In volume 4 we have the Palestinian Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum together with Latin translations by Anthony Chevalier, and the Targum Rishon of the Book of Esther with the translation of Francis Taylor. Other Latin translations of individual Targums or groups of Targums were also made during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since they are not easily accessible to scholars they need not detain us here. (They are listed in B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, Cincinnati & New York 1972, nos. 747–823.) Walton’s Polyglot has for long provided the most convenient Latin translation of the Aramaic Targum texts known in the mid-seventeenth century. In 1986 it was still the only available translation of a number of the Targums of which vernacular renderings had not as yet been provided.

2. Vernacular Targum Translation Translation of the Targums into the European vernaculars has been haphazard – possibly an indication that interest in them lay chiefly among scholars who freely used Latin. The vernacular translations seem to have been confined to those Targums with a broader religious appeal. There have been a number of translations of the Targum of Canticles into Jewish-Spanish or Ladino, published at such various centres as Salonica (1600), Venice (1619), Amsterdam (1724, 1766). The favourite Targum for translation into Yiddish or German, on the other hand, was the Targum Sheni, the Second Targum of Esther. Yiddish translations of it were published at Amsterdam (1663, selections), Prague (1680), Amsterdam (1711, republished 1732), Amsterdam (1722, together with translations of the other Megilloth: Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,

1984; idem, Targum de Qohelet: Edición Príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil no.  5 de Alfonso Zamora (Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica 13), Madrid 1987.

3. English Translations of the Targums

121

Ecclesiastes), at Krotoshin (1845), at Wilna (1872, with translations of Targums of Canticles, Ruth and Ecclesiastes). A German translation of Targum Sheni by A. Salzbach was published in 1920 (Frankfurt on Main). In 1878 (Berlin), as part of his commentary on the Book of Esther, Paulus Cassel published a German translation of Targum Sheni. There is a German translation of Onqelos, Genesis, in the work Monumenta Judaica, Pt. 1: Aramaia: Die Targumim zum Pentateuch, 1. Abteilung: Onkelos by A. Wünsche, W. A. Neumann, and M. Altschüler (Vienna 1906). A Dutch translation of Targum Sheni by E. David was published at Amsterdam in 1856. An Italian translation of the Targum of Canticles was published at Beneventum in 1682. In recent times a noteworthy new Italian translation of this same Targum has been published, together with an introduction and commentary: Il Cantico dei Cantici: Antica interpretazione ebraica a cura di U. Neri (Rome 1976). A French translation of Targum of Canticles by M. Venture was published in Paris in 1807 and another by P. Vulliaud in 1925. In our own day, thanks principally to the involvement of Fr R. Le Déaut in targumic studies, we have had French translations of Codex Neofiti in the editio princeps of this work, of Targum of Chronicles by R. Le Déaut and J. Robert, and finally the masterly translation by R. Le Déaut (with J. Robert) of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch (Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan) in four volumes in the Sources Chrétiennes series.

3. English Translations of the Targums English has fared considerably better than other languages in the matter of translation of the Targums. J. Gill published a translation of Targum of Canticles as part of his work, Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song (2nd edition, London 1751). In 1857 (London), C. D. Ginsburg published a translation of chapter 1 of this same Targum in his commentary on the Song of Songs. Four years later the same author published an English translation of Targum of Qoheleth as part of his commentary on that book (Coheleth, London 1861). By far the best known of all English translations of the Targums is that of J. W. Etheridge: The Targum of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum (2 vols., London 1862–1865). This was republished by Ktav Publishing House, New York 1968 (2 vols. in 1), but without any prolegomenon or addition. In 1871 in a small volume C. W. H. Pauli published a full translation of Targum of Isaiah: The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Prophet Isaiah (London 1871). A little later O. T. Crane published translations of the

122

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

Targums of Ruth and Jonah: The Targums on the Books of Ruth and Jonah: Literally translated from the Chaldee (New York 1886). In 1888 an English translation of P. S. Cassel’s German commentary on Esther was published, together with an English translation by A. Bernstein of Cassel’s German translation of the Targum Sheni of Esther (An Explanatory Commentary on Esther, Edinburgh 1888, 263–344). In 1893 A. W. Greenup published an English translation of the Targum of Lamentations (The Targum on the Book of Lamentations, Sheffield 1893). As a part of the work Translations from Hebrew and Aramaic, H. Gollancz published a translation of the Targum of the Song of Songs (London 1908, 15–90). In the periodical Studia Orientalia (Helsinki), volume 2 (1928), 88–104, A. Saarisalo published an English translation of the Targum of Ruth. In 1949 J. Stenning, in The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford), published an edition of the Aramaic text, based on Yemenite manuscripts, together with an English translation. The renewed interest in the Targums in recent years has led to new editions of the Aramaic texts and to new translations. In his important study, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969) J. Bowker presents a new translation of selected chapters of the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of Genesis. E. Levine of the University of Haifa has edited a number of the texts of the Targums, together with English translations, introductions and notes. In 1973 the Biblical Institute Press, Rome, published his work: The Aramaic Version of Ruth, in which he published the Aramaic Targum of Ruth from the Vatican Codex Urbinas Ebr. 1. In 1975 the Academic Press, Jerusalem, published a further work of his: The Aramaic Version of Jonah. The following year, from the Hermon Press, New York came The Aramaic Version of Lamentations. Then in 1978, from the Sepher-Hermon Press, New York came The Aramaic Version of Qohelet. In 1973 under the title The Targums of the Five Megilloth (New York) B. Grossfeld brought together previously published English translations of these Targums – translations already noted above: of the Targum of Ruth by A. Saarisalo (1928), of Lamentations by A. W. Greenup (1893), of Qoheleth by C. D. Ginsburg (1861), of Esther (Targum Sheni) by P. S. Cassel and A. Bernstein (1888), and of Song of Songs by H. Gollancz (1908). The texts are reproduced without change and the whole collection is provided with a brief introduction by the editor. During the decade 1978–1988, as part of the editio princeps, English translations of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch as found in Codex Neofiti 1 were published, versions made by M. Maher, MSC and the present writer. While the situation regarding English translations of the Targums was better than was the case for other European languages, it fell far behind that of other branches of Jewish literature for which there were good modern translations, for instance Canon H. Danby’s translation of the Mishnah

4. The Michael Glazier Inc. Targum Translation Project

123

(Oxford 1933), the Soncino translation of the Babylonian Talmud, under the editorship of I. Epstein (London 1935–1952), the Soncino translation of the Midrash Rabbah, under the editorship of H. Freedman and M. Simon (London, Jerusalem & New York 1939–1961), J. Neusner’s translation of the Tosefta (New York 1977–1981) and of the Palestinian Talmud: The Talmud of the Land of Israel (35 vols.; Chicago & New York 1982–1995). The present writer was interested in bringing out a translation of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch during the 1970s, in conjunction with the publication of the translations in the editio princeps of Codex Neofiti. The work that finally saw the light of day under the title, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament (Shannon, Ireland 1972; paperback Grand Rapids) was originally intended as an introduction to such a translation of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums. The plan, however, did not come to fruition due to lack of interest on the part of publishers.

4. The Michael Glazier Inc. Targum Translation Project Michael Glazier has his publishing house at Wilmington, Delaware, USA. In recent years he has become ever more increasingly involved in the publication of theological works. On the completion of a major series of commentaries on the New Testament (New Testament Message: A BiblicalTheological Commentary, 22 vols.), under the editorship of W. Harrington, OP and D. Senior, CP he commenced plans for a similar series on the Old Testament (in 23 volumes) in 1979, and very kindly invited the present writer to act as co-editor for the series with C. Stuhlmueller, CP. In autumn 1980 I had occasion to discuss with Michael Glazier the possibility of publishing English translations of some of the Targums, for instance the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. He showed keen interest in the project and expressed his belief that we should meet to discuss it in greater detail. Since I was teaching at John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, during the first semester of the school year 1980–1981, we arranged to meet at his home in Wilmington during the Thanksgiving Day vacation (26th November 1980). He was very enthusiastic about the project, but believed it should contain a translation of the entire targumic corpus, not just of a few Targums. It was also agreed that an editorial board be set up and that this would present a concrete plan to him by the end of January 1981. For the obvious reason of convenience, the Editorial Board was based in Dublin. It consisted of Professor K. Cathcart, Department of Semitic Languages, University College, Dublin, M. Maher, MSC and the present writer. The plan it forwarded in January 1981 was agreed to. The task that

124

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

was now to be confronted was to bring together a team of translators and to draw up guidelines for the contributors. During its planning the Editorial Board was fortunate in having access to the advice of D. Harrington, SJ and of B. Grossfeld. I also had the opportunity of discussing matters concerning editions and manuscripts of the Targums, of the Targums of the Ketubim in particular, with R. Le Déaut and with A. Díez Macho during the Summer of 1982, when Professor Díez Macho gave me the latest information concerning the Targum project of the Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, and put me in contact with his nephew Fr L. Díez Merino, CP.

5. Contributors in the Michael Glazier Targum Translation Project The Publisher and Editorial Board were fortunate in being able to enlist a distinguished panel of translators for the project. Most of them had already been active for quite some time in the field of targumic studies. There are others we would have liked to have with us, but who for one reason or another were unable to take part. The final arrangement brought together a team of eighteen to translate the entire corpus of targumic writings traditionally known to us, that is excluding the recently discovered Targum texts from Qumran, and the texts of the Samaritan Targum. I here introduce them in accord with the canonical order of the books to be translated. The Onqelos Targum for all five books is being translated by Professor B. Grossfeld, Department of Hebrew Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. Professor Grossfeld is well known to students of targumic studies through his many contributions in this branch of learning. He has given us the extremely valuable two-volume work, A Bibliography of Targum Literature (1972–1977). He has examined, among other things, the manner in which such key-words of the Hebrew Scriptures as ĀĔđ have been translated in the Targums and other early versions. As already noted, he has brought together earlier English renderings of the Targum of the Megilloth. He has also published Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including full Rabbinic Parallels (New York 2000). Together with M. Aberbach he has edited the Aramaic text of Onqelos, Genesis 49, together with translation and analytical commentary (Targum Onqelos on Genesis 49, Missoula 1976). With M. Aberbach as co-author he has later given us the major work, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Denver 1982) containing the Aramaic text, modern English translation and critical commentary. The Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch are being translated and annotated by M. Maher, MSC and the present writer, M. Maher attending to

5. Contributors in the Michael Glazier Targum Translation Project

125

Pseudo-Jonathan and the latter to the remaining texts (Neofiti, Fragments Targums, Genizah Fragments). Both of us have cooperated in the English translation of Neofiti for the editio princeps of this work. D. Harrington, SJ is attending to the translation of the Targum of the Earlier Prophets. Anthony Saldarini is cooperating with him in the annotation and in the identification of sources and parallels. D. Harrington needs no introduction to the English-speaking biblical world. He is well known and much appreciated through his competent editorship of New Testaments Abstracts, his extremely useful introductions to both the Old and the New Testaments, and through other writings besides. As Aramaic scholar he is co-editor, with J. A. Fitzmyer of the work, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C.–Second Century A.D.) (Rome 1978). B. Chilton, of the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England, is attending to the translation, and annotation of the Targum of Isaiah. Dr Chilton has already studied this Targum in depth, with regard to its origin, provenience and theology and has published the results of his researches in a number of studies, for example The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield 1982); A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Wilmington 1984). He has also published a number of essays on targumic topics. The Targum of Jeremiah has been translated, introduced and annotated by Dr C. T. R. Hayward of the Department of Theology, University of Durham, England. Dr. Hayward will be known in the field of Targum studies through his monograph: Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa 1981). This is a revision of his Oxford doctoral dissertation (1975): “The Use and Religious Significance of the Term Memra in Targum Neofiti 1 in the Light of the other Targumim”. He has also published essays and reviewed books on Memra and other targumic themes. S. H. Levey, Hebrew Union College. Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles, has translated the Targum of Ezekiel. Targumic scholars will be acquainted with Dr Levey’s book, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati 1974), and will appreciate the quality of his rendering of the targumic texts. Dr Levey has had a special interest in the Targum of Ezekiel and has written on the subject in the Hebrew Union College Annual (vol. 46 [1975], 139–158). He had earlier done a dissertation on the Targum of Ruth: “The Targum to the Book of Ruth: Its Linguistic and Exegetical Character. Together with a Discussion of the Date, a Study of the Sources and an Idiomatic English translation” (Cincinnati 1934). The Targum of the Minor Prophets is being translated by K. Cathcart, Department of Semitic Languages, University College, Dublin (Hosea–

126

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

Micah) and R. P. Gordon, Divinity School, Cambridge, England (Nahum– Malachi). Dr Gordon has done his doctoral dissertation (Glasgow) on the theme: “Targum Jonathan to the Minor Prophets, from Nahum to Malachi”, and has published essays on targumic topics in various journals. Professor Cathcart is preparing a commentary on the Minor Prophets for the series “The New International Critical Commentary”. M. Wilcox, Department of Biblical Studies, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Wales, has agreed to undertake the translation and annotation of the Targum of Psalms. Professor Wilcox is best known through his work, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford 1965), but has also written essays on targumic questions. C. Mangan, OP of the Department of Semitic Languages, University College, Dublin, is translating the Targum of Job and Dr J. Healey, who teaches Syriac at the School of Oriental Studies, Durham, England, is translating the Targum of Proverbs. D. R. G. Beattie of the Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, has translated the Targum of Ruth. Dr Beattie has been interested in this Targum for some time and has done his doctoral dissertation at St Andrews, Scotland (1972) on the theme: “Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth”. The first part of the dissertation studies the manner in which the Book of Ruth was understood in midrashic literature: the Targum of Ruth, Ruth Rabba, Ruth Zu a, the Talmuds. His dissertation has been published under the above title (JSOTSup 2; Sheffield 1977). Dr P. S. Alexander, Department of Near Eastern Studies, the University of Manchester, England, is translating the Targums of Canticles and of Lamentations. These Targums have in common that they are extant in both a long and a short recension. Dr. Alexander has done his doctoral dissertation (Oxford) on the theme: “The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and the Boundaries of the Land of Israel”. He is busy in the field of Jewish studies in a variety of ways, and continues to contribute to targumic studies through book reviews and learned essays. The Targum of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) is being translated by Rabbi P. S. Knobel, Beth Emet, The Free Synagogue, Evanston, Illinois, USA. He has done his doctoral dissertation on this Targum (Yale University, 1976): “Targum Qoheleth: A Linguistic and Exegetical Inquiry”. The dissertation contains a critical edition of the Targum, together with an analysis of the linguistic and exegetical materials which bear on the date and place of origin of the composition. Together with his interest in Targum Onqelos and his publications in this field, Professor B. Grossfeld has also been active in the area of the Targums of Esther. He has only recently published the Aramaic text of the First Targum of Esther, together with an English translation and a commentary:

6. Translation and Critical Editions

127

The First Targum of Esther: According to the Ms. Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliothèque Nationale (New York 1983). As well as this he has also published another work, Concordance to the First Targum to the Book of Esther (Chico 1984), a concordance based on the Paris ms. Hébr. 110. He is translating the two Targums of Esther for this series. J. S. McIvor, The Union Theological College, Department of Old Testament, Belfast, Northern Ireland, is translating the Targums of Chronicles. This is a work in which he has been interested for a number of years.

6. Translation and Critical Editions The aim of the project of which we are speaking is to present an English translation, not an edition of the Aramaic text. The translator’s attention is drawn to the fact that he or she is to attend to the Aramaic text to be rendered into English, to ascertain whether it has been critically edited, what the likelihood is of arriving at the original form of the Aramaic rendering from the extant manuscripts, and such like. It could be argued that the time is not yet ripe for an English translation by reason of the unsatisfactory state of the critical work done on the Aramaic text of the Targums. While there is a certain substance in such an observation, particularly with regard to the Targums of the Ketubim, the problem should not be exaggerated. I believe that sufficient work has already been done on the texts to permit such a translation project to go ahead, and that in cases where the available editions are not quite in accord with the canons of textual criticism, the translation project itself will only help towards the production of the critical editions we would all like to see published. A review of the situation concerning the text of the Targums seems in order at this point. With regard to Onqelos, the fact that it enjoyed official status within Judaism argues towards a faithful transmission of its consonantal text, both within Eastern and Western Judaism. The quest for Babylonian manuscripts has more to do with the vocalisation tradition than with the fidelity of the consonantal text. The translator has the editions of A. Sperber and A. Berliner to go on. And in any event since in our case the translator is himself so much in touch with Onqelos studies, we have no need to worry in this regard. The basic critical work has already been done with regard to the various Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. We have the editio princeps of all five books of the Pentateuch of Codex Neofiti 1 from A. Díez Macho himself. M. Klein has given us a critical edition of the texts of the Fragment Targums, and under the direction of Professor A. Díez Macho we already have the critical edition of all the Palestinian Targum texts for the Books of Exodus

128

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

to Deuteronomy in the Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia (Series IV, vols. 2–5, Madrid 1980, 1980, 1977, 1980). With regard to the Targum of the Prophets the situation is similar to that of Onqelos: its official status has made for an established text and a rather faithful transmission – at least as regards the consonantal text. The different punctuation between Babylonian and Western traditions does not affect this consonantal text. Once again, the translators have the editions of A. Sperber, with its apparatuses, to go on, and together with this the edition of P. de Lagarde should they so desire. They are sufficiently au fait with the questions involved to handle any problem that may arise. With regard to the Targums of the Ketubim the situation is quite different, as all will agree. But even here chaos does not altogether reign. The text of Targum of Job has been critically edited by F. J. Fernandez Vallina as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of A. Díez Macho at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid (1981), and is available from Editorial Office of the same university. The translator of Targum of Qoheleth, Dr Knobel, produced a critical edition of the Targum as his doctoral dissertation (Yale University, 1976) and Professor Grossfeld has published an edition of Targum I of Esther, and also a concordance of the Targum from the base text he edited. The shorter texts of Targums of Canticles and Lamentations have been edited (by R. H. Melamed and A. van der Heide respectively). Sufficient editions of Targum of Ruth have been made to permit the perceptive translator to get a fair idea of the textual situation. All known manuscripts of Targum of Chronicles have been published. From these the translator can arrive at his own conclusions concerning the original reading, if such can be reconstructed. The translator of Targum of Psalms is fully aware of the problem, and for this reason is working very much with the manuscripts in the course of his translation. There remains the Targum of Proverbs, on which very little work has been done. But it appears that P. de Lagarde’s text in Hagiographa chaldaice (Leipzig 1873, repr. 1967) is sufficient to go on. Thus, while any translation of the Targums of the Ketubim must by reason of the lack of really critical editions remain provisional, it is to be hoped that the work done on these writings in the present translation project will contribute to a deeper understanding of these Targums and of the problems involved in reconstructing their original form, their transmission and the present textual state.

7. Format, Guidelines and Deadlines After much consultation the publisher decided on a large format for the volumes of this particular series, the text space per page being 14 by 22 cm.

8. Translation: Techniques and Problems

129

While it is recognised that because of the nature of the case one Targum will differ from another, the norm is that for each Targum there will be an apparatus and notes, both at the bottom of the pages – the apparatus on the left, the notes on the right hand (uneven number) pages. The apparatus is intended to contain indications on the relationship between the English translation and the Aramaic original, variant manuscript readings, emendations and such like. The notes to the text are expected to pay attention to a variety of matters. The introductions are expected to contain all the information believed necessary and useful for the understanding of the particular Targum or group of Targums, for example the use made of a particular biblical book in Jewish liturgy, early citations of the particular Targum, number and nature of known manuscripts of the particular Targum, nature of the Aramaic of the Targum (whether “official”, Palestinian or “mixed”), nature of the Aramaic paraphrase and its relation to the Hebrew Text, relation of the targumic paraphrase to Jewish exegesis as known from other sources, theological concepts and teaching of the Targum(s) in question, probable date and place of composition of the Targum in question, editions of the Aramaic text of the Targum, indications of earlier translations, when available, particularly those in English, principles governing the author’s English translation, a bibliography of writings (particularly in English) on the individual Targum. Deadlines were agreed on between the publisher and the individual contributors, the latest agreed date is April 1986; the majority are for late 1984 or 1985. Viewing the situation as matters now stand, it looks as if all translations of the Targums of the Prophets will be edited and with the publisher by the end of 1985, and may very well be published before the end of that year. It looks likely that all Targums of the Pentateuch should be edited by the end of 1986 and the entire project may well be completed and in print by the end of 1987. The number of volumes will be in the region of sixteen or seventeen, distributed as follows: Volumes 1–5: Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch; 6–7: Targum of Onqelos; 8–12: Targums of the Prophets (Former Prophets; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Minor Prophets); four or five volumes for the Targums of the Hagiographa, with one volume for Targum Psalms, one volume for the Targums of Esther and two or three for the others, to be arranged in accord with the extent of the translation, notes etc. for the individual Targums.

8. Translation: Techniques and Problems The title of the present essay has been inspired by that of the book which R. Knox wrote after he had completed his translation of the Bible, the Vulgate

130

Chapter 6: On Englishing the Targums

Clementine Bible, into English: On Englishing the Bible (London 1949). The first chapter of this work is headed: “Thoughts on Bible Translation”. Bible translation has for some time now become a highly developed art, one on which much has been written – at least in English. Under the auspices of the United Bible Societies eight volumes on “Helps for translators” have been published by E. J. Brill, Leiden. The first (1960) is on Old Testament: Translation Problems, the last on The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969). The principles governing translation of Targums into the vernacular must differ from those employed rendering the Bible, in that in the case of the Targums we are rendering translations, not original compositions. Ideally, the translator of a Targum should get within the mind of the original Aramaic translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, ascertain what his or their understanding of the canonical text was and seek to reproduce this as faithfully as possible in an acceptable form of the modern translator’s vernacular. The translator will need to have a command of Aramaic and Hebrew, sufficient to permit one to determine what is good Aramaic usage and what is mere “translation” Aramaic, a calque on the Hebrew. Material which is no more than clumsy Aramaic should in some way (either in text or in annotation) be conveyed in the modern vernacular translation, just as it should in a rendering of Aquila’s Greek version. In recent years the art of translating the Targums has been gradually refined, although much more study will be necessary before we can speak of a really acceptable “Theory and Practice of Translating the Targums”. It would be good if those actually involved in such translations wrote more on the problems involved. Through a study of these problems we may reach a better understanding of the minds of the targumists. All that can be done in this present essay is to note a few of the problems encountered in Targum translation. One problem concerns the manner in which the divine name is to be rendered. Often in Targum manuscripts this is represented by a number of yods – be it two or three or four. Some prefer to render it by “Yahweh”; thus for instance Professor A. Díez Macho and R. Le Déaut in the editio princeps of Neofiti. In Targum of Chronicles R. Le Déaut and J. Robert reproduce it as YHWH (without vowels) as does Etan Levine in his translation of Targum Lamentations. Since Jews would not pronounce, and in fact did not write it, the alternate practice of rendering as “the Lord” seems preferable. The tendency now is to leave such technical terms as Memra, Shekinta (Shekinah), Dibbura, Dibbera untranslated, with an explanation in a footnote or glossary. To this list M. Klein has added ’Iqar (Yeqara), normally rendered “Glory”. It would be good to retain in the translation the concept and term “debt” in the meaning of “sin”, since this is very frequent in the

9. Postscript 2010

131

Targums; see also the “Our Father” (Pater Noster): “Forgive us our debts …”. However, it makes for ambiguities or misunderstandings, since current English has quite a different meaning for “debts”. For this reason, it seems better to translate the Aramaic as “sin” or some such term and indicate the literal meaning of the Aramaic term in a note or glossary. Some recent essays have treated of the meaning and proper rendering of the Aramaic and targumic terms ĊĀĔ and ĊĀĔČċ (lit.: “before” and “from before”), very commonly used in the Targums. Actions are done “before God”, the king, etc., yet the intention is not the avoidance of anthropomorphism. An awareness of Aramaic usage permits us to render ĊĀĔ Čċ other than as “from before”. It is often best rendered simply as “before”, or even as “from”. However, it is also found to render the Hebrew Ćčđċ (lit.: “from before”), in the sense of “because of”, for example Gen 27:46; 36:7; Isa 10:22 and in the phrase “because” (Ćčđċ) of their evil doings, in Jer 7:12, 9:6 etc. Neither Aramaic lexica or grammars registered any such meaning as “because of” for ĊĀĔČċ, which consequently seems to be no more than a calque on the Hebrew. If we translate as “because” a note should indicate the problem involved. Examples of this kind could be multiplied. I believe they should be studied systematically, as should many other translation peculiarities in the Targums. They provide the evidence that will lead us beyond our problems to an awareness of the targumists’ own theory and practice of translation. After all, the provision of critical Aramaic texts of the Targums and of carefully prepared translations is in one sense only the beginning of a journey into the minds and thought patterns of those who long ago undertook the task of attempting to transfer the message of the divine oracles of Scripture into the vernaculars of their own day.

9. Postscript 2010 I have left this essay basically as it was first presented in 1986, for the greater part without footnotes, and with the bibliographical detail built into the body of the text itself, in keeping with the house style for the volume in which it appeared. It represents the facts and the aspirations of that year with regard to the Targum project. Later developments with regard to some of the statements made are given in the postscript to the end of the preceding chapter. The introduction to this volume gives greater details on the overall developments.

Chapter 7

Towards an English Synoptic Presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums* This essay develops a topic first raised in 1999, in a paper read on the presentation of the figure of Melchizedek in the Targums of Genesis 14. A synoptic presentation of the texts proved rather illuminating with regard to the agreements and the differences between the different targumic witnesses. The point is now further developed as this essay in a volume in memory of Dr Ernest Clarke.

One fitting manner in which to honour the memory of Dr Ernest Clarke is to continue to promote the good work in which he laboured so tirelessly and successfully over many years. He devoted his attention to the Fragment Targums and had a special interest in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, of which he compiled a concordance. He was first President of the International Organization for Targumic Studies, founded at the Dublin International Conference on the Aramaic Bible in 1992. Much work has already been done on the Targums of the Pentateuch in recent years. They have been critically edited. There have been recent concordances of Targum Neofiti 1 and of the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan (as already noted) by Dr E. Clarke himself. I believe that the time has now come for a synoptic presentation of all the Targums of the Pentateuch – Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti 1, the Fragment Targums and the Cairo Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, also variants in citations of the Targums in rabbinical texts. Many arguments could be produced in favour of such a project. Rather than adducing such arguments, I present here a synopsis of the Targums of Genesis 14 and 15:1. This synopsis, I believe, will illustrate what the Targums have in common and where they differ. Even within the Palestinian Targum tradition it will give a bird’s eye view of how much common tradition there is and how great or small are the differences. It will show how stable the central Palestinian Targum tradition for Genesis 14 is, but will also point up a certain instability as in the case of the rendering of “The Valley of Shaveh” in the Masoretic Text of Gen 14:17 (“Valley of the Gardens”, ýĆĎĀĕđ, pordesaya; “Valley of Hazoza”). Such a presentation will * Originally published, under the same title, in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. by P. V. M. Flesher (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 2), Leiden & Boston 2002, 3–27.

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

133

also show where Pseudo-Jonathan agrees with Onqelos, and where the peculiar insertions of the former, in keeping with this translator’s or re-writer’s overall approach. It will also indicate where the Palestinian Targums differ and agree with Targum Onqelos. Of course, the true value of a synopsis is seen only when the texts used are in the original language, Aramaic in this instance. However, just as for the Synoptic Gospels, much of the original comes across in good translations. All the Targums of the Pentateuch have been translated in the Aramaic Bible Project, Targum Onqelos by Dr B. Grossfeld, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan by Dr E. Clarke and Dr M. Maher, Targum Neofiti by M. Maher and M. McNamara. While these translations could be reproduced in the projected synopsis, it would seem preferable to have them all revised (preferably by a committee) with the synoptic presentation in view. The synopsis of Genesis 14 and 15:1 here presented uses the translation of the Aramaic Bible Project. After presentation of this synopsis, and as an illustration of its utility, I give a study of the understanding of the biblical proper names (of persons and places) in the various Targum texts.

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1 Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

Genesis 14

Genesis 14

Genesis 14

Genesis 14(1)

1. Now, it was during the days of Amraphel king of Babylonia,

1. In the days of Amraphel – he is Nimrod who ordered Abram to be thrown into the fire, – he is the king of Pontus,

1. In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar,a

a Neof. mg., Neof. int.: “of Babel”

1 In addition to the abbreviations listed on pp. xii–xiv, the following abbreviations are used: BZ = citation in Bereshit Zuta; Levita, Met. = citation in Elias Levita’s Meturgeman; Levita, Met. An. = Meturgeman ms. Angelica Rome; Levita, Met. Is. = edition Isny 1541 of the Meturgeman. For Genesis 14–15:1 there are variants as follows: 14:3 VNL; 14:5–6 VNL; 14:9–10 PVNL; 14:14–15 VNL; 14:17 VNL; 14:18 PVNL; 14:21 VNL; 14:23 PVNL; 15:1–2 PVNL; 15:1–4 CTgH (paper, mid-eleventh–late fourteenth century); BZ 14:2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24; 15:1.

134

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Arioch king of Ellasar,

Arioch, who was tall like the giants, King of Telassar,

Arioch, king of Ellasar,b

Chedorlaomer king of Elam,

Chedorlaomer, who was short (and) turned like sheaves, the king of Elam,

Chedorlaomer, king of Elam,

and Tidal king of the nations.

and Tidal, king of and Tidal, a deceiver like the fox, the nations king of the peoples (who were) subject to him,

2. They waged war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsa king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah,

2. made war with Bera, whose deeds were evil, king of Sodom, and with Birsha, whose deeds were wicked, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, who hated even his father, king of Admah,

2. drew up battle lines with Bera king of Sodom and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah,

and Shemeber king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

and Shemeber, who destroyed his member with unchastity, king of Zeboiim, and (with) the king of the city that swallowed its inhabitants, that is Zoar.

Shemeber king of Zeboiim and with the king of the cityc that swallowed up its inhabitants, that is Zoar.

3. All these gathered together in the Plain of the Fields which is in the site of the Salt Sea.

3. All these joined together in the Plain of the Gardens, that is the place that springs forth streams of water and empties

3. All these kings had become united with each otherd in the Valley of the Gardens, that is the Sea of Salt.

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman b Neof. mg.: “of Pontus”

c Neof. mg.: “of the fortress”

14:3 BZ: lmysr prdysyy’ d Neof. mg.: “all these had become united with one another” (omits “kings”); VNL: “all

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

them into the Salt Sea.

135

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman these had become united with one another in the plain of gardens”; for “gardens”, Neof. writes prdysy’; Neof. mg. with VNL, Ps.-J. has prdsyy’

4. Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, and for thirteen years, they had rebelled.

4. Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

4. Twelve years they had served before Chedorlaomer and in the thirteenth year they rebelled against him.

5. But in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and slew the mighty ones who were in Ashterothkarnaim, and the powerful ones who were in ShavehKiriathaim,

5. And in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and wiped out the giants who were in Ashteroth-karnaim, the powerful ones who were in Hamta, and the fearsome ones who were in ShavehKiriathaim,

5. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came and the kings that were with him and they killed the giants in Ashtarta of Karnaim and the noblest who were among them and the fearsome onese e “nobles” in Neof., who were dwelling VNL, zywtny(h); within the city,f “fearsome ones”, Neof. ’mtmyh; VNL ’ymtnyy’; BZ 14:5: zyyty’ dbhwn f VNL: “and they killed the Giants in Ashteroth-karnaim and the noblest who were among them and the Ematheans those who were dwelling of the sons (bny) of the city”, but read probably:

136

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman “dwelling in the city”.

6. As well as the Horites of the Seir Mountains, as far as the plain of Paran which is near the wilderness.

6. and the Horites who were in the high mountains of Gabla as far as the plain of Paran which is near the edge of the desert.

6. and the Horites who dweltg on the mountain of Gabla as far as the border of Paranh which is near the desert.

7. Now they turned back and came to the plain where judgement was apportioned as far as Rekem

7. Then they returned and came to the place where the judgement of Moses the prophet was decided by the fountain of the Waters of Contention, that is Reqem.

7. And they turned back and entered the Spring of Judgement, that is Rekem,

and they destroyed all the fields of the Amalakites and also the Amorites who dwelt in Engedi.

And they destroyed all the fields of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in En-gedi.

and subdued all the territory of the Amalekites and also the Amorites who dwelt in EnGedi of the Palm Trees.

8. Then the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah (!), and the king of Admah,

8. The king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim,

8. And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim

g Neof. mg.: “the Horanites those who dwelt”; very probably from VNL: “And the Horanites those who dwelt on the mountain of Gabla to El-paran, to the plain of Hazoza which is near to the wilderness.” h Neof. mg.: “Hazoza which is near” = VNL

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

137

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

and the king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela, which is Zoar,

and the king of the city that swallowed its inhabitants, that is Zoar,

and the king of the city that swallowed up its inhabitants,i i Neof. mg.: “the that is Zoar, fortress which swallowed up its inhabitants”

set out and in the Plain of the Fields they made arrangements for war with them.

went out and engaged in battle with them in the Plain of the Gardens,

went out and set battle lines against themj in the Valley j Neof. mg.: “with of the Gardens. them”

9. With Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of the nations and Amraphel king of Babylonia and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against five.

9. with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of the nations (who were) subject to him, and Amraphael king of Pontus, and Arioch king of Telassar – four kings engaged in battle against five.

9. Against Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, Tidal king of the nations, Amraphel king of Babylon and Arioch, king of Pontusk; four kings gave battle to five and they overcame them.

10. Now the Plain of the Fields was full of pits producing bitumen and the king of Sodom and Gomorrah [!!] and fell into them, while those that were left fled to the mountain.

10. Now, (in) the Valley of the Gardens there were many wells full of bitumen; and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled they fell into them, and the rest fled to the mountains.

10. And in the Valley of the Gardensm there were many wells full of bitumen, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled they fell in there and those who were leftn fled to the mountains.

k Neof. mg.: “of Ellasar”; VNL: “and Amraphel the king of Pontus and Arioch the king of Ellasar, four kings gave battle to five”; P: “four kings against five gave battle”

m P: “of the gardens”; VNL in v. 10 = Neof.; Levita, Met 14:10: mysr [Is msr] prdsy’

n Neof. mg.: “within them and what was left”

138

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

11. And they captured all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah (!), and all their provisions and went away.

11. They took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions and departed.

11. And they took all the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their provisions and went their way.

12. And they captured Lot, the son of Abraham’s relative, and all his possessions and they went their way; now he had been residing in Sodom.

12. They captured Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, and his possessions, and departed; he had settled in Sodom.

12. And they took Lot – Abram’s nephew – and his wealtho and went their way; and he was dwelling in Sodom.

13. Then a fugitive 13. Then came Og, 13. And a fugitive came came who had escaped from among the giants who died in the flood; he had ridden upon the ark, and there was a cover over his head, and he was sustained from Noah’s provisions. He had not escaped because of his own merit, but that the inhabitants of the world might see the power of the Lord, and say, “Did not the giants who were there from the beginning rebel against the Lord of the world, and he wiped them out from the

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

o Neof. mg.: “the property of his brother’s son”

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

139

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

earth?” When these kings waged war, Og was with them. He said to himself: “I will go and inform Abram concerning Lot who has been captured, so that when he comes to rescue him from the hands of the kings, he himself will be given into their hands. So he came on the eve of the day of the Passover and found him making unleavened cakes, and told Abraham the Hebrew who was dwelling in the plains of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner, they being Abraham’s confederates.

and he told Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling in the Vision of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and Aner. These were allies of Abram.

and informed Abram the Hebrew; he was dwelling in the Valley of the Vision of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshcol, the brother of Aner. These were allies of Abram.

14. When Abraham heard that his relative had been captured, he armed his young men born in his house,

14. When Abram heard that his brother had been captured he armed his young men whom he had trained for war, (who had been) brought up in his house, but they

14. And when Abram heard that Lot, his brother’s son, had been taken captive, he armed his young menp (who had) been reared in his house,

p Neof. = VNL, with the following variants: “retainers [lit.: ‘those who

140

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

did not wish to go with him. So he chose from among them Eliezer son of Nimrod, who was equal in strength to all

recline’] of his house … three hundred and eighteen … as far as Dan of Caesarea”; Neof. mg.: “those born in his house, and they did not desire to three hundred go with him and he and ten (of them), chose from among and followed them Eleazar who after them as far as was …”. There are Caesarea. further unconnected Neof. mg., e.g.: “eight” (of “eighteen”, cf. HT); “Dan of Caesarea”, cf. VNL

three hundred and eighteen , and pursued as far as Dan.

three hundred and eighteen of them; and he pursued (them) as far as Dan.

15. And he and his servants divided themselves against them at night,

15. The night was divided for them on the way; one part fought against the kings, and the other part was kept in reserve for the smiting of the first-born in Egypt. He arose, he and his servants,

15. And he and his captainsq divided q Neof. mg.: “and their forces against his servants” them by night

and he attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.

and smote them and pursued those of them that remained until he remembered the sin that was to be (committed) in Dan, which is north of Damascus.

and slew them and pursued them to Hoba which is north of Damascusr.

r VNL: “and he pursued them as far as Enwata [= the Springs] north of Damascus”; Neof. mg.: “Aynwata [‘the Springs’] of Damascus”

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

141

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

16. And he retrieved all the possessions, and he also retrieved Lot his relative and his possessions and also the women and the people.

16. He brought back all the possessions; he also brought back Lot his kinsman and his possessions, as well as the women and (the rest of) the people.

16. And he returned all the wealth; and Lot, his brother’s son, and his wealth also he returned as well as the womens and s Neof. mg.: the people. “(all) the property and also Lot his brother’s son and the property he restored and also the women.”

17. Then the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him to the levelled plain, which is the racecourse of the king.

17. When he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the levelled plain, which is the king’s racecourse.

17. And the kingt of Sodom came out to meet him, after he had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, in the Valley of the Gardens, that is, the valley of the king.

18. Now Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine, and he ministered before God Most High.

18. The righteous king – that is Shem, the son of Noah – king of Jerusalem, went out to meet Abram, and brought him bread and wine; at that time he was ministering before God Most High.

18. And Melchizedeku, king of Jerusalem – he is Shem the great – brought out bread and wine, for he was the priest who ministered in the High Priesthoodw before the most High Godu.

t VNL: “and the kings who were with him in the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit: ‘house’] of the Valley of the King”; Neof. mg.: “to the Valley of Hazoza, that is” = VNL; Levita, Met. An. and Is. 14:17: lmysr hzwz’; BZ 14.17: hw’ mysr sm rbh u VNL: “and Melchi Zedek the king of Jerusalem, he was Shem the Great, he was a priest to God the Most High”; P: “and Melchi Sedek the king of Jerusalem – who was Shem the Great – was a priest of the most High; he brought out food

142

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman and wine, and he was standing and serving in the high priesthood before God the Most High (God).” w Neof. mg.: “to God the Most High”

19. And he blessed him by saying, “Blessed be Abram before God Most High whose possessions are heaven and earth.

19. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram from (before) God Most High, who created the heavens and the earth for the sake of the righteous.

19. And he blessed him and said: “Blessed is Abram beforex the most x Neof. mg.: “to High God who by God the Most his Memra created High” the heavens and the earth;

20. And blessed be God Most High who had delivered your enemy into your hand and has given him a tenth of everything.” [!!!]

20. And blessed be God Most High who has made those who hate you like a shield that receives a blow.” And he gave him a tithe of all that he had brought back.

20. and blessed is the Most High God who crushedy y Neof. mg.: “(who) handed over, your enemies your enemies” before you. And he gave him a tithe of everything.”

21. Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons and take the property for yourself”.

21. The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the human persons of my people whom you brought back, and the possessions take for yourself”.

21. And the king of Sodom said to Abram: “Give me the persons and take the wealthz for yourself.”

22. But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I raise

22. Abram said to 22. But Abram the king of Sodom, said to the king of “I have raised my Sodom: “Behold, I

z VNL: “and the property take for yourself”; Neof. mg.: “and the property”

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

143

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

my hand in prayer before the Lord, God Most High, whose possession is heaven and earth,

hand in an oath before the Lord, the Most High God, who for the sake of the righteous created as his possession the heavens and the earth:

have lifted up my handaa in an oath aa Neof. mg.: “I have raised the palm before the Lord, of my hand.” the most High God, who by his Memra created the heavens and the earth:

23. that I will not take as much as a thread or a shoe strap, or anything that is yours, in order that you should not say, ‘I have made Abram rich’.

23. I will not take even a thread or a sandal-strap of all that is yours, lest you boast and say, ‘I have enriched Abram from what was mine’.

23. not even a thread of a shoelacebb will I take of anything belonging to you,cc lest you boast and say: ‘I have enriched Abram.’

24. Except for what the young men have consumed and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, they shall receive their share.”

24. Is it not true that I have no claim to any of the booty, (except) what, the young men, apart from me, have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me? Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, they too shall take their portion.”

24. I need not be considered; only what the young men have eaten and the portions of the men who went with me, Aner and Eshcol and Mamre; they will take their portionsdd. dd Neof. mg.: “one part of the whole”

bb VNL: “even a thread or a sandal strap, nor shall I take anything that is yours; that you may not boast and say: I have enriched Abram”; Neof. mg.: “of my sandal if” cc Neof. mg.: “of what you have, so that you will not take vain glory, saying I”

144

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

Genesis 15

Genesis 15

Genesis 15

Genesis 15

1. After these mat- 1. After these ters, things, after the kings had gathered together and had fallen before Abram,

1. After these things,a after all the kingdomsb of the earthc had gathered together and had drawn up battle-lines against Abramd and had fallen before him,

a PVNL: “After these things, after all the kings of the earth and (P: + all) the rulers of the provinces had gathered together and had drawn up battle lines against (P: with) Abram (V: Abraham) the just and they had fallen before him and had killed four kings (P: kingdoms) from among them and had brought back nine encampments, Abram the just thought in his heart and said: Woe, now, is me. Perhaps I have received the reward of the (P: my) precepts in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come.” b PVNL: “all the kings of”; Neof. mg.: “(every) king” c Neof. mg. and PVNL: “and all the rulers of the provinces” (or “cities”) d Neof. mg., PVNL: “(Abraham) the just”

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

Targum Onqelos

145

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

and (after) he had killed four kings and brought back nine encampments, Abram thought in his heart, and said,

ande he had killed e Neof. mg.: “he killed” (without four kings from “and”) among them and had brought back nine encampments, Abram thought in his heart and said:

“Woe to me now! Perhaps I have received the reward of my (observance of the) commandments in this world, and there will be no portion for me in the world to come.

“Woe, now, is me! Perhaps I have receivedf the reward of the preceptsg in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come.

Or perhaps the brothers and relatives of these slain will go and join in legions and come against me.

Or perhaps the brothers or relativesh those killed, who fell before me, will go and will be in their fortresses and in their cities and many legions will become allied with themi and they will come against me and kill me.

f Expressed in Neof. and VNL by Ithp.: ’ytqblt (“to be received”; “to be made the recipient of”), in P and Neof. mg. by the regular form qblyt. g Neof. mg. and P: “my precepts” (or: “good deeds”)

h “or relatives”, Neof.; “and relatives”, PVNL

i Neof. mg.: “strong [?] and they join with them”; VNL: “… of those killed and they join with them many legions …”; P: “and they join with them many legions”

146

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman

Or perhaps at that time the reward of some minor merits was found with me, so that they fell before me. But the second time, the reward (of good deeds) will not be found with me, and the name of heaven will be profaned in me.”

Or perhapsj there were a few meritorious deeds in my hand the first time they fell before me and they stood in my favour, or perhaps no meritorious deed will be found in my hand the second time and the name of the heavens will be profaned in me.”

j Neof. mg., PVNL: “or perhaps he found (P: there was found) merit for me the first time that they fell before me (Neof. mg. = VNL), or perhaps that merit will not be found for me the second time and the (Neof. mg.: in the) name of Heaven will be profaned in me”; P: “… it will not be found in me the second time. And a word came from before the Lord with Abraham the just saying: Fear not Abraham …”

the word of the Lord was with Abram in a prophecy, as follows:

Therefore a word of the Lord was addressed to Abram in a vision, saying,

For this reason there was a word of prophecy from before the Lord upon Abram the just saying:

“Do not fear, Abram,

“Fear not ; for even if they join in legions and come against you,

“Do not fear, Abram, for although many legions are alliedk and come against you to kill (you),

k Neof. mg., P: “the brothers and relatives of those slain should go and (P + many) legions be joined with them and they come against you (Neof. mg.: against me). My Memra is a

1. Synoptic Presentation of Targums of Genesis 14:1–24; 15:1

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

147

Fragment Targums, Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin, Levita, Meturgeman covering (Neof. corrected by VNL; P: my Memra will assure you) for you in this life and be a shield upon you all the days. But your reward and your good works are prepared for you [Neof. mg.: + before me; lit: ‘before him’] for the world to come.”

My Memra shall be your strength,

my Memra will be a shield for you;

my Memra will be a shield for you; and it will be a protection for you in this world

your reward shall be very great.”

and even if these have fallen before you in this world, the reward of your good works is kept and prepared before me for the world to come, a very great (reward).”

and although I delivered up your enemies before you in this world, the reward of your good works is prepared for you before me in the world to come.”

148

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

2. Appendix 1 2.1 The Place Names and Personal Names of Gen 14:1–172 (1) & (2) MT: Shinar and Ellasar Shinar = Babel (Babylonia). In Old Testament usage (Gen 10:10; 11:2), as in Egyptian, Shinar is simply a name for Babylonia. In Gen 14:1 Onqelos and Neofiti margin render as “Babel”, as does Neofiti in Gen 10:10 and 11:2, and also in Gen 14:9, and the Fragment Targums VN at Gen 10:10. The same identification is found in 1QapGen XXI 23. In Gen 14:1 Neofiti retains the Masoretic Text Shinar. Shinar = Pontus: Ps.-J. Gen 10:10; 14:1, 14; Frg. Tgs. VNL Gen 14:9; PVN Gen 11:2. Curiously, Pseudo-Jonathan renders in Gen 14:1 and 14:14 as “Pontus” as it does in Gen 10:10. In Gen 11:2, however, PseudoJonathan renders as “Babel”. In Gen 14:9 VNL of the Fragment Targums also render Shinar as Pontus, as we can presume they, or the Targum they represent, also did at Gen 14:1 (not attested in the Fragment Targums). PVN render Shinar as Pontus at Gen 11:2. As already noted, at Gen 10:10 VN render Shinar as “Babel”, where P renders as Pontus (“Haran and Nisibis and Ctesiphon in the land of Babel [VN] / Pontus” [P]). The identification of Ellasar with Pontus is well established exegetically (Symmachus, Vulgate; 1QapGen Ellasar = Cappadocia). The basis for the identification of Shinar with Pontus is not clear. Presumably Pontus in the north-east of Asia Minor, on the coast of Pontus Euxinus is intended, extending from the Halys river in the west to Armenia in the east. The link with Shinar may have to do with the ancient tradition (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.2) that Pontus was conquered by Ninus, founder of the Assyrian empire. There may be some link with the various Targum renderings of Gen 10:10–11. Here, speaking of Nimrod, the Masoretic Text says: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. (11) From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth and Calah …”. In Neofiti this becomes: “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Edessa, Nisibis and Ctesiphon in the land of Babel. (11) From that land the Assyrian came out, and built

2 For the geography of Neofiti see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 190–205; for the geographical names in Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, Numbers in particular, M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995, 8–21 (with material on Pseudo-Jonathan, from E. G. Clarke); for the geography of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 284–309; also P. S. Alexander, “The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and the Boundaries of the Land of Israel” (unpublished dissertation, Oxford University, 1974).

2. Appendix 1

149

Nineveh, City Streets and Adiabene …”. Pseudo-Jonathan renders: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babylon the Great, Edessa, Nisibis, and Ctesiphon in the land of Pontus. (11) From that land Nimrod went forth and ruled over Assyria …”. Ellasar of Hebrew Text retained in Targums. Thus Neof. Gen 14:1; Frg. Tg. Gen 14:9; Onq. Gen 14:1, 9. Ellasar = Pontus: Symmachus, Gen 14:1, 9; Vulgate Gen 14:1, 9. This is similar to 1QapGen XXI 23 where Ellasar is identified with Cappadocia. Ellasar = Telassar. In some texts Ellasar of Gen 14:1, 10 is identified as Telassar. Thus Pseudo-Jonathan and Peshitta. This identification seems to confuse Ellasar of the Masoretic Text with Telassar (cf. Isa 37:12; 2 Kgs 19:12). In Pal. Tg. Gen 10:12 Resen of the Masoretic Text is rendered in the Palestinian Targums as Talsar (ĕĎýĉė Neof.; ĕĎĉė Frg. Tgs. VN; Ps.-J.): “Talsar between Nineveh and Adiabene.” (3) MT: Elam. Retained as Elam in all Targums; also in 1QapGen XXI 23. (4) MT: Goiim (ĊĆĂÿ) (Gen 14:1). The name is translated as “nations” (ýĆċĂýĀ) in Neofiti and as “peoples” in Onqelos (ĆċċďĀ) and Pseudo-Jonathan (ýĆċċďĀ). 1QapGen XXI 23 retains the Masoretic Text form Goiim, but adds a specification on location (“the king of Goiim which is between the rivers”). (5) MT: Bela, that is Zoar (Gen 14:2, 8). Onqelos in both cases retains the Masoretic Text name Bela, as does 1QapGen XXI 25, 31. Matters are quite different in the Palestinian Targum tradition, in these verses (the word as a place name does not occur elsewhere in the Bible). In this tradition the Masoretic Text bl‘ (ďĉþ) is not taken as a place name, but is seen as descriptive, and translated from the root meaning of the verb, i.e. “to swallow up”. All Palestinian Targum texts render as “the city [or: ‘fortress’] that swallowed up its inhabitants”. Gen. Rab. 42:5 also notes that Bela is so called because its inhabitants were swallowed up, a fact also noted in Tan uma Lekh 8 and in Midrash Aggadah on Gen 14:2. We find the same Jewish tradition in Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, on Gen 14:2–3, with an added Jewish tradition linking this “swallowing up” with the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities. Jerome writes: “(14:2–3) And the king of Bale, this is Segor. All these conspired together at the Salt Valley: this is the Sea of Salt. In the Hebrew language Bale means ĔċĞƪĚęĝēĜ, that is, ‘swallowing down’. Therefore the Hebrews hand on a tradition that this same place is named Salisa in another passage of the Scriptures, and the second time is called ĖƲĝġęėĞěēďĞēĐęȘĝċė, that is, ‘a three-year-old heifer’, no doubt because it was swallowed up in a third earthquake; and from the time that Sodom and Gomorrah, Adama and Seboim were overthrown by the divine fire, it was called ‘The Little One’, since in fact Segor is translated as ‘the little one’ and is pronounced Zoara in the Syrian [= Aramaic] language. And the Vale of Salt Pits (as it is written in this same book), where formerly there were pits of bitumen, was turned into the Dead Sea after

150

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

God’s wrath and the raining down of the brimstone. It is called by the Greeks ĕưĖėđ ŁĝĠċĕĞȉĞēĜ, that is the pool of bitumen.”3

(6) MT: Valley of Siddim (ĊĆĀô) (Gen 14:3, 8, 10). In Onqelos in all three occurrences this is rendered as “the Plain of the Fields” (ýĆĉĔĄĕóĆċ). This translation appears to take Siddim as the plural of āĀô, “field”. Throughout Targum Neofiti one of the regular renderings of the Hebrew āĀô is the same Aramaic term ĉĔĄ.4 In all three occurrences in the Palestinian Targums (Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti and Fragment Targums) “Siddim” is rendered as ýĆĎĆĀĕđ (ĕóĆċ), “(in the Valley of) the Gardens” (or: “of the orchards”), ýĆĎĀĕđ (to be vocalised as pardesaya or pordesaya). The Aramaic word ĎĀĕđ (pardes/pordes) is ultimately a loan word from Persian, with the meaning of “park, garden, orchard”. It is quite possible that in these occurrences the rendering is not intended to denote a place name, but is rather a rendering of the Hebrew, as is, apparently, Onqelos. It must be noted, however, that this is not the normal rendering of the Hebrew āĀô in Neofiti or the Palestinian Targum. In fact, in all of Neofiti the word is found only five times (all in Genesis), the three already noted, in the singular, in an added midrash at Gen 21:33 (Abraham planted a ĎĀĕđ at Beer-sheba), and in Neof. Gen 14:17, in the rendering of the Hebrew place name “the Valley of Shaveh”, to which we shall return. For this reason, it is possible that the Palestinian Targums had a definite place in mind, namely “the Valley of Pardesa / Pordesa”. However, it should be borne in mind that the translator could hardly have failed to notice that the Valley of Siddim was the Sea of Salt (Gen 14:3), and that in it there were many wells of bitumen (Gen 14:10). It is very unlikely that he would have identified it with a site in the outskirts of Jerusalem. (7) MT: The Valley of Shaveh, the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17). Also translated as “the empty valley, the racecourse of the king” (Onqelos); “the Valley of Hazoza” (Fragment Targums); “Valley of the Gardens” (Neofiti). This is the location where Abram encountered the king of Sodom, that is, the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17). The Hebrew Text says that on Abraham’s return after victory the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley. Shaveh here is presumably different from the Shaveh-kiriathim of v. 5. There is a King’s Valley mentioned in 2 Sam 18:18, where Absalom erected a pillar for himself. The place name is rendered literally in Targum of 2 Samuel. Josephus (Ant. 7.10.3, § 243) says that this was two stadia from Jerusalem. 1QapGen XXII 13–14 identifies this Valley of Shaveh, that is the 3 Translation from C. T. R. Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis: Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1995, 45–46. 4 See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 57, n. 9 (on Neof. Gen 2:5).

2. Appendix 1

151

Valley of the King (ýĈĉċĔċďýĂāĂýĂó Ĕċďþ) in the Vale of Beth Carma (Bethha-cherem) (ýċĕĈėĆþėďĔþ). The Valley of Beth-ha-cherem is mentioned in Jer 6:1 in parallelism with Tekoa (cf. Neh 3:14), and in Josh 15:39. Going on this evidence as well as evidence from the Mishnah and the Copper Scroll J. Fitzmyer5 makes it quite plausible to locate Beth-ha-cherem at the modern site of Ramat Rachel, which is situated some 400 yards to the east of the old route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on a summit which dominates the Valley of Rephaim. Targum Neofiti identifies the Valley of Shaveh of v. 17 with the “Valley of the Gardens” (“in the Valley of the Gardens” – āĕóċý[Ă]āýĆĎĀĕđĕóĆċþ ýĈĉċ). Targum Neofiti is alone in this identification. Targum Onqelos has “the empty6 plain, which is the racecourse of the king” (ýĈĉċĀýĎĆĕėĆþýĂāýčđċĕóĆċĉ), a translation followed by PseudoJonathan. Targum Onqelos’s rendering as “empty” (ýčđċ) is in keeping with the meaning of the āĂó of the Hebrew Text and also with the identification of “King’s Valley” that follows. Given the existence of royal hippodromes and amphitheatres (for those of Herod at Jerusalem see Josephus, Ant. 15.8.1, §§ 268–276) the Targum Onqelos’s identification of “King’s Valley” is quite understandable. The Fragment Targums (VNL; not in P) here identify the Valley of Shaveh as “the Valley of Hazoza, āăĂăĄ, (that is the place of the Valley of the King)”, a text also found in the margin to Targum Neofiti, where it is obviously drawn from Fragment Targums. “Hazoza” is most probably an error for “Hazweh” (āĂăĄ), “(the Valley of) the Vision”, a phrase used to render “Oaks of Mamre” in Pal. Tg. Gen 12:6; 13:18; 18:1; Deut 11:30, and in a related manner in Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 14:13. (Gen 14:13 has not been preserved in any of the texts of the Fragment Targums.) At Gen 14:17 Targum Neofiti identifies “the Valley of Shaveh (that is the Valley of the King)” as “the Valley of the Gardens” (ýĆĎĀĕđ). The site can be presumed to have been very near Salem, that is Jerusalem. J. T. Milik believes that the place intended by Targum Neofiti is that named Phordesa or Phordisia in Christian texts of the sixth to the ninth centuries, in the suburbs of Jerusalem, noted for its hospice or old folk’s home founded by the empress 5 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 1966, 155–156; 2nd edition, 1971, 174. 6 ýčđċ (ĕóĆċĉ). B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 68 and 69, n. 13, renders as “levelled” (plain); so also M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 58. I render as if from the root ýčđ/ Ćčđ, “to empty”; āčđċ, “vacancy” (Jastrow, Dictionary, 821), āčđċĊĂĔċ, “a vacant place”. Thus the Aramaic ĕóĆċ ýčđċ would mean “a vacant/empty plain”; C. Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C.–sec. III d.C.), Brescia 1984, 105, renders: “pianura sgombra” (“empty valley”).

152

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Eudocia.7 An initial question to be considered here is whether this reading ýĆĎĀĕđ of Neofiti at Gen 14:17 represents the original Palestinian Targum. It is found only in Neofiti. Onqelos renders āĂó Ĕċď as āčđċĕóĆċ, mêsar mepanna, “the empty valley”.8 Pseudo-Jonathan reproduces Onqelos in this instance. The Fragment Targums and Neofiti margin translate as “the Valley of Hazoza” – possibly an error for “the Valley of Hazweh” (“of the Vision”). It is doubtful if the same term or place name would originally have been used to designate a place at the Dead Sea and at Jerusalem. Given this evidence, it is doubtful if any conclusion can be drawn from Neofiti’s text with regard to the original reading of the Palestinian Targum. The presence of ýĆĎĀĕđ may be due to its earlier use in vv. 3, 8, 10 (where it translates ĊĆĀô), or may be introduced later from the actual place name at Jerusalem. (8) MT: Seir. Gen 14:7. Targums: Gablah, āĉþÿ. Num 24:18; also Gen 14:6; 32:4; 33:14; Deut 1:2, 44; 2:1, 5, 8, 12, 22. HT: (Mount) Seir. So also Fragment Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan and Samaritan Targum. This is the home of Esau. The identification of Seir with Gabla (Gebal) is found in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) XXI 11, 29 (first century b.c.): “The Hurrians who [were] in the mountains of Gebal [HT: ‘in Seir’, Gen 14:6] until they reached El-Paran which is in the desert.” It is the Gobolitis or Gebalene which according to Josephus (Ant. 2.12, § 6) the sons of Esau occupied and was part of Idumea; it was also connected with the Amalekites (Ant. 3.2.1, § 40; 9.9.1, § 188). In Neof. Deut 32:2 “the mountains of Gablah” renders “Mount Paran” of the Hebrew Text. A tradition apparently considered it located in Gablah; cf. Gen 14:6. (9) MT: El-paran. Gen 14:6: “as far as El-paran on the edge of the wilderness”. (10) MT: Kadesh. All the Targums translate Kadesh as Reqem. For example the Targums translate the Hebrew Text of Gen 14:7, “En-mishpat, that is, Kadesh” (Gen 14:7) as “The Spring of Judgement that is Reqem”. Reqem is the constant identification of Hebrew Text Kadesh in all Targums and in the Peshitta Pentateuch. Also in Gen 14:7; 16:14; 20:1; Num 13:26; 14:16, 22; 20:1; 33:36, 37; Deut 1:2, 19, 46; 2:14; 9:23. 7

J. T. Milik, “’Saint-Thomas de Phordêsa’ et Gen. 14,17”, Bib 42 (1961), 77–84: “Puisque le mot weh, quelle que soit son étymologie, ne se présente guère spontanément comme un synonyme de pardesaya, je verrais volontiers dans ce dernier nom un toponyme réellement existant à l’époque de la composition du targum et attaché à une entité géographique des environs de Jérusalem” (81). 8 Milik, ibid., 82, renders as “vallée (très) plate et unie” (“flat and smooth, even”, as also B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 68: “the levelled plain”) with a reference (n. 2) to the effect that the word āčđċ is explained well by Rashi as “empty of every tree and every obstacle”, in which, Milik notes, the orchards of Neofiti completely disappear. Rashi’s explanation, I may note, argues against Milik’s own translation (“flat and smooth”) and for a rendering as simply “empty”.

2. Appendix 1

153

Reqem (ĊĔĕ) was the Semitic name for Petra in Edom; see Josephus, Ant. 4.4.7, §§ 82–83: “Moses led his forces through the desert and came to a place in Arabia which the Arabs have deemed their metropolis, formerly called Arke (read: Arkem), today named Petra. There Aaron ascended a lofty mountain range that encloses the spot … and died with the eyes of the multitude on him” (cf. MT Num 33:37–38; 20:22: “and they set out from Kadesh and encamped at Mount Hor …”).

See likewise Josephus, Ant. 4.7.1, § 161 (on the death of Rekem [LXX: Rokom], the Midianite king, Num 31:8): “The fifth [Midianite king] Rekem, the city which bears his name ranks highest in the land of the Arabs and to this day is called by the whole Arabian nation, after the name of its royal founder, Rekeme; it is the Petra of the Greeks.”

The Semitic form of the name has been confirmed by a Nabataean inscription, in which the city is designated as RQMW (the waw being a standard Nabataean ending).9 Pseudo-Jonathan agrees with the references in Neofiti except that in Num 20:1 Pseudo-Jonathan does not contain Reqem. (11) MT: Kadesh-barnea. Targums: Reqem de Ge’a. In Neofiti, Fragment Targums and Pseudo-Jonathan āďĆÿĀĊĔĕ (or ýďĆÿ gy‘’), with an ayin; in Onqelos and Peshitta ýýĆÿ (with an aleph). Neof. Num 32:8; 34:4; also in Deut 1:2, 19; 2:14; 9:23. This is the constant rendering of Hebrew Text Kadesh-barnea in Neofiti, in all other Targums, and in Peshitta. The name is also found in the rabbinic border lists of Sifre Deut. 51 and t. Shebiit 4:11 (towards the end): “… Sakuta, Nimrin, the fort of Zariza, Reqem of Gaia (āýĆÿĊĔĕ; with aleph), the Garden of Ashkelon, and the great road leading to the wilderness.” The name Gi’a itself, without combination with Reqem, is found as the name of a place, city, or village one and a quarter miles east of Petra, at the upper end of Wadi Mûsâ. It is called el-Gi in Arabic and is attested with the writings gy’’, gy’, g’y’ (with aleph) in Nabataean inscriptions. The place indicated by these was probably a town. It may be that mentioned by Eusebius, Onomasticon 62:16: “Gai: a stage of the Israelites in the wilderness. There is to this very day a city called Gaia close to Petra.” In connecting this with a stage in the wilderness, Eusebius was probably under the influence of LXX Num 33:44, 45, which renders Hebrew Text ĊĆĆď (‘Iyyim, with initial ayin) (of Moab) as Gai. The Septuagint translators, however, scarcely had a site near Petra in mind for this biblical place name, far removed from Petra. Gamma was a recognised transliteration of Hebrew ayin in certain words.

9

See Alexander, “The Toponomy” (n. 3 above), 192–199.

154

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

The targumic exegetical tradition clearly located the biblical Kadeshbarnea in the vicinity of Petra. Thus also Eusebius, Onomasticon 112:8: “Kadesh-barnea: the desert, stretching alongside the city of Petra in Arabia.” The linking of Ge’a to Reqem may have been intended to distinguish this particular area or place near Reqem from another, also well known, namely Reqem di-Hagra, also mentioned in rabbinic texts.10 (12) MT: Hazazon-tamar (Gen 14:7). Ain Gedi of the Palm Trees.11 This identification of Hazazon-tamar is found already in 2 Chron 20:2: “Hazazon-tamar, that is En-gedi”. It is also found in rabbinic sources (for example Gen. Rab. 41[42]:7). The Jewish identification was known to Jerome (Hebrew Questions on Genesis, on Gen 14:7): “Asasonthamar. This is the town which is now called Engaddi.”12 (13) MT: Dan = Caesarea (ČĂĆĕĎĆĔ, qysrywn). In Neof. Gen 14:14 Dan is identified simply as Caesarea. Abraham “went in pursuit as far as Dan” (MT) become in Neofiti “as far as Caesarea”. Likewise in the Fragment Targums. “as far as Dan of Caesarea”, and a marginal gloss to Neofiti: “Dan of Caesarea”. Caesarea occurs a few times elsewhere in Neofiti. Thus in Deut 34:1: “Gilead to Dan of Caesarea” (ČĂĆĕĎĆĔĀ); Num 34:15, in an added paraphrase on the borders of the two-and-a half tribes: “from Yadyoqitas Tarnegol of Caesarea, which is on the east of the (Cave) of Dan”.13 Likewise in Fragment Targums VNL and in Neofiti margin to the same verse. (14) MT: Hobah. MT Gen 14:15 speaks of “Hobah which is to the left (ĉýċôċ) of Damascus” (rsv: “which is north of Damascus”). Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti render “to the left” as “north of”, without further paraphrase. The Fragment Targums render as “Enwata [= ‘the Springs’] north of Damascus”; Neofiti margin as “Aynwata (= the Springs) of Damascus”. (15) MT: Damascus, in Neofiti written as ĔóċĀ, in the Hebrew Text and commonly in Aramaic as ĔôċĀ. (16) MT: The Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim (Gen 14:5). The MT Gen 14:5 says that Chedarlaomer and the kings who were with him subdued the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham (ĊāþĊĆăĂăā, ha-zuzim be-ham) the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathim (āĂĖþĊĆċĆýā) …” (1QapGen XXI 28 has: “the Rephaim who [were] in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zumzammim [= Deut 2:20] who [were] in Ammon, the Emim [who were in] ShavehHakerioth”). 10 11

See further ibid., 192–199. See McNamara, Targum and Testament, 191; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited,

287. 12

In the translation of C. T. R. Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis,

46. 13

See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, 21.

2. Appendix 1

155

The Rephaim are identified as ýĆĆĕþĆÿ, “the Giants”, or “mighty ones” as elsewhere in the Palestinian Targums (Gen 14:5; 15:20; Deut 2:11, 20; 3:11). Likewise in Targum Onqelos. Failing to recognise that ĊĆăĂă and Ċā were both proper names, the Septuagint renders as “the strong people together with them” (reading bahem). Neofiti and the other Palestinian Targums render in a similar fashion: “the noblest who were among them” (ČĂāþĀāĆčėĂĆă). This must be an ancient rendering; it is reproduced in Aramaic in the comment on this verse in Gen. Rab. 42:6 (on 14:5).14 The Emim. The word ’mym occurs three times in the Hebrew Text, in Gen 14:5 and Deut 2:10, 11: written as ĊĆċĆý in Gen 14:5 and as ĊĆċý in Deut 2:10, 11. The word is generally taken to designate an ancient race, the Emim: “the Emim formerly lived there (in the wilderness of Moab), a people great and many and as tall as the Anakim; like the Anakim they are also known as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim” (Deut 2:10–11). Behind both Hebrew and Aramaic may stand the same Hebrew and Aramaic word āċĆý, meaning “fear”. At Gen 14:5 Neofiti renders ĊĆċĆý as āĆĆčėċý; VNL ĆĆčėċĆý, Pseudo-Jonathan as ĆčėċĆý. At Deut 2:10, 11 Neofiti renders as āĆĆčėċĂý, Pseudo-Jonathan in 2:10 as ýĆčėċý, in 2:11 as Ćčėċý. (The text does not occur in the extant portions of the Fragment Targums.) It is not at all clear whether we are to understand the occurrences in Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan as descriptive adjectives or as designations of an ancient race. These Aramaic words, whether they be adjectives or gentilics, occur in the texts noted above (at Gen 14:5 and Deut 2:10, 11), and in b. Megillah 74a(6) in the sense of “fearsome” (Čėċý). Lexicographers and translators differ. S. A. Kaufman and M. Sokoloff take āĆĆčėċý; VNL ýĆĆčėċĆý of Gen 14:5 as an adjective: ČėċĆý), ”fearsome, terrible”.15 M. Sokoloff16 registers ĆĆčėċĂý of Neof. Deut 2:10 as an adjective and renders as “Umthanite”, and also notes under this the form āĆĆčėċý of Neof. Gen 14:5. Likewise for S. A. Kaufman and M. Sokoloff in their concordance of Neofiti: all the occurrences at Deut 2:10, 11 (Neof. Deut 2:10, 11; Neof. mg. Deut 2:10, 11 and 2:20) under the entry “ĆĆčėċĂý, adjective, 14 The Aramaic rendering of Gen 14:5 in Genesis Rabbah (ČĂāþĀāĆĆčėĂĂĆă, “the distinguished ones among then”) cited by M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 175, with reference to the edition of A. Theodor & Ch. Albeck, Bereshit Rabba, Berlin & Jerusalem 1903–1936, 411:7. 15 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 51 (1. “fearsome”, y. Megillah 74a60; 2. “the terrifying ones”, Neof. Gen 14:5; Frg. Tg. V Gen 14:5; Neof. Deut. 2:10, 11); S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti: A Guide to the Complete Palestinian Aramaic Text of the Torah, Baltimore & London 1993, 43 (Čėċý, “fearsome, terrible”). 16 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 40.

156

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Umthanite”. Translators equally differ, with a tendency to translate as “fearsome ones” at Gen 14:5 and “Umthanite” at Deut 2:10, 11. Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render ĊĆăĂă as “powerful ones” (ýĆĆđĆĔė) and ĊĆċý as “fearsome ones” (ĆčėċĆý), linking the former with the Hebrew ĊĆăĂăďā and the latter as if a common name (Hebrew āċĆý, ‘emah, “fear”) were intended.17 In his Hebrew Questions on Genesis on this verse Jerome comments that “Zuzim and Emim can be understood as meaning ‘dreadful’ and ‘awesome’, in place of which the Septuagint have put ‘the mighty nations’, conveying the general signification rather than the literal meaning”. On Jerome’s comment, R. Hayward notes18 that on the Zuzim and Emim he is very close to Targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, and seems to set traditional Hebrew interpretation of these names against the Septuagint. The Palestinian Targums represent a different Jewish interpretation. 2.2 Targums Genesis 14 Topographical Names in Alphabetical Order with Masoretic Text Equivalents: Ain Gedi of the Palm Trees = MT Hazazon-tamar Caesarea (Philippi) = MT Dan Gablah = MT Seir Petra (see Reqem) = MT Kadesh Pontus = MT Shinar Pontus = MT Ellasar Reqem (Petra) = MT Kadesh Reqem de-Ge’ah = MT Kadesh-barnea Telassar = MT Elasar Valley of the Fields = MT Valley of Siddim Valley of the Gardens (prdsy’) = MT Valley of Siddim Valley of Hazoza = MT Valley of Shaveh

3. Appendix 2 3.1 The Personal Names of Genesis 14 as Interpreted by Targum PseudoJonathan Amraphel (Gen 14:1). Amraphel is first identified with Nimrod. This identification is well attested in rabbinic texts. Thus in Gen. Rab. 42:4. The person in question was called by three names: Cush, Nimrod and Amraphel. The same text, as Pseudo-Jonathan, plays on the supposed component parts 17 18

For Ps.-J. Gen 14:5 see M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 56, n. 18. Hayward, St Jerome’s Hebrew Questions, 152.

3. Appendix 2

157

of the name: “Amraphel denotes: he made a declaration (amar imrah), ‘I will cast down (appilah)’. [Another interpretation] that he made sport of (amar we-afle) the world, also that he made sport of Abraham; again, that he ordered Abraham to be thrown (amar we-hippil) into the furnace”  – although the editors and translators of the ending of this text admit that the translation is conjectural, and that neither the text nor its meaning is certain.19 Ps.-J. Gen 11:28 contains the midrash referred to in the midrasch. This appears at Gen 11:28, where the Masoretic Text says that Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldaeans. Pseudo-Jonathan retells this as follows: “(Gen 11:28) It came to pass, when Nimrod cast Abram into the furnace of fire because he would not worship his idol, the fire had no power to burn him. Then Haran was undecided and said: ‘If Nimrod triumphs, I will be on his side; but if Abram triumphs, I will be on his side.’ And when all the people who were there saw that the fire had no power over Abram, they said to themselves: ‘Is not Haran the brother of Abram full of divination and sorcery? It is he who uttered charms over the fire so that it would not harm his brother.’ Immediately fire fell from the heavens on high and consumed him; and Haran died in the sight of Terah his father, being burned in the land of his birth in the furnace of fire which the Chaldeans had made for Abram his brother.”20

Arioch. Pseudo-Jonathan interprets Arioch as “tall like giants”, linking the name with the Hebrew ćĂĕý (’rwk, “long, tall”). The source of PseudoJonathan’s interpretation is unknown.21 Chedorlaomer in Pseudo-Jonathan is interpreted as being “short (and) turned like sheaves”. This interpretation of Pseudo-Jonathan, which is unintelligible, has no known parallel.22 Tidal, “a deceiver like a fox”. There is no known source for this interpretation of Tidal’s name.23 19

See note to the Soncino translation of the text (vol. 1, 346). Translation of M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 51 (with references to this tradition in Jewish literature and in Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis, on Genesis 15). 21 Thus M. M. Brayer, “Studies in the Pseudo-Jonathan of the Bible: Book of Genesis” (doctoral dissertation, New York, Yeshiva University, 1950), 216. 22 Thus Brayer, “Studies”, 216. Brayer links the second part of Chedorlaomer with ĕċý (‘omer), “sheaf”. Maher (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 55) notes that in PseudoJonathan we read ĕóĆĔ (qysr, “a band”) with editio princeps (instead of ĕĆēĔ, qsyr, “short” of the London manuscript), we may surmise that the Targumist linked the first element of the king’s name (Chedor) with ĕĂĀĔ, “something that goes around, a ball, a band”, and in this case a band that goes around sheaves; with reference to E. Cashdan, “Names and Interpretations of Names in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to the Book of Genesis”, in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by H. J. Zimmels, J. Rabbinowitz & L. Finestein, London 1967, 36, n. 25. 23 See Brayer, “Studies”, 217. 20

158

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

Bera, “whose deeds were evil” (lit.: “were in evil”). Pseudo-Jonathan interprets the personal name Bera (ďĕþ, br‘) as if composed of þ (b) = “in”, and ďĕ (r‘) = “evil”. See also Gen. Rab. 42:5: R. Meir used to interpret Bera as signifying that he was an evil son (ben ra‘), and Birsha that he was a wicked son (ben raša‘). Birsha, “whose deeds were wicked” (lit.: “in wickedness”), interpreting as if it were ďóĕþ (b-rs‘). See also Gen. Rab. 42:5. Shinab, “who hated even his father”, interpreting as if it were þýýčô (sn’ ’b. There is a different interpretation by R. Meir in Gen. Rab. 42:5: “Shinab, that he amassed wealth” (ČĂċċþýĂĖ, so’eb mammon). Shemeber, “who destroyed his member with unchastity”, as if from Ċċó (šmm, Piel), “lay waste, ruin”, and ĕþý (’br), “membrum virile”. No source for this interpretation of Pseudo-Jonathan is known. It is probably proper to the author of Pseudo-Jonathan, who has included other indelicate expressions in his work. He alone says that Potiphar bought Joseph with the intention of indulging in homosexuality with him (see Ps.-J. Gen 39:11), and is also alone in making explicit mention of Joseph’s membrum virile at Gen 49:24. (MT [rsv): “his bow remained unmoved”). Og, midrash on: Ps.-J. Gen 14:13. Gen 14:13 speaks of “one who had escaped” bringing tidings of the kidnapping of Lot to Abram. PseudoJonathan takes occasion of this to speak of Og, who had escaped the flood. His midrash reads:24 “(13) Then came Og, who had escaped from among the giants who died in the flood; he had ridden upon the ark, and there was a cover over his head, and he was sustained from Noah’s provisions. He had not escaped because of his own merit, but that the inhabitants of the world might see the power of the Lord, and say, ‘Did not the giants who were there from the beginning rebel against the Lord of the world, and he wiped them out from the earth?’ When these kings waged war, Og was with them. He said to himself: ‘I will go and inform Abram concerning Lot who has been captured, so that when he comes to rescue him from the hands of the kings, he himself will be given into their hands.’ So he came on the eve of the day of the Passover and found him making unleavened cakes, and he told Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling in the Vision of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and Aner. These were allies of Abram.”

The legend of Og that survived (the flood) is based on Deut 3:11. He was Og, King of Bashan, defeated by Moses (Deut 1:4; 31:4, etc.). Only Og king of Bashan was left as the remnant of the Rephaim (= giants); his bedstead was of iron; it was at Rabbah of the Ammonites, nine cubits its length, four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit (Deut 3:11). Og king of Bashan and all his people came out against Moses to battle at Edrei. Moses is told by God not to be afraid of him. Pseudo-Jonathan and the Palestinian 24

In the translation of M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 57.

4. Postscript 2010

159

Targums (Neof., Neof. mg.; Frg. Tgs. PVN) here (Num 21:34) include an expansion. I here give the text of Neofiti:25 “And it came to pass that when Moses saw Og, the king of Butnin [= Bashan] he feared and trembled before him and said, ‘Is not this Og who jeered at Abraham and Sarah saying to them: Abraham and Sarah are like beautiful trees standing beside springs of water but producing no fruit.’ Because of this the Lord has preserved him alive until he saw their children and their children’s children, and he came and fell into their hands. And they blotted him out [HT: ‘slew him’].”

Og’s survival is mentioned in rabbinic sources (b. Zebah 113b; b. Niddah 61a; Num. Rab. 19:32;26 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 23; Ps.-J. Deut 3:11 [“For only Og, King of Mathnan (= Palestinian Targum Butnin; = MT Bashan) remained of the giants, the rest of whom had been destroyed in the flood”]). The legend in also introduced in Gen. Rab. 42:8 (on Gen 14:13), again to explain the identity of “the one who escaped, and told Abram):27 “R. Simeon b. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: That was Og; and why was he called Og? Because he came and found Abraham sitting and engaged in the precept of [unleavened] cakes (ėĂÿĂď, ‘ugoth). He did not act from a pious motive, but he said to himself: ‘This man Abraham is vindictive: I will apprise him that Lot is captured; then he will go out to battle and be slain, while I will take Sarah.’ ‘By my life!’ said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him, ‘thou wilt receive reward for they journey [footsteps] by living a long time in the world. But because thou didst intend to slay that righteous man, thou wilt see myriads of his descendants and wilt ultimately fall into the hands of his sons’, as it is written, And the Lord said to Moses: Fear him not; for I have delivered him into thy hand, etc. (Num. 21:34).”

4. Postscript 2010 This essay was first published in 2002, but represents ideas put forward in a paper read in 1999 on the figure of Melchizedek in the Targums of Genesis 14. A synoptic presentation of the Pentateuch Targums still appears to be a desideratum, and for much the same reasons as the similar English language presentation of the Gospels. Such a presentation should serve all interested in serious Targum study, the average reader as well as the scholar, and for reasons similar to those in favour of a Gospel synopsis. During 2009 and later this year (2010) I explored the idea again with some scholars interested in Targum study and with the Liturgical Press, who de25

English translation by M. McNamara, in M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers,

123. 26 English translation by J. J. Slotki, in Midrash Rabbah: Numbers, 3rd edition, London & New York 1983, 782. 27 English translation by H. Freedman, in Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, 3rd edition, London & New York 1983, 350.

160

Chapter 7: Towards an English Synoptic Presentation

voted such pains to the publication of the Aramaic Bible series of annotated translations of the Targums. On principle the publishers favoured the idea, but called attention to the problems involved. The production of such a text would be costly. The electronic copies of the originals are no longer available. There were two publishers involved, and various typesetters. Some of the floppy disks used by the various authors may still be available, but two of the persons involved in the production of the Pentateuch volumes have sadly passed away. The advisability and possibility of the synoptic presentation of the Targums of the Pentateuch are currently being explored and a decision on the matter may be reached in the months ahead. There has also been consultation with officials and others connected with IOTS (The International Organization for Targumic Studies). While regarding the idea of a synoptic presentation of the Targums a very interesting one, they also raise the difficulties inherent in such a project: the labour and cost involved in scanning the published texts, the need to identify the audience or readership for such a publication – similar to those interested in the parallel Gospel publications, like undergrads or seminarians, or as primarily of interest to scholars? Added to this, there is now the fact that, if scholars are principally intended, something similar already exists. Accordance Bible Software contains (nearly) all the targum texts in computer form and has paid to translate the Pentateuchal Targums into English. All of these can be viewed in parallel / synoptic form on a computer screen. The cost is of course prohibitive for students, but for scholars who use them regularly is quite affordable.28 A question arising with regard to a new printed synoptic Targum synopsis is whether it would be any more affordable than what has been made available in the Accordance Bible Software.

28

See the review by P. V. M. Flesher in Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007), 151–159.

Part Two

Targum and Language

Chapter 8

Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch* Thanks to the Cairo Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch,1 we are now in a position to trace the history of this text, in good part, back through the eleventh century citations in the Aruk possibly to the seventh century.2 From the fact that written texts of this work seem to have existed in the seventh or early eighth century, we can rest assured that the tradition that lay behind it must have been formed at a much earlier date, all the more so that we find two Genizah texts bearing the same essential paraphrase but differing in certain details.3 A question that yet remains to be solved is how much older than the Genizah fragments is the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch itself. If it existed and was known in Palestinian Judaism one would expect to find some evidence of it in Palestinian writings, just as we find citations from Onqelos in the Babylonian Talmud. The purpose of the present essay is to show that there is evidence for the existence of the Palestinian Targum in Palestinian writings and that these same writings help us to trace the history of this same work from the second to the fourth centuries of the Christian era. As far as the present writer knows * Originally published under the same title in Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 1–15. 1 Published by P. Kahle in Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930 (repr. Hildesheim 1967), 1–62. 2 P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II, 2*–3*, dates the oldest of these Genizah fragments (ms. A) to the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, the work being written on parchment and provided with Palestinian punctuation. This early dating of the fragments is denied by J. L. Teicher, “A Sixth Century Fragment of the Palestinian Targum?”, VT 1 (1951), 125–129, according to whom the oldest manuscript of the Genizah cannot be presumed to be older than the first part of the ninth century (idem, “The Oldest Dated Document in the Genizah?”, JJS 1 [1948–1949], 156–158, esp. 157). See also A. Díez Macho, “Onqelos Manuscript with Babylonian Transliterated Vocalization in the Vatican Library (MS. Eb. 448)”, VT 8 (1958), 113–133, at 116, n. 3. The latest palaeographical examination of the Genizah manuscripts would assign the oldest of them (ms. A) to the eight-ninth century or earlier; others of these manuscripts would be from the ninth-tenth century and later; see M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1, Cincinnati 1986, xxxvii–xxxviii. 3 For instance Gen 38:16–26 in mss. E and D; from the second half of the eighth and the second half of the ninth century according to P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II, 2*–3*.

164

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

this point has so far not received due attention. Yet, as must be apparent, the question is of capital importance in view of the fact that the more recent studies favour a very early date for the bulk of the material contained in the extant texts of this Targum. In the present article we intend to study some nineteen rabbinical citations in chronological order.

1. The Mishnah and the Palestinian Targum The Mishnah (m. Megillah 4:10) lays down special rules on passages from the Hebrew Text that are to be read in Hebrew in the synagogues but not rendered into Aramaic by the Meturgeman. The relevant text runs: “The story of Reuben (Gen 35:22) is to be read out but not interpreted …; the first story of the calf (Exod 32:1–20?) is to be read out and interpreted, and the second (Exod 32:21–35?) is to be read out but not interpreted. The Blessing of the Priests (Num 6:24–26) … is read out but not interpreted.”

We may note here that all printed targumic texts known prior to Codex Neofiti have all these passages translated into Aramaic. This is not contrary to the Mishnah, of course, as the particular rule cited above refers to the oral rendering in the synagogue only. Some manuscripts of Targum Onqelos carry no rendering of the Blessing of the Priests.4 It is curious that the newly found entire Palestinian Targum, extant in codex Neofiti 1 (= Targum Neofiti) of the Vatican Library, leaves the key words or sections of these passages untranslated. We will now examine each of the texts individually. 1. Gen 35:22. Targum Neofiti leaves untranslated only the offensive words āĄĉþėýþĈĖĆĂ, “and he lay with Bilhah”; the remainder of the verse is in Aramaic.5 It may be possible that the tradition it represents interpreted m. Megillah 4:10 in this manner. See no. 2 below. 2. Exodus 32 in Neofiti. The second story of the calf whose rendering is forbidden is generally taken to be Exod 32:21 ff. In Targum Neofiti, however, the entire chapter is rendered into Aramaic, save such offensive phrases as “let us make gods who will go before us” (32:4, 23); the adoration of the 4

For instance ms. Harley 5709 of the British Museum; see the Museum Catalogue, vol. 170, part I, 130; likewise Cod. Vat. Ebr. 16 (apparently thirteenth century) and Codex Vat. Ebr. 19 (probably fourteenth century); cf. H. Cassuto, Codices Vaticani Hebraici, codices 1–115, Vatican 1956, 21, 25. On the rendering of Num 6:24–26 cf. M. Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim”, MGWJ 44 (1900), 3–5. 5 The actual text of Targum Neofiti is: ĉýĕĖĆďċĖĂāĄĉþėĆþĈĖĆĂ … (omitting ĂĆþýĖÿĉđ) where only a single word (þĈĖĆĂ) is left untranslated. ėĆ, corrected to ėý in an interlinear gloss, is probably a scribal error for ėý. The same gloss adds ĆĂþýĖÿĉĆđ (correct to ĂĆþýĥđ. In the margin the first part of the verse is added in Hebrew (as far as ĉýĕĖĆďċĖĂ). The omission of the translation of vv. 25b–26a in Targum Neofiti is a clear case of homoeoteleuton.

1. The Mishnah and the Palestinian Targum

165

calf by the Israelites (32:8) and their calling the image the God that led them out of Egypt (32:8, 25). All these portions are left in Hebrew throughout the entire chapter, that is in both the first and second story according to the usual interpretation of m. Megillah 4:10. It is quite evident that the retention of these phrases in Hebrew is not due to mere chance, or to a scribal error of transcription. The tradition behind the Targum, or some scribe in the history of its transmission, is consciously abiding by an interpretation of m. Megillah 4:10 that differs somewhat from the usual one. That a variety of opinion existed on what constituted the second story of the calf is accepted. Rashi6 thought the Mishnah ruling forbade the rendering of Exod 32:34 only. The Palestinian Talmud to m. Megillah 4:10 gives us a discussion on what constituted the second story, and from a text in this debate it appears that Exod 32:35 was rendered in fourth-century Palestine just as we find it rendered now in Targum Neofiti, that is only the offensive words were left untranslated. In the course of the discussion referred to, R. A a (ca. 350 c.e.) said in the name of R. Ba (that is Abba) that the second story extended to the end of the chapter, that is to v. 35 which he cites, partly in Aramaic, partly in Hebrew, changing in exactly the same manner as Targum Neofiti does. We here place the texts together: R. A a, m. Megillah 4:10: ČĕāýāĖďĕĖýĉÿďāėýĂĖďĕĖýĉďýċďėĆĆĆ7ýĄċĂ Exod 32:35 Neofiti: ČĕāýāĖďĕĖýĉÿďāėýĂĖďĕĖýĉďýċďėĆĆĆĐÿčĂ 3. Num 6:24–26 (the Blessing of the Priests) is left entirely in Hebrew in Targum Neofiti. 4. Mishnah Megillah 4:9 and the Targums to Lev 18:21.8 This Mishnah text says: “If a man says [when translating Lev 18:21 into Aramaic]: ‘And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make (them) pass through (fire) to Moloch’ (ĕĆþďāĉČėėýĉćďĕăċĂ ćĉċĉ): (as) ‘and thou shalt not give any of thy seed to become with child in heathendom’ (ýėĂĆċĕýþýĕþďýĉČėėýĉÎďĕăČċĂ), they shall put him to silence with a rebuke.”

We can presume that the censured Aramaic rendering was current in tannaitic times; there would otherwise have been little reason for framing this particular rubric. The main objection to it was perhaps that it departed from the plain meaning of the Hebrew Text. The Meturgeman was expected to give a faithful rendering according to the second member of R. Judah ben 6

See M. Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim”, 2 ff. The Aramaic part of this rendering (with ýĄċĂ) is literally that of Targum Onqelos. This, however, can scarcely be taken as proof of the use of Targum Onqelos in Palestine (as we find done in A. E. Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos, Manchester 1931, 64). Targum Onqelos has the entire verse in Aramaic. On the question of the position of Targum Onqelos in Palestine see below n. 41 (under “Conclusions”); and n. 23 (under no. 9). 8 See M. Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim”, 5–6, and S. Gronemann, Die Jonathan’sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Halacha, Leipzig 1870, 95 ff. 7

166

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

Ilai’s (second century c.e.) dictum: “He who translates a verse quite literally is a liar, while he who adds anything thereto is a blasphemer” (Tosefta, t. Megillah 4:41; Babylonian Talmud, b. Qiddushin 49a). There are then three points on which the censured rendering may be found at fault:9 1) It takes Moloch to refer to heathendom in general; 2) it understands “seed” in the sexual sense rather than as offspring, sons;10 3) it takes ĕĆþďā as “to render pregnant”, rather than as “to cause to pass through (fire)”. Turning now to the targumic renderings of this text we are not surprised to find that the official text, Onqelos, is quite in agreement with the Mishnah rubric, rendering “seed” as “sons” (ÎĆčþ) and reproducing “pass to Moloch” verbally. Targum Neofiti, too, abides by the Mishnah, rendering as āĆĆĕĈčāčĄĉđĊĀĔýĕĂčþýĕþďėċĉČėėýĉćĆčþċĂ, “and you shall not give any of your children to have them passed through fire before a foreign cult”. Targum Neofiti here may, however, well represent the revision of an earlier text. None of the other renderings of the Palestinian Targum we possess conforms with the Mishnah. A gloss to Targum Neofiti has the following rendering of Lev 21:18: “And you shall not give any of your seed to a foreign cult” (ČĆĆĕĈčāčĄĉĂđĉČėėýĉćďĕăČċĂ). Pseudo-Jonathan runs equally counter to the Mishnah, rendering: “And you shall not give any of your seed in sexual intercourse at the side of a daughter of the nations to pass over to a foreign cult”. We may also note that the Peshitta rendering seems to retain an old Targum of the type censured in m. Megillah 4:9.11 The Peshitta ren9 On this text see M. Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim”, 5–6. The censured rendering interprets the verse as referring to sexual sins, influenced, no doubt, by the context. For another case where the Palestinian Targum version is made in light of the immediate context, and against the usual interpretation, see Exod 22:5–6. For the presumed anti-halakic nature and early date of this Palestinian Targum passage cf. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Schweich Lectures 1941), 1st edition, London 1947, 122–123; 2nd edition, Oxford 1959, 205–208; G. Schelbert, “Exodus XXII 4 im palästinischen Targum”, VT 8 (1958), 253–263. 10 “Seed” of the Masoretic Text is almost invariably paraphrased in all Targums as “children”. 11 According to the view of Kahle (Masoreten des Westens II, 3–4; The Cairo Geniza, 1st edition, 186 ff.; 2nd edition, 272–276), followed by S. Wohl (Das palästinische Pentateuch-Targum, Zwickau i. Sa. 1935), C. Peters (Le Muséon 48 [1935], 1 ff.), A. Baumstark (ZAW, Neue Folge 18 [1942], 101–103; ZDMG, Neue Folge 14 [1935], 91–92), and A. Vööbus (Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs: Neues Licht zur Frage der Herkunft der Peschitta aus dem altpalästinischen Targum, Stockholm 1958) and already defended by earlier writers (see R. Duval, La littérature syriaque, Paris 1899, 31 ff.), the Peshitta to the Pentateuch is made from a Palestinian Targum which is closely related to our present Palestinian Targum texts, especially those from the Cairo Genizah. This position has been recently contested by F. Wernberg-Møller (“Some Observations on the Relationship of the Peshitta Version of the Book of Genesis to the Palestinian Targum Fragments Published by Professor Kahle, and to Targum Onkelos”, ST 15 [1961], 128–180; idem, “Prolegomena to a Re-examination of the Palestinian Targum Fragments of the Book of Genesis Published by P. Kahle, and their Relationship to the Peshitta”, JSS 7 [1962], 253–266). Texts such as Lev 18:21 and Gen 29:17 (cf. no.  7 below) of the Peshitta indicate some

2. Dated Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum

167

ders as: “And of your seed you shall not give [lit.: ‘cast’] to render a foreign woman pregnant.” Summing up the relation of our present Targums to the relevant Mishnah rubrics we can say that Targum Neofiti is in conformity with these rubrics in the four texts examined, whereas other Palestinian Targum texts are at variance with the Mishnah in their rendering of Lev 21:18.

2. Dated Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum 5. R. Nathan (ca. 170 C.E.) and Pal. Tg. Gen 6:14. In Gen 6:14 Noah is told to make an ark of gopher wood (ĕđÿ§Ćēďėþė). The hapax ĕđÿ has caused difficulties for early translators. The Septuagint renders as “from square logs” (őĔĘƴĕģėĞďĞěċčƶėģė); the Vulgate has ex lignis laevigatis. In Gen. Rab. 31 R. Nathan12 explains the three Hebrew words by the Aramaic ýėĂþė ČĂčĆĕĀĔĀČĆďýĀ. According to the lexica the word ČĂčĆĕĀĔ is of very rare occurrence. Apart from this text of Genesis Rabbah is it found only in Tan uma, Beshalla 24, referring to Exod 15:25, and in the Palestinian Targum to Gen 6:14. In fact the three words cited by R. Nathan are precisely the Palestinian Targum rendering of the Hebrew Text cited above.13 The natural explanation of this is that R. Nathan is actually drawing on the Palestinian Targum to explain the difficult passage of the Hebrew Text. The same rendering is attested in an early Greek rendering  – őĔ Ęƴĕģė ĔďĎěưėģė  – which may well be that of Symmachus,14 a contemporary of relation between this rendering and the early Palestinian Targum. (On the entire question see now M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 97–100.) 12 R. Nathan, surnamed “the Babylonian” (ha-Babli), migrated from Babylon to Palestine. It is interesting to see that the Aramaic text he cites to elucidate Gen 6:14 is that of the Palestinian Targum, not Onqelos, which was later, if not then, the official text in Babylon. Onqelos’ rendering is similar to that of the Palestinian Targum and reads: ýėĂþė ĎĂĕĀĔĀČĆďýĀ. 13 The Palestinian Targum renderings of Gen 6:14 are the following: Targum Neofiti: ČĂčĆĕĀĔĀČĆďýĥĂþė; Fragment Targum: ČĂčĆĕĀĔĀČĆďýĀýėĂþĆė; Aruk citation (in M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, Berlin 1899, 22): ČĂčĆĕĀĔĀČĆďý; a citation in Elias Levita (ibid.): ČĆčĂĕĀĔĀČĆďý; Pseudo-Jonathan: ČĆčĂĕĀĔČĆĎĆĔĀýėĂþĆė; Neofiti margin: ĥĂĕĀĔČĆĎĔĀ (probably from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, a Palestinian Targum text unknown to Elias and first published in 1591, and an indication that Elias is not responsible for all the glosses of Targum Neofiti, whatever his relation with the text itself; see M. Martin, in Textus 3 [1962], 32 etc.). 14 In the Quinta of the Hexapla this reading is the second of three (PG 15, 193–194; cf. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1, Oxford 1875, 23). On the strength of an observation of Procopius (cf. ibid., n. 20) the editor of the text in Patrologia Graeca takes the third to be that of Theodotion. The other two he takes to be probably those of Aquila and Symmachus. In this case the second (ours) is probably that of Symmachus, who would then be dependent on the Palestinian Targum or, at least, on second century

168

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

R. Nathan. The rendering goes back to first-century exegetical tradition at least, as the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (3:4) renders in the same manner, namely arca de lignis cedrinis. 6. Pal. Tg. Exod 24:10 cited verbatim (ca. 200 C.E.?). Exod 24:10 says that under God’s feet there was seen “as it were a pavement of sapphire stone like the very heavens for clearness”. In a discussion on problems connected with this text in the Jewish academies, the question is posed in Hebrew: What do the words “and like the very heavens for clearness” mean? The reply is given in Aramaic as follows: ČĆččďČċČĆĆĔčČĂčĆýĀĈýĆċĖ, “the heavens when they are clear of clouds” (y. Sukka 54c; Lev. Rab. c. 23, 167a). Now these Aramaic words are precisely the rendering of Exod 24:10 in the Palestinian Targum, being letter for letter identical with that of the Fragment Targum, which is almost identical with Targum Neofiti and Neofiti margin. Pseudo-Jonathan differs but little.15 Again, it is quite clear that this talmudic text is drawing on the Palestinian Targum to elucidate a difficulty in the Hebrew Text, just as R. Nathan did (cf. no. 5). In the text immediately preceding the one cited an explanation of Bar Kappara (ca. 200) in the Academy of Nehardea is given and it is quite possible that this citation is also from him. We would then have evidence of use being made of the Palestinian Targum by Bar Kappara who may have been a student of R. Nathan.16 7. Pal. Tg. Gen 29:17 cited in Palestine ca. 250 C.E.17 Gen 29:17 says: “The eyes of Leah were weak (ėĂĈĕ), but Rachel was beautiful and lovely.” Commenting on these words Gen. Rab. 70 (Vat. Ebr. 30, fol. 122b) recounts the following episode: “‘The eyes of Leah were weak.’ The amora of R. Jo anan translated before him (as): The eyes of Leah were weak (ČĆĈĆĈĕČĆĂĂāāýĉĀāčĆď). He said to him: ‘Your mother’s eyes were weak (ČĆĈĆĈĕ). And what does ėĂĈĕ [in the Hebrew Text] mean? (Weak) from weeping.’”

The word “amora” in this context must be taken in the restricted sense of one who repeated traditional material before a sage, or in the schools. The function of these amoraim was to learn traditional material by heart, not necessarily to understand it. When the exact wording of a text was not known to a sage or in the Academies, these amoraim – called also tannaim – Palestinian tradition. On the marked influence of rabbinic tradition on Symmachus, see H. J. Schoeps, “Symmachus und der Midrasch”, Bib 29 (1947), 31–51. 15 The texts are as follows: Fragment Targum: ČĆččďČċČĆĆĔčČĂčĆýĀĈýĆċĖ; Neofiti: ýĆċĖ ýččďČċČĆĆĔčČĂčĆýĀĈ; Neofiti margin: ýĆččďČċČĆĆĔčČĂĂā; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: ĀĈýĆċĖ ýĆččďČċČĆĕĆĕþČĂčĆā. 16 See Midrash Ps 12:24, ed. by Buber, and see L. Ginzberg, JE 2 (1902), 503. 17 On this text see P. Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint”, AJSL 50 (1933–1934), 63, and J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim …, vol. 2, Leipzig 1868, s. vv. ýĆčĕĆē (323) and ćĆĈĕ (424).

2. Dated Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum

169

were introduced to repeat the passage in question.18 We can rest assured, then, that the rendering the amora of R. Jo anan gave was a traditional one he had committed to memory. Now, his rendering of Gen 29:17 is precisely that which we still read in Fragment Targum, Neofiti margin and the Peshitta19 to this verse. The Palestinian Targum rendering of this text, then, goes back to the time of R. Jo anan and this amora, and must be earlier than these. Another point that seems to follow from this passage of Genesis Rabbah is that a traditional rendering of the Torah was transmitted by the amoraim who had committed it to memory, and in the present passage this rendering is that of some present-day texts of the Palestinian Targum. The reason why the rabbi disagreed with the rendering of his amora was probably that it was seen “to speak disparagingly of the righteous”. The text of Genesis under discussion is the subject of a debate in b. Baba Bathra 123a and this is the reason given why ėĂĈĕ of the Hebrew Text cannot be taken to mean “weak”. In view of rabbinic desires we are not surprised to find that ėĂĈĕ is rendered in Targum Onqelos as “nice, beautiful”. Targum Neofiti is, once again, in conformity with rabbinic wishes and renders as ĂĉēþČđĆĔă, “raised in prayer”. 8. Pal. Tg. Gen 25:3 cited as a current rendering and censured, ca. 250 C.E. Gen 25:3 says that the Sons of Dedan were ĊĆċýĉĂĊĖĂąĉĂĊĕĂĖý. The Septuagint, Vulgate and modern versions take these as names of the tribes Ashurim, Letushim and Leummim. The Palestinian Targum, however, sees in these three words the names of three occupations. We possess the Palestinian Targum to this verse in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragment Targum, Targum Neofiti and in a citation in R. Nathan ben Ye iel’s Aruk.20 All these texts render Ashurim as ČĆĕÿė, “traders” and Leummim as ČĆċĂýĆĖĆĕ, “heads of tribes”. The Palestinian Targum texts differ in their rendering of Letushim. Fragment Targum’s rendering as ČĆčċĂý,21 “craftsmen” differs from the others which translate as ČĆĕđċý, “traders” or some similar term.22 A text of St Jerome indicates that the true Palestinian Targum reading is that of the Fragment Targum. The text in question occurs in Hebraicae quaestiones

18

See B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Uppsala 1961, 93–94. On the Peshitta and Palestinian Targum cf. n. 11 above. The Septuagint represents the same exegesis, which is the natural one, Leah’s eyes being contrasted with Rachel’s beauty. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan renders as “(Leah’s eyes) were discharging pus” with which compare Vulgate’s lippis oculis. 20 See M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 97. 21 From the root Ėąĉ, “to polish, sharpen”. Cf. āĖĆąĉ, “hammering, furbishing”. 22 Another variant of Genesis Rabbah in Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 97. 19

170

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

in Genesim 25:3,23 where he tells us of a popular rendering of this passage current in his day. He writes: “Quod autem ait et filii Dadan fuerunt Asurim et Latusim et Laomim, Asurim in negotiatores transferri putant, LATUSIM IN AERIS FERRIQUE METALLA CUDENTES, Laomim uero ĠğĕƪěġęğĜ, id est, principes multarum tribuum atque populorum.”

This rendering, current in Palestine of Jerome’s day, that is towards the end of the fourth century, is that of the Palestinian Targum as found in the Fragment Targum. This same rendering, cited this time in Aramaic, was current in these same parts a century earlier as we learn from R. Samuel b. Na man (ca. 250 c.e.). In Gen. Rab. 61 to 25:3 R. Samuel’s view on this Aramaic rendering is given. He says:24 “Although they translate and say: ‘Merchants and craftsmen and heads of tribes ČĆĕÿė ČĕđčýĂ[correct to ČĆčċĂý; ČĆĕđċĂĉ, v. l.] ČĆċĂýĆĖýĕĂ’ these are all heads of tribes.”

From this text we can see that the Aramaic rendering of Gen 25:3 current in Palestine ca. 250 c.e. was still current, and expressed in practically the same words, a century and a half later and that it is that of the present texts of the Palestinian Targum, particularly the Fragment Targum. 9. R. Abba b. Kahana († 300 C.E.) and Neof. Gen 42:21. Our next text comes from R. Abba b. Kahana, a disciple of R. Jo anan (no. 7), and refers to Gen 42:21 where the Hebrew Text says: “In truth (ĉþý) we [the sons of Jacob] are guilty concerning our brother …” The word ĉþý, in this sense, 23 CCSL, vol. 72, 31; PL 23, 1026 (976B); cf. idem, Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (Genesis), CCSL, vol. 72, 61,68 where Jerome interprets “Latusim” as malleatores. In view of the text cited from Hebraicae quaestiones the statement often made that Jerome never mentions a Targum should be modified. It is not certain whether the current explanation he gives was in Aramaic, or Greek, most probably the former is the case. It would have been translated into Greek for the benefit of the Westerner. The text shows that the only probable reference to a Targum in Jerome is one to the Palestinian Targum. Fr. Stummer (“Beiträge zu dem Problem ‘Hieronymus und die Targumim’”, Bib 18 [1937], 174–181, at 175–177) and others believe that in Epistula 64 of Jerome (written before the spring of 397) there can be found evidence that the Targum of Onqelos was introduced from Babylon to Palestine some short time previously. The reason for this is that in this letter (CSEL 54, 598) Jerome says that “ABANETH [of Exod 28:4 etc.] … Babylonii novo vocabulo HEMIAN vocant”. Abaneth of the Hebrew Text is here rendered by the Babylonian (Persian) word Hemian in Targum Onqelos, not in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The Babylonii of the text are taken to be the Babylonian Jews while novo vocabulo would indicate the recent introduction of Targum Onqelos into Palestine. This argumentation scarcely holds, as here Jerome seems to be merely reproducing Josephus (Ant. 3.7.2, § 156) who writes on the breastplate: “Moses gave it the name abanêth but we have learnt from the Babylonians to call it hemian, for so it is designated among them”; see already M. Levi, “Ueber Onkelos und seine Uebersetzung des Pentateuch”, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 5 (1844), 175–198, at 189, note **. See also n. 41 below. 24 We follow the text of Theodor & Albeck; Vat. Ebr. 30 differs somewhat; another variant in M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 97.

2. Dated Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum

171

occurs only here in the Pentateuch but is found in the sense of “No!” in Gen 17:19, 1 Kgs 1:43. In later biblical works it is found in the sense of “but” (Dan 10:7, 21; Ezra 10:13), “however’’ (2 Chr 1:14; 19:3; 33:17) and in later Mishnaic Hebrew it is common in the sense of “but” (non-adversative) and “however”. To elucidate the strange use of the word in Gen 42:21 Gen. Rab. 91 (Vat. Ebr. 30, fol. 168a) cites a saying of R. Abba b. Kahana, a saying that is somewhat obscure in its rabbinic conciseness. It is: “Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: ĊĕþĉþýýĂāĆċĂĕĀČĂĖĉ ”, which Hebrew we may render and interpret with M. Jastrow (Dictionary, 6): “It [ĉþý] is a South Palestine expression, where bal means bram.” It is worth noting that the use of ĉþý in Hebrew and of Ċĕþ in Hebrew and Aramaic in the sense of “but”, “however”, is very frequent in post-biblical works, while their use in the sense of “truly”, “indeed”, while attested, is very infrequent indeed. Does R. Abba think this unusual use was peculiar to Southern Palestine? The point that interests us here, however, is the bearing of this text of R. Abba on our Targums. Both Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan render ĉþý by ýąĖĂĔþ, “in truth” in Gen 42:21 and 17:19. In both places Targum Neofiti renders ĉþý by Ċĕþ, according to the equivalence of the terms mentioned by R. Abba and connected with Southern Palestine according to him. One is certainly permitted to surmise that the rendering represented by Targum Neofiti was in some way known to R. Abba. Does his text mean that such a rendering of ĉþý by Ċĕþ was peculiar to Targums stemming from south Palestine? 10. R. elbo (ca. 300 C.E.) and Pal. Tg. Gen 24:10. R. elbo, too, was a contemporary of R. Samuel b. Na man (no. 8), some of whose haggadic sayings he has handed down. Explaining “all the choice things of his master” (Gen 24:10) which Abraham’s servant took to Aram Naharaim, R. elbo simply glosses (Genesis Rabbah on this phrase) as ĆĔĆėýĆĀ Ăă, “this is his testament”. This is precisely the manner in which the Palestinian Targum (Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum Paris ms. Hébr. 110 [variant], Aruk citation25) renders Gen 24:10: āĆċďāĆčĂþĆĕĀýĄĆėĆĆĀĕđĖĉĈĂ, “and all the finest of the (last will and) testament of his master with him”. As in the case of R. Nathan (no. 5), and perhaps no. 9, it is natural to believe that R. elbo

25 The text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragment Targum, Polyglots, in printed editions of the Aruk and a citation in Elias Levita (Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 97) read ĆĔĆėĂđý, “storehouse”; apparently a lectio facilior to be corrected according to Genesis Rabbah. (See now all the variant citations in R. Griño, “Anejo I: Citas del Targum palestinense en diversas fuentes”, in Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum [Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV], vol. 1: Genesis, ed. by A. Díez Macho, Madrid 1988, 411–435, at 424 [for citations of Pal. Tg. Gen 24:10].)

172

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

is here merely drawing on a reading of the Palestinian Targum to explain a difficult text of the Bible. 11. Ps.-J. Lev 22:28 cited and censured ca. 350 C.E.. In y. Berakoth 5,3, 9c (parallel y. Megillah 4,9, 75c) R. Jose ben Bun (ca. 350 c.e.) censures an Aramaic rendering of Lev 22:28 that must have been current in his day. “Said R. Jose ben Bun: ‘They do not act well who make the injunctions of the Holy One, Blessed be He, (to be mere axioms of) mercy. And those who translate (ČĆčċÿĕėċ) [Lev 22:28 into Aramaic as]: My people, children of Israel, as I am merciful in heaven so shall you be merciful on earth,26 cow or ewe, itself and its young, you shall not kill both of them in one day’, they do not act well as they make the injunctions of the Holy One, Blessed be He, (to be mere axioms of) mercy.”

This censured rendering is found in the London manuscript of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in the identical words objected to by R. Jose.27 The text of the Polyglot editions, first published in 1591, has a slightly different text, which has the additional paraphrase as follows: “My people, children of Israel, [Moses speaks] just as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth. …” It is instructive to examine the other Palestinian Targum texts that carry the rendering to this verse. They are Fragment F from the Cairo Genizah (tenth–eleventh century), Fragment Targum and Targum Neofiti. All these have a long paraphrase to the preceding verse (v. 27) which is identical with that found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Their rendering of Lev 22:28, however, is simply as follows: “My people, children of Israel, a cow or a ewe, itself and its young, you shall not kill in one day.”

These texts have the same rendering of the Hebrew Text as that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (which differs from Targum Onqelos) and introduce this literal rendering with the words “My people, children of Israel”. I may here observe that this phrase, “My people, children of Israel” is a liturgical one28 and is found in the Palestinian Targum to introduce lengthy paraphrases.29 It is quite in place before the paraphrase of Ps.-J. Lev 22:28 but is senseless before the literal renderings of the other Palestinian Targum texts to this 26

See Luke 6:36; Matt 5:48 and M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts, Oxford 1954, 138–139. (For further consideration of the problems involved see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 183–185.) 27 Fol. 130a. For some unexplained reason M. Ginsburger in his edition of the London manuscript (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Berlin 1903; repr. Jerusalem 1966) reproduces the text of the Polyglots, not that of the manuscript itself. The London manuscript has been re-edited in the Madrid Polyglot. 28 See I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 3rd edition, Frankfurt 1931, 88–192. 29 The Palestinian Targum’s paraphrase to the Decalogue is introduced by these words. However, the phrase does not occur only before paraphrases.

3. Anonymous Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum

173

verse. What has happened seems to be quite clear. All Palestinian Targum texts once carried the paraphrase to Lev 22:28 that R. Jose censured. Due to the censure, these omitted the offensive paraphrase itself, but retained the introductory words, “My people, children of Israel“. As in other cases (nos. 4–7) we see that Targum Neofiti has abided by rabbinic ruling while Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ignores it.

3. Anonymous Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum 12. Neof. Deut 14:5b cited in y. Kilayim 8,6, 32a. Among the animals that Israelites were permitted to eat, Deut 14:5b includes ĆċăĂ ĂýėĂ ČĖĆĀĂ (rsv: “the ibex, the antelope, the mountain sheep”). The exact nature of the animal called Ăýė in the Hebrew Text is actually quite uncertain. In a debate recorded in the Mishnah (m. Kilayim 8:6) it is considered to be the wild ox (ĕþĀĂĖ) and the majority opinion classed it among domesticated animals. R. Jose, however, maintained that it was a species of wild animal. The debate is reproduced in y. Kilayim 8,6, 32a (lines 4–7 from end) where the following remark is made: ĆĎĂĆĥĕĈČĆčċĂýĕĂĕþĆĕĂėĂČĆčċÿėċĀČĆĉýĂ, “and they who translate [into Aramaic as]: ČĆčċĂýĕĂĕþĆĕĂėĂ [are of the same view] as R. Jose”. The only point that interests us here is the order of the Aramaic words in this rendering, ČĆčċĂýĕĂ being put after ĕþĆĕĂėĂ. Now this is precisely the order we find in Targum Neofiti, which in this differs from Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which have the reverse order. We give their texts here: Hebrew Text: ĕċăĂĂýėĂČĖĆĀĂ Targum Onqelos: ýēĆĕĂýĉþĕĂėĂýċĆĕĂ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: ČĆēĆĕĂĕþĆĕĂėĂČĆčċĆĕĂ Jerusalem Talmud: ČĆčċĂýĕĂĕþĆĕĂėĂ Targum Neofiti: ČĆčýċĆĕĂĕþĆĕĂėĂ (ČĆēĆĆĕĂ)

It is possible, of course, that the inverted order in Targum Neofiti and the Talmud is due to pure chance. It seems much more likely, however, that here as in Exodus 32 (cf. no. 2) Targum Neofiti represents a genuine tradition and that the text of Targum Neofiti was that to which the Talmud of Palestine loc. cit. refers. 13. Gen. Rab. 78 and Neof. Gen 33:14. In Gen 33:14 Esau says to Jacob: “Let my lord pass on before his servant and I will lead on slowly” (Heb. Ćąýĉ, that is, at my leisure). Ćąýĉ is a hapax in the Pentateuch and occurs but rarely outside it (2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6; Job 15:11; see Hos 11:4 [1 Kgs 21:27?]). In Gen 33:11 Onqelos renders as ĄĆčĉ, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as ýĄĆčĉ, “at ease”. Tg. Isa 8:6 and Tg. Job 15:11 employ the same word as Onqelos

174

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In Gen. Rab. 78 Ćąýĉ is simply glossed as (ÎĉāċĆčý) ĆčĂĄĉ ,ĆčĂĄĉ, or with a single ĆčĂĄĉ according to the Aruk citation of Genesis Rabbah in loc.30 Until Targum Neofiti was found ĆčĂĄĉ was attested only in this passage of Genesis Rabbah and in Lamentations Rabbah to 1:13 (with a different sense).31 Now we find that Neof. Gen 33:14 renders the Torah hapax Ćąýĉ as ĆčĂĄĉ, just as Genesis Rabbah glosses it. Again, Genesis Rabbah (as in 5:9 [?], 10) may be glossing rare words in accord with the Palestinian Targum rendering. 14. Gen. Rab. 42 and Pal. Tg. Gen 14:5. “The Zuzim in Ham” (ĊĄþĊĆăĂăā) is rendered in the Fragment Targum and in Targum Neofiti as ČĂāþĀýĆčėĂĆă (“the brightest / most distinguished / noblest among them”). Gen. Rab. 42 glosses the phrase with the same Aramaic words. 15. Gen. Rab. 42 and Neof. Gen 14:7. Hazazon-tamar of Gen 14:7 is rendered in Targum Neofiti as ýĆĕċėĀĆĀÿČĆďþ (“in Ain Gedi of the date trees”, see 2 Chr 20:2). The place name is glossed in Gen. Rab. 42 with these same Aramaic words. 16. Gen. Rab. 59 and Pal. Tg. Gen 24:11. Both Gen. Rab. 59 and the Palestinian Targum render the Hebrew ćĕþĆĂ (“he caused to kneel”, a hapax in the Hiphil) through the Aramaic ďþĕýĂ (“he made them lie down”). 17. Gen. Rab. 82 and Neof. Gen 35:18. Here Genesis Rabbah, Vat. Ebr. 30, fol. 146a, explains ĆčĂďČþ of the Hebrew Text through the Aramaic ĕþ Ćĕďē, the same rendering of the words which we find in Targum Neofiti. Onqelos has ĆĂĀĕþ, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ĆĆĂĂĀĕþ. 18. Gen. Rab. 86 and Pal. Tg. Gen 40:20. Both texts explain ėĀĉā ĊĂĆ through the Greek loan-word āĆĎĆčÿ, the former however in Hebrew. 19. Gen. Rab. 99 and Neof. Gen 49:3. Genesis Rabbah, Vat. Ebr. 30, fol. 185b, glosses the Hebrew ĆčĂýėĆĖýĕĂĆĄĂĈ through the Aramaic ĆĉĆĆĄĆĂĕĆĖ¨ ĆĕďēĆĂĕĆĖĂ. It recalls the rendering of Fragment Targum and Targum Neofiti: ĆĕďēĆĂĕĆĖĂĆĉĆĄ. 20. Gen. Rab. 45:6 and Pal. Tg. Gen 16:7. Gen. Rab. 45:6 glosses the Hebrew Text “on the road to Shur” of Gen 16:7 in Aramaic as: “that is on the road to alu a”. This is the rendering of the Palestinian Targums (Onqelos renders “Shur” as “ agra”), which the Genesis Rabbah text is probably citing.

30

See M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 99. That of “come to thy senses” (be not rash); cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York & London 1886–1903 (repr. New York 1950), 339. 31

4. Conclusions

175

4. Conclusions The number of citations studied is limited and it would scarcely be permitted to reach anything but hypothetical conclusions from them. The convergence of the evidence does permit us to observe certain trends which can be of use in any study of the Palestinian Targum. 1) The Palestinian Targum and Rabbinic Rubrics. We have seen that Targum-Neofiti abides by all the rabbinic rules referring to targumic renderings (nos. 1–3, 4, 7 [8 is a learned objection rather than a halakic censure], 11). Nos. 1–3, and perhaps 4, may be explained by presuming that the Mishnaic rule is very old and, perhaps, pre-Christian. In themselves the texts instanced would not prove that Targum Neofiti is post-Mishnaic. The same cannot be said for no. 11 where we have clear evidence that the censured paraphrase has been omitted in Targum Neofiti, as well as in the Fragment Targum and the Genizah fragment. It appears that in no. 7 the change in Targum Neofiti has been made to bring the text into line with rabbinic desires. Targum Neofiti, as it now stands, appears to have received a rabbinic recension after ca. 350 c.e. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the other hand, is not affected by these rabbinic rules (cf. nos. 4, 7, 11). This text of the Palestinian Targum must have had a different history of transmission from Targum Neofiti and other Palestinian Targum representatives. 2) Neofiti and Jewish liturgy. The close manner in which Targum Neofiti adheres to the Mishnah rules on targumic renderings (nos. 1–3) gives one the impression that in Targum Neofiti we are in the presence of a text that was closely associated with the liturgy; one that may well reflect the translation as it was actually given in the synagogues. 3) Neofiti and rabbinic citations. Of the 16 (nos. 5–20) rabbinic texts we have examined, 14 agree with Targum Neofiti and some of them with other Palestinian Targum texts as well (nos. 7, 11 are censured texts). In some cases there can be little doubt but that the citations are drawn from a Targum that is identical with our present Palestinian Targum (cf. nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and others). In not a few, the relation with the form of the Palestinian Targum as represented by Targum Neofiti is particularly noticeable (cf. nos. 9, 10, 12, 13). 4) The citations and the early date of the Palestinian Targum. These citations take us from the second (or first?) century c.e., down to the end of the fourth and show that in Palestine throughout these centuries various texts of the Palestinian Targum were cited. The natural conclusion is that these citations come from a corpus targumicum, that must have existed as a whole and not merely in part. Our citations, though they are not too numerous, cover four books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy). We may take these citations, then, as a strong indication that

176

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

the Palestinian Targum as we now have it, must have existed substantially in these early centuries. 5) The early date of Neofiti. The close connection of the Mishnaic and other rabbinic texts with our present manuscript of Neofiti is particularly striking. This is particularly true in the case of nos. 3 and 12 which tend to show that Neofiti is quite at home in third- and fourth-century Palestine. Could it be that in Targum Neofiti we have an official or semi-official text, one that would have taken in Palestinian Judaism the place that Onqelos enjoyed in Babylon? Such a hypothesis would explain how closely the citations follow on Targum Neofiti. It would also give a reason for the rabbinic recension that appears clear in Targum Neofiti (cf. esp. no. 7 where Fragment Targum has the forbidden text) and will explain why no Onqelos citations appear in writings of Palestinian Jewish provenance. One is justified in forming the hypothesis that in Neofiti we have a very old Palestinian Targum, whose text was known to, and used by, Palestinian rabbis and was also probably in use in the synagogues as well. The text studied in no. 7 tells us that there were within Palestinian Judaism men who committed targumic material to memory and transmitted it when required. A further indication in favour of an early date for the public use of the Palestinian Targum is a tradition preserved in communities of Jewish origin during the eleventh century, that the Palestinian Targum then known to them was recited in the synagogues of the Holy Land in the third-fourth centuries.32 6) Was the Palestinian Targum early consigned to writing? From the Qumran finds we now know that written Targums to Leviticus and Job existed in pre-Christian times.33 This will not prove that they existed also within rabbinic Judaism or in later centuries. We do know from rabbinic sources that a written Targum of Job was used by rabbis, though objected to, in the 32 The text occurs in a reply of R. Gaon, probably to R. Jacob ben Nissim, head of the community of Kairwan in Africa. The Hebrew Text is given by A. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, vol. 2: Noten, Einleitung und Register, Berlin 1884, 173–175; cf. M. Ginsburger (“La traduction de la Bible d’après Hai Gaon”, REJ 42 [1901], 232–236) for a study of the two forms in which the reply has come down to us. R. Gaon’s Targum is that of Onqelos. Questioned about the Palestinian Targum he replies: “We do not know who composed the Targum of Palestine; in fact we do not even know the Targum itself and we have hear speak of it but little. But if they [that is, communities of Palestinian origin] possess a tradition that it was recited in the congregations from the days of the former sages such as R. Ammi and R. Asi and R. El’ai and R. Abun and R. Abba and R. Isaac Nappa a, and even in the days of R. Abba and R. ananiah the latter (sages) who lived in the days of R. Asi, it is to be considered just as our Targum [i.e., Onqelos], as otherwise it would not have been recited before these princes [lit.: “columns of the world”]” (cited in M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1966, 58). 33 See A. Díez Macho, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 (1963), 107, n. 42, for the fragments on Leviticus, and for Job J. van der Ploeg, Le Targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran (11 QtgJob): Première communication (Mededelingen der koninklijke nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen XXV,9), Amsterdam 1962.

5. Postscript 2010

177

first century.34 We also find mention of written Targums in the Mishnah.35 In the synagogue service no written text of the Targum was permitted,36 but this does not say that there were not in existence written texts for private use or for the preparation of the synagogue services.37 We have a positive indication for the existence of written Targums in b. Berakoth 8ab where R. Joshua b. Levi (ca. 250 c.e.) advises his children to “complete the parashah together with the congregation”, that is prepare at home the passage from the Pentateuch to be read and rendered in the synagogue service. The same passage tells us that R. Huna (ca. 320 c.e.), in the name of R. Ammi, gave the same advice to all.38 It is hard to see how one could perform this task from anything but a written Targum, and we are not surprised to find that W. Bacher39 and G. F. Moore40 see reference to a written Targum in this passage. If a written text did then exist it must have been the Palestinian Targum, not Onqelos.41 There is no reason whatever why this Targum should not have been Neofiti. On the contrary, as we have seen, there are good indications that this may well have been so. Future study will, no doubt, throw more light on this point. A more detailed study of early rabbinic contacts with the Palestinian Targum may be of no small help in any such research.

5. Postscript 2010 I have reproduced the essay as first published in 1966, apart from standardising the abbreviations used for the individual targums, and a few corrections in note references. Apart from the analysis of the individual citations, the positions expressed with regard to various issues represent the optimism of some with regard to the Targums in the 1960s. The same holds true for 34

See b. Shabbat 115ab. See m. Yadaim 4:5. 36 See y. Megillah 4,1, 74d, and G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 1, Cambridge, Mass. 1927, 304. 37 See Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, 303–304. 38 R. Joshua was a student of Bar Kappara (see to no. 6); recall that later tradition (cf. n. 32 above) associated the public reading of the Palestinian Targum with the age of R. Ammi. 39 JE 12 (1906), 58. 40 Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, 175. 41 G. F. Moore (ibid.) thinks that “it is a reasonable inference that it was this [Onqelos] that Joshua ben Levi and Ammi meant”. There is no indication whatever that Targum Onqelos was known in Palestine before the eighth century c.e. or so, when it appears to have been introduced from Babylon. The texts that have been brought forward (cf. for instance A. E. Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos, 64, and M. Lerner, “Bereshith Rabba: Die Versionen des Akylas, Onkelos, Jonathan und Jeruschalmi”, Magazin 7 [1880], 231–237) from Palestinian texts for this purpose prove, on examination, either to be interpolations or to exist both in Targum Onqelos and Neofiti. 35

178

Chapter 8: Some Early Rabbinic Citations

the conclusions at the end of the essay. Much has changed since then. These later developments have been chronicled above42 and will be treated of again below in a later chapter.43 With regard to the citations, or apparent citations, of the Palestinian Targums, much research has been done in this field since this essay was published, both for the earlier and later periods. I have given a survey of this in my introduction to the translation of Neofiti 1 in the Aramaic Bible series, in which I treat of the earlier evidence covered in the present essay, and also the later developments. I give the relevant substance of this here.44 Rabbi Menahem Kasher devotes chapter 17 of volume 24 of his major work, Torah Shelemah, to a study of the relationship between Neofiti 1 and Genesis Rabbah.45 He brings together fifty instances of explanations of words or of haggadoth in Genesis Rabbah whose source he believes to be a Palestinian Targum of the kind preserved in Neofiti 1. It is very useful to collect such texts from early rabbinical sources. However, with regard to the tradition of Genesis Rabbah, we have to bear in mind that what is in question is rather a general Jewish and rabbinic tradition, preserved both in rabbinic expository or homiletic texts such as Genesis Rabbah and in the Palestinian Targums. Given this proviso, however, the evidence of Aramaic translations which coincide with renderings found in Palestinian Targums must be given serious consideration as witnesses for the early existence of this Aramaic version. The evidence for citations becomes clearer from 1100 onward. We may mention the Aruk, the dictionary compiled by R. Nathan ben Ye iel of Rome († 1106). M. Kasher has noted that on 250 occasions or so the Aruk cites words in Neofiti not found in Pseudo-Jonathan or the Fragment Targum. Solomon Speier has made a detailed study of the relationship of the Aruk to Neofiti 1.46 He lists 120 citations under the name Targum Yerushalmi found in the Aruk, and elsewhere attested only in Neofiti 1. The number is probably greater than this; one of the defects of Speier’s study is that he uses the index of Kohut’s edition of the Aruk, in which some citations are missing. This agreement of the Aruk with Neofiti is really impressive and leads us to the conclusion that Rabbi Nathan used a Palestinian Targum 42

See above for instance pp. 98–100. See below for instance pp. 482–483. 44 M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 10–12. For details regarding to source references, the original text can be consulted. 45 M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 24: Aramaic Versions of the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of Onkelos, Jonathan, Jerusalem Targums and the Full Jerusalem Targum of the Vatican Manuscript Neofiti 1, Jerusalem 1974. 46 R. Speier, “The Relationship between the Arukh and the Palestinian Targum, Neofiti 1”, Leshonenu 31 (1966/67), 23–32, 189–198; 34 (1969/70), 172–179 (in Hebrew). 43

5. Postscript 2010

179

practically identical with that in Neofiti 1. This need not surprise us. Neofiti 1 was copied in Rome, where R. Nathan had lived and compiled his work. Another work that has recently been shown to carry many Palestinian Targum citations and to be close to Neofiti 1 is Midrash Bereshit Zu a. Its author was Rabbi Shemuel ben Nissin Masnut (thirteenth century), who worked in Aleppo and may have been born there. He also wrote a commentary on Job called Ma‘yun gannim, which Salomon Buber published in 1889. Mordekai ha-Kohen published Rabbi Shemuel’s commentary on Genesis, under the above title, in Jerusalem in 1952, and in 1973 A. Zimels drew attention to the presence in it of citations from the Palestinian Targums. These citations are numerous, to at least two hundred verses of Genesis. Some of these citations are found in sources known to us, especially in Codex Neofiti 1; others are drawn from sources unknown. From his comparison of the citations with Neofiti, Zimels draws the conclusion that the author had before him a complete text of the Palestinian Targum. There are citations under the rubric “Targum Yerushalmi” also in Jewish writers of the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, for instance R. Hanan’el, R. Shemuel ben Meir (Rashbam), grandson of Rashi (1085–1174), R. Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban) (1194–1270), David Qim i (Radak) (1160–1235) and others. With regard to these, however, we have to decide in each individual case whether they cite directly from Targum texts or indirectly through such works as R. Nathan’s Aruk. Finally, mention must be made of the Meturgeman, the Targumic dictionary compiled by Elias Levita and published at Isny in 1541 (with later reprints). It is also extant in the manuscript Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, ms. Or. 84 (A 6–6), a manuscript finished in 1530. In a doctoral dissertation R. Griño has devoted special study to the text of the Meturgeman and to its relationship to Codex Neofiti l. He has also prepared a critical edition of the dictionary. He is of the opinion that Elias Levita actually made use of Codex Neofiti 1, a contention strongly opposed by others, especially M. L. Klein.47 As appendices to the individual volumes of the Madrid Polyglot (A. Díez Macho [ed.], Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum [Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV]) R. Griño gives the citations of the Palestinian Targum occurring in all the known sources. For the principle sources (Genesis Rabbah, the Aruk, the Meturgeman) he gives the readings of the various manuscripts and editions. In the volume for Genesis (1988; the last published) he gives Addenda and Corrigenda for the earlier volumes. It remains for a new generation of Targum scholars to draw whatever conclusions seem warranted from this evidence, so patiently collected. 47 R. Griño, “El Meturgeman y Neofiti 1”, Bib 58 (1977), 153–188; M. Klein, “Meturgeman and Neofiti 1: A Rejoinder”, Bib 59 (1978), 267.

Chapter 9

The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek* The language situation in the Mediterranean world, in Palestine and in the Near East in general, is a matter of interest for a number of scholars, for example linguists, the historians of Judaism and of early Christianity. A knowledge of the state of a particular language at the time is a desideratum, if not actually a requirement, for an understanding of the forces at work during the period. Philologists and linguists will be interested in the manner in which the spoken and written languages of the period had influenced one another over the centuries. The linguistic situation in question during the first century of the common era was one in which various influences which had been at work over the previous millennium or so were making their presence felt. In the sixth century b.c.e. the ancient empires of Media and Babylon were replaced by the Persian, and Aramaic (the language of smaller states and migrant people long since conquered) was raised to the status of an official language for the new Persian empire, stretching from Afghanistan in the east to Egypt and Asia Minor in the west. The Persians recognised the status that Aramaic had already achieved as an international language of diplomacy and felt no desire to impose their own language on the subject nations. With Alexander’s victory at Issus in 333 and the ensuing victories, control of the vast Persian Empire passed to the Greeks. Not merely did Greek replace Aramaic as an official language; part of the programme of the Greek conquest was to spread the Greek language and culture throughout this vast empire. In due time, and at various dates before our era, Rome replaced Greece as the ruling power. And with the Romans came the language of the conqueror, Latin. The first-century situation was the end result of the interplay of the cultural forces at work in the area over the preceding centuries. The earlier languages and cultures did not disappear with the change of administration. Under the name of Chaldaean learning, Akkadian language and the culture that went with it continued through the Persian into the Greek and Roman * Revised text of a paper read at a Colloquium at the Royal Irish Academy, November 1990. Published under the same title in PIBA 15 (1992), 7–36.

1. Changing Frontiers and Jewish Colonies

181

periods. Pliny the Elder mentions three cities which were famous at a later date for their “Chaldaean learning”, namely Babylon, Warka and Hipparene.1 The ancient texts were collected and published in Greek by the Babylonian priest Berossus in a work dedicated to Antiochus I (281–261 b.c.e.). The latest period of the Egyptian language is known as demotic (from the Greek ĎđĖęĞēĔƲĜ, “popular”; also called “enchorial”, from Greek őčġƶěēęĜ, “native”, by some of the earlier decipherers of Egyptian). This stage of the language and script is found in books and documents from Dynasty XXV to late Roman times, that is from 715 b.c.e. to 470 c.e.2 During this latest stage of the language all three Egyptian scripts (hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic) were in use. During the Greek (Ptolemaic) and Roman period demotic was the ordinary script of daily life, and is occasionally found on stelae of stone. The most noted of these is the famed Rosetta stone in hieroglyphic, Greek and demotic, erected in 196 b.c.e., with its inscription in honour of the young king Ptolemy Epiphanes. In the second century of our era candidates for the age-old Egyptian priesthood had still to show a knowledge of hieratic and demotic.3 In the third century demotic was no longer used for documents, but is found in inscriptions as late as 452 c.e. at Philae. Demotic, this late stage of the Egyptian language, is heavily influenced by Greek borrowings. In the second and third centuries of our era this latest stage of the Egyptian language (under the name Coptic, derived from the Greek ìŭčƴĚĞēęĜ) became the language of the Christians in Egypt. The presence of Greek loan words is now all the more pronounced in that most of the Christian literature represents translations from Greek.

1. Changing Frontiers and Jewish Colonies It would be hazardous to study the language or languages spoken by the Jews of the first century of our era without a study of the history of the Jewish people itself during the preceding centuries. The fortunes of the Jews in Palestine and the neighbouring Transjordan during this period was one of varying numbers and changing frontiers. The Jewish community in Palestine after the first century of Restoration (538–450 b.c.e.) was very tiny.4 Reckoning the number of returnees from 538 onwards, by 522 the total population of Judah, including those already 1

Pliny, Natural History 6.30.123; see also Strabo, Geography 16.1.6. See A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 2nd edition, London 1950, 5–6, 9–10 (§§ 4, 8); A. Mallon, Grammaire Copte, Beyrouth 1956, 2–3, 5. 3 Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 10–11 (§ 9). 4 For this section see J. Bright, A History of Israel, London 1960, 365–366, with source references for his estimates. 2

182

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

resident there, can scarcely have been much above 20,000. Seventy years later Jerusalem was still thinly populated and remained largely a ruin (Neh 7:4). The land at the disposal of the Jews was also tiny, measuring about twenty-five miles from north to south. The Negeb, the southern part of the former kingdom of Judah, had become occupied by Edomites and would become known as Idumea. The Philistines had pressed in from the west. It also appears that the Phoenician language, in its later form, had spread southwards and may have been spoken by Palestinian Jews at least in the western frontiers. The frontiers of the Palestinian Jews do not appear to have changed considerably during Persian rule. Matters were different during the Greek era and later. The evidence at our disposal for the part of this period is patient of more than one interpretation. I give here for the Greek and Roman periods the classical summary of Emil Schürer, in the revised version of George Ogg:5 “In the Greek and Roman period, as in earlier centuries, the Jewish population of Palestine fluctuated considerably both in numbers and extent. From the beginning of the Hellenistic epoch to the time of the Maccabaean uprising, the Jewish element was gradually receding whereas the Greek element was on the advance. A significant change, however, resulted from the Maccabaean revolt and its after-effects: Judaism gained ground intensively and extensively, consolidating itself internally and extending its boundaries in almost every direction.”

At the beginning of the Maccabean revolt a compact Jewish population existed only in Judea proper, that is the region to the south of Samaria. The area occupied by Jews can be determined with reasonable accuracy for the years 175–135 b.c.e. The most northerly districts were the nomoi of Lydda, Ramathaim and Ephraim. To the east the Jews and Judea extended as far as the Jordan, and included Jericho (see 1 Macc 9:50–52). Beth-zur constituted the furthest outpost of Judaism to the south. To the west, the coastal cities with their vast territories reached far into the interior and were wholly Gentile.6 Most of them, such as Raphia, Gaza, Anthedon, Ashkelon and Ashdod, remained so. The furthest limit of Judaism to the north-west was Lydda. In the Maccabean period, however, Jewish political and religious control advanced in particular to the west. The hitherto Gentile cities of Joppa and Gazara were captured by Simon Maccabee (143–134 b.c.e.) and converted to Judaism by force (see 1 Macc 12:33–34; 13:11, 43–48). Raphia, Gaza and Anthedon were captured by Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 b.c.e.), without 5 G. Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. edition by G. Vermes et al., vol. 2, Edinburgh 1979, 1–84, at 1–15 (quote from p. 1). 6 See G. Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, 3.

1. Changing Frontiers and Jewish Colonies

183

the conversion of their inhabitants to Judaism following. Jewish control and Jewish religion were extended to the south by subjugation and enforced judaization of Idumea, mainly by John Hyrcanus (134–104 b.c.e.). The boundaries of Jewish territory immediately before the war of 70 c.e. are given in detail by Josephus in The Jewish War (3.3.1–5, §§ 35–58) in his description of “Galilee, Samaria and Judea”. This shows that for Judea the Jewish population had further spread since the time of the Maccabees and that Galilee had become an entirely Jewish country.7 We can probably deduce from statements of the Chronicler (2 Chr 30:10–11) that in his own day (fourth century b.c.e.) a proportion of the regions we designate as Galilee (ancient Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun) were in cultic communion with Jerusalem. Their numbers were probably then small. During the Maccabean revolt the Jews there were being persecuted by the Gentiles. Simon Maccabee, with three thousand men, was sent to help them. He defeated the Gentiles (1 Macc 5:20–22) and brought the Jews living there, with their wives and children, to Judea (1 Macc 5:23), which appears to indicate that the numbers involved were small. Galilee seems to have remained Gentile and non-Jewish until the reign of Aristobulus I (104–103 b.c.e.), who is said by Josephus (Ant. 13.11.3, §§ 314–319) to have conquered much Iturean territory, and forced those who wished to remain there to be circumcised and live according to the Jewish law.8 Iturea itself went from the region of Mt Lebanon to Jewish territory on the south. It must thus have comprised Galilee, even though Josephus does not explicitly say so. The total judaization of Galilee remained a fact right through the first century of our era; this we know from the Gospels and Josephus. During the reigns of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus Jewish rule and religion advanced also east of the Jordan, from Madeba (near the Dead Sea) on the south to Lake Merom on the north (Josephus, Ant. 13.15.4, §§ 395–397). Even the Greek cities Gadara, Pella, Dium and Gerasa for a time came under Jewish rule. In Roman-Herodian times, together with Galilee and Judea, there was a third Jewish province called “Perea”, that is “East of the Jordan”. Perea had a mixed population of Jew and Gentile. The provinces east and north-east 7 See further, Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, 6–10 (with bibliographical references). See also S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism, Wilmington & Notre Dame 1980, 35–50. 8 Thus in the classical reconstruction of Schürer. This is rejected by others, for example S. Freyne, Galilee, 35–50. On Josephus, Ant. 13.11,3, §§ 318–319, interpreted by Schürer of Aristobulus’ judaizing of Galilee Freyne comments: “Thus, the judaization of Galilee in the sense of converting to Judaism the inhabitants of a large tract of the area which had not previously been associated with the Jewish faith has no real basis and should be abandoned, despite the number of reputable scholars who have repeated Schürer’s views uncritically” (43–44).

184

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

of the Sea of Galilee, namely Gaulanitis, Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis (part of the kingdom of Herod Agrippa) had a mixed population of Jews and Syrians (Arabs). These areas had also known the presence of marauding nomad bands. In an effort to control them Herod the Great on several occasions settled foreign colonists there. One of these colonies consisted of three thousand Idumeans, whom he settled in Trachonitis (Ant. 16.9.2, § 285). In Batanea he settled a military colony which had come from Babylon under Zamaris and had first settled at Antioch by Daphne (Dan; Caesarea Philippi) of Syria. These Herod exempted from taxes. They built fortresses (Ġěęƴěēċ) and a village which they called Bathyra. It became a centre for the Jews from Babylon who offered their sacrifices in Jerusalem (see Josephus, Ant. 17.2.1–3, §§ 23–31). This Jewish community continued to exist into talmudic times.9

2. Languages, Spoken, Written and Literary This evidence on changing frontiers and on colonies is not without significance for an examination of the languages of Palestine during the New Testament period. On the one hand we have stable populations which have experienced a change of political allegiance and of religion. On the other we have sections of population of a single area drawn from different parts of the Middle East. We may ask what language did the Jewish colonists of Trachonitis and Batanea speak. Presumably two different forms of the Aramaic, the one Idumean, the other Babylonian. The complex picture which the Palestinian and Transjordanian evidence has us expect is further borne out when we look at the larger picture of the Aramaic documents from the first century b.c.e. onwards. It is a recognised fact that by the second century of our era there were two clearly distinct forms of Aramaic, Eastern and Western. It is less clear how far back we can trace this division. Aramaic was first and foremost the spoken language of the Arameans and is attested in documents from the tenth century b.c.e. onwards. It became unofficially the international language of diplomacy (before 700 b.c.e.) and 9 On Bathyra see further Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, 14–15, n. 46; P. Winter, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, vol. 1, Edinburgh 1973, § 17: “From the Death of Herod the Great to Agrippa I: 4 b.c.–a.d. 41”, 336–441, at 337–338 (esp. n. 3), 419–420; G. M. Cohen, “The Hellenistic Military Colony  – a Herodian Example”, TAPA 103 (1972), 83–95; J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1: The Parthian Period, Leiden 1965, 38–39. One view identifies Bathyra as Bet Eri on the northern bank of the Yarmuk, east of Nahr el Rukkad. F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, vol. 2, Paris 1938, 261, prefers to locate it at Basir. One of the fortresses of the Babylonian Jews in Batanea was called Ecbatana; it featured in the war with Rome; see Josephus, Life 11 (§ 54).

4. The Stages of the Aramaic Language

185

later (ca. 540 b.c.e.) an official language of the Persian Empire. It attained literary status because of this, with a tradition that presumably diverged ever more increasingly from the spoken idiom. A feature of the language’s later history is that it was adopted as the literary language, the language of inscriptions and written documents, by certain non-Aramean peoples and tribes from the second century b.c.e. on. This is the case with Nabataean and Palmyrene, which on the evidence of the proper names can be assumed to have been written by people who spoke Arabic. When we ask, then, what was the language of a particular country, area or of a given text, we should bear in mind the complexity of the situation, since there were (or at least could have been) various levels of use of language.

3. Aramaic in First-Century Palestine That Aramaic was used in first-century Palestine is admitted by all and is beyond doubt. It is also beyond doubt that Aramaic was the language spoken (at least principally) by Jesus and his first followers. In fact there has been a widely held opinion that Aramaic became the language of the Jews at the Exile and was the sole language known by the Jews in Palestine in New Testament times. What is, and for some time has been, a matter of some doubt and discussion regards the form of Aramaic spoken in Palestine at that time, whether it was uniform throughout the provinces (in Judea, Galilee and Samaria) or had dialects, and what relation the spoken language bore to that then used for literary purposes.

4. The Stages of the Aramaic Language Aramaic is still a living language, a western dialect of it being spoken in Ma‘lula, a village near Damascus, and an eastern one near Mosul in Iraq, in and around Kurdistan as well as in the Caucasus. Its division into eastern and western branches can be traced to early sources from Babylon (Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Mandaic) and Palestine (Palestinian Talmud, Midrashim and Targums). The written Aramaic language can be traced back to about 1000 b.c.e. It achieved the status of an international language of diplomacy about 700 b.c.e., and with this a certain uniformity. It retained this status in the Persian Empire (to about 300 b.c.e.), when new forms began to make themselves felt. By 200 c.e. or so a newer situation had stabilised itself, with a division of Aramaic into eastern and western branches. What the written evidence for the language’s history is is agreed by all. Yet schol-

186

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

ars differ somewhat when they come to define the stages of the language’s development. A division earlier generally accepted was one based on F. Rosenthal’s studies,10 that is: a) Old Aramaic from the beginning (through Biblical Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene) down to the established eastern and western branches; b) Middle Aramaic, with two branches, eastern and western; c) Late Aramaic, with the contemporary western (Ma‘alula) and eastern branches. This older terminology is still followed by M. Sokoloff in his recent work, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period.11 A different division, now widely accepted, has been put forward by J. A. Fitzmyer.12 It is as follows: a) Old Aramaic, up to 700 b.c.e.; b) Official Aramaic, 700–300 b.c.e.; c) Middle Aramaic, 300 b.c.e.–200 c.e.; d) Late Aramaic (= Middle Aramaic of Rosenthal’s division), with two branches: the eastern branch consisting of Syriac, Mandaic, the Aramaic of the Talmud Babli, the Gaonic Literature and incantation texts found mainly in Nippur; and the western, consisting of Samaritan Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic (which some, for example Sokoloff, prefer to call Jewish Palestinian Aramaic) found in the Aramaic portions of the Palestinian Talmud and haggadic midrashim and other sources; e) Modern Aramaic (in its eastern and western [Ma‘alula] dialects).

5. Admissible Evidence for Knowledge of First-Century Aramaic One’s view on the written and spoken Aramaic of first-century Palestine will be affected by what one regards as relevant material evidence. Until the Qumran text known as The Genesis Apocryphon (found in 1947 but published only in 1956) and later documents were brought to attention we 10 F. Rosenthal, Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldekes Veröffentlichungen, Leiden 1939; see also E. Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study”, in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Ch. Rabin & Y. Yadin (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), Jerusalem 1958, 1–35 (and separately); reproduced in E. Y. Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, ed. by Z. Ben-Hayyim et al., Jerusalem 1977, 90–155, at 90. 11 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 3, n. 6. Rosenthal’s division is also that followed by Klaus Beyer: Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten, Göttingen 1984, in his initial section on the distribution and subdivisions of the language. This section has been translated into English by John F. Healey: Klaus Beyer, The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions, Göttingen 1986. 12 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, Rome 1966, 19, n. 60 (2nd edition 1971); adopted by Kutscher, “The Language” (n. 10 above), 90–91.

5. Admissible Evidence for Knowledge of First-Century Aramaic

187

had very little demonstrably early evidence to go on. The absence of this led W. F. Albright to write in 1949, in his work The Archaeology of Palestine:13 “there are no Aramaic literary works extant from the period between the third or second century b.c. and the second or third century a.d., a period of over three hundred years. There can be little doubt that there was a real eclipse of Aramaic during the period of the Seleucid Empire (312 b.c. to the first century b.c.), since scarcely a single Aramaic inscription from this period has been discovered, except in Transjordan and the adjacent parts of Arabia, which were relatively freer from Greek influence than Western Palestine and Syria proper. After this epigraphic hiatus, Palmyrene inscriptions began to appear in the second half of the first century b.c.; recent excavations have brought to light an inscription dating from the year 44 b.c. Inscriptions in Jewish Aramaic first appeared about the middle of the first century b.c., and became more abundant during the reign of Herod the Great, just before the Christian era (…). They thus help to clarify the actual Aramaic of Jewish Palestine in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.”

The situation has changed dramatically since 1949. A number of Aramaic inscriptions on Jerusalem ossuaries have been found, dating between 100 b.c.e. and 100 c.e.,14 a Masada ostracon from 66–73 c.e. and as many as sixty-two literary texts (many quite extensive), or fragments of literary texts, in Aramaic from Qumran, dating from roughly 100 b.c.e. to 70 c.e.15 Together with this we have Aramaic texts from Murabba‘at from the first and second century c.e. and the eight Aramaic letters of Bar Cochba (found at Na al ever and Murabba‘at) from 134–135 c.e. and from 130–132. Together with this material which can be dated to 135 c.e. or earlier, we have later Jewish inscriptions from different areas in Palestine and the Transjordan and also a rich Aramaic literary corpus in the Palestinian Targums and midrashim. Notable among these are the texts of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Some earlier texts of these (possibly from the seventh or eighth century and later) were found in the Cairo Genizah and in 1949 a new Targum text was found in Codex Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library, which in 1956 was identified as a complete text of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. There are also Targums of the Ketubim, which are generally regarded as compositions which are too late to be taken into account. The “Official” Jewish Targums are those of the 13 W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, Harmondsworth 1949 (and later reprints), 201–202. 14 See list in Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 21–22; idem, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501–531, at 520, n. 69; 521, n. 74. See also a later survey on the question in J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, New York 1991, 255–268 (“What language did Jesus Speak?”), with extensive notes. 15 There is a list of these in Fitzmyer, "The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, NTS 20 (1974), 382–407, at 404–406. They, and other selected texts, have been published, with German translation, and grammatical considerations by Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte (n. 11 above), 155–406, 407 ff.

188

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

Pentateuch ascribed to Onqelos and of the Prophets ascribed to Jonathan. While these had been redacted in Babylon and given their final form there, the traditional view has been that they originated in Palestinian Jewry before being taken to Babylon. It is against this disparate information that scholars must judge on the written and spoken Aramaic of the first century of our era, of the language of Jesus and his first Apostles. One scholar who studied the matter in detail, but was suspicious of the age and validity of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums, was G. Dalman. At the turn of the twentieth century he wrote:16 “One will best do justice to the ascertainable situation in saying, that in the time of Christ there was prevalent over all Palestine, from the extreme north to the south, a single literary language in Aramaic, varying but slightly in the different parts of the country. In this literary Aramaic are written the Aramaic sections in Daniel and in Ezra, the Targum of Onkelos and the other documents assigned to the Judaean dialect, as well as the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions. Concurrently (with this literary dialect) there existed a whole series of popular dialects: a Middle Palestinian, which we can recognise in a later phase as Samaritan Aramaic, and a North Palestinian, which is known to us in a Jewish and a Christian form – both belonging to a subsequent period. It is highly probable that after the final overthrow of the Judaean centre of Jewish-Aramaic culture, which was the result of the Bar Kochba revolution, the North Palestinian popular dialect got the upper hand over nearly all Palestine.”

Publication of the Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 gave rise to a lively discussion on the nature of first-century literary and spoken Aramaic in Judea and in Palestine in general. In 1959 E. Y. Kutscher published a preliminary study of the language of the Genesis Apocryphon.17 In this he expressed the view that the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch were later and (with the exception of the Genizah texts published by Paul Kahle) their texts were corrupt, and hence were to be used very cautiously. He found that the language of the Qumran Scroll showed affinities with Christian Palestinian Aramaic on the one hand and with Onqelos on the other. There are several indications, he remarks, that point to Judea as the place of origin of Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Dalman had already posited a Judean origin for Onqelos. The Aramaic of the scroll, then, would represent the written Aramaic of Judea in the late first century b.c.e. and the early first century c.e.18

16 G. Dalman, The words of Jesus considered in the light of post-Biblical Jewish writings and the Aramaic language. Authorised English Version by D. M. Kay, Edinburgh 1902, 80. 17 E. Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon”, reprinted in Kutscher’s collected essays: Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (n. 10 above), 1–34. 18 E. Y. Kutscher, “The Language”, 15, 22.

5. Admissible Evidence for Knowledge of First-Century Aramaic

189

Kutscher’s position was challenged by P. Kahle in 1958 in a review article,19 to which Kutscher replied in 1960.20 The debate, really, concerned the nature of the Aramaic of first century Palestine, the Aramaic spoken by Jesus and the relevance of the Targums (the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch in particular) as evidence in the matter. Kahle contended that there was no major difference between the Aramaic spoken in Galilee and Judea in the first century of our era. In his opinion the spoken Aramaic of the whole area was what in the sources is generally designated “Galilean” (Targums and midrashim). Kahle himself resented the designation “Galilean” and would prefer that this Aramaic language, which in his view was common to all Palestine, be designated “Palestinian”. He believed Onqelos was composed in Babylon, and as such should not be used as a witness of Palestinian Aramaic. For him the important source for the Aramaic of Jesus’ day was the Palestinian Targum. Writing on the matter in 1959 in the second edition of The Cairo Geniza, among other things he said that this Palestinian Targum is written in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians.21 In a reply to this Kutscher stood by his earlier positions, affirming that the “Galilean” Aramaic of the Palestinian Talmud represented the language used by the Jewish sages of Galilee of the third to fifth centuries, whither they had transferred in the second. He admitted as a mere possibility that the Aramaic of Judea was the same as that of Galilee. That this was really so, had in his opinion yet to be proved. He also affirmed his earlier opinion of the existence of a Judean dialect of Aramaic, a view earlier put forward by Nöldeke and Dalman, and which his own examination of the Genesis Apocryphon led him to regard as attractive. Many scholars were now being drawn to the view that the Aramaic language of the Qumran documents (of which the Genesis Apocryphon was but a representative text) represented the literary language of contemporary Palestine or at least Judea. After his treatment of the language of the Genesis Apocryphon J. Fitzmyer writes:22 “As far as we can judge, the Aramaic of this scroll conforms quite closely to that of other fragments found in the Qumran caves which were written in Aramaic. All together they constitute an interesting, new corpus of Qumran Aramaic, a subdivision of Palestinian Aramaic. It is a corpus which will be swelled with the publication of the rest of the Aramaic fragments from Cave IV and Cave XI. This scroll, then, together with the other Qumran Aramaic texts, substantially increases our knowledge of the type of Aramaic used in Palestine in the first century B. C. and A. D. For if 19 P. Kahle, “Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum und das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäisch”, ZNW 49 (1958), 100–116. 20 E. Y. Kutscher, “Das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäisch”, ZNW 51 (1960), 46–54. 21 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1952, 8. 22 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (n. 12 above), 19–25.

190

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

the scroll is deficient in theological content …, its importance lies particularly in the recovery of the language. … In the Genesis Apocryphon we have a substantial literary text, whose Aramaic is best described as a transitional type between the Biblical Aramaic of Daniel and that of the Palestinian Targums or Christian Palestinian Aramaic. It belongs to what we prefer to call ‘Middle Aramaic’. The extent to which this literary Aramaic actually differed from the popular patois of the time is difficult to say. … In any case, the recovery of Qumran Aramaic, and in particular the Aramaic of this text, brings us closer to the kind of Aramaic used in Palestine in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.”

In a review of the first edition of this work P. Grelot remarked that it would be useful had Fitzmyer noted the forms in the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon which announce the more developed dialect of the Palestinian Targum.23 Such forms exist and Grelot asks whether in these phenomena we should see an influence of the spoken language (as it will be preserved in the Palestinian Targum) on the literary Aramaic, fixed in principle as a literary language. In the second edition of the work Fitzmyer took cognisance of Grelot’s observations and remarked that while it was safe to say that with the language of the Genesis Apocryphon we have been brought very close to the Aramaic used in Palestine in the time of Jesus and the Apostles, it was still a question as to how close the Aramaic of this text is to the Aramaic of the Targums. He then continues:24 “The distinction between the literary and the spoken form of Aramaic has to be more refined before it can be safely used to distinguish the forms found in the Genesis Apocryphon and the targums … It should certainly be used in preference to the later form of the language that is found in the targums for the study of the New Testament and its Aramaic background.”

A contribution to a related topic was made by A. Tal (= Rosental) in a dissertation presented to the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in 1971 on “The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects”.25 His conclusion from the evidence was that the language of this Targum cannot be dated later than 135 c.e. What holds for Targum Jonathan, of course, would be valid also for Targum Onqelos. Both Onqelos and Targum Jonathan in this new view tended to be regarded as composed in the same literary Aramaic as the Qumran Aramaic texts. All this body of literature now tends to be considered as having being composed before the destruction of the Judean schools in the Bar Cochba revolt (132–135 c.e.). It further came to be assumed that any literary work composed during this time had to be in this literary Aramaic. This would mean that the Palestinian 23

P. Grelot, review in RB 74 (1967), 102. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 2nd edition, 25. 25 Published as: A. Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects, Tel Aviv 1975. 24

5. Admissible Evidence for Knowledge of First-Century Aramaic

191

Targums of the Pentateuch were later literary compositions, from post-200 c.e. at earliest. This was a sort of new consensus arrived at by a number of scholars, even though some of them would admit that this literary Aramaic was a somewhat artificial language. S. A. Kaufman of the University of Chicago in the course of a review of the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11 regards the language of Onqelos and Jonathan (to the Prophets) as a third tradition of literary Aramaic, the other two being the forms found in 1QapGen and 11QtgJob.26 He notes the differences between the Aramaic of the Qumran texts 11QtgJob and 1QapGen, and draws attention to special traits and a group of characteristics of 11QtgJob, commenting that27 “they prove beyond a doubt that the literary Aramaic of the intertestamental period is precisely that, an artificial, literary Aramaic, colored, to be sure  – by the local spoken dialect, but primarily a cons[c]ious attempt to imitate a ‘classical’ language generally similar to Official Aramaic. They indicate further that the conception of just what constituted ‘literary’ Aramaic and its proper orthography differed from place to place and time to time.”

In the course of a later essay on methodology in Targum study he writes:28 “The language of the Palestinian Targum can be nothing other than the literary language of Amoraic Palestine (whatever the geographic limitation of that term) fully contemporary with the colloquial language of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.”

However, a little further on he notes that this literary language of the third / fourth century c.e. amoraic period might well reflect the spoken language of the first: “Nevertheless, those concerned with the recovery of the language of Jesus can take heart here, for literary language almost always reflects the colloquial speech of an earlier period. Thus the language of the Palestinian Targum is still our best guide to the spoken dialect of first-century Galilee.”29

He finds it necessary to continue, however, that for those whose interest lies in possible written Aramaic antecedents of the Greek New Testament, the literary Aramaic dialects of Qumran and Onqelos / Jonathan are the most relevant. As part of his treatment of Old Western Aramaic, K. Beyer devotes a section under the heading “The Spoken Dialects of Jesus’ Time”. Taking cog26 S. A. Kaufman, “The Job Targum from Qumran” (review article of the editio princeps by van der Ploeg and van der Woude of 1QapGen and 11QtgJob), JAOS 93 (1973), 317–327, at 326. 27 S. A. Kaufman, “The Job Targum”, JAOS 93 (1973), 325. 28 S. A. Kaufman, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology”, JSNT 23 (1985), 117–124 (at 122). 29 Kaufman, “On Methodology”, 123.

192

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

nisance of all the sources, he says, seven different Western Aramaic dialects can be clearly distinguished at the time of Jesus, adding that, of course, the approximately three million Arameans of Palestine and Western Syria could always understand each other.30 The seven dialects he notes are: Judean (Old Judean), South-east Judean, Samarian (known especially through Middle Aramaic Samaritan), Galilean (which includes Galilean parts of Galilean Targums), East Jordanian, Damascene Aramaic, Orontes Aramaic. Kaufman returned to the subject again in a paper on “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, read at the Dublin 1992 conference on the Aramaic Bible.31 As part of his study he examines the Aramaic Testament of Levi as found in fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and in the Cairo Genizah text, pieces of which are in both the Bodleian and Cambridge libraries, and this from the point of view of grammar, orthography and lexicon. The Testament of Levi, he notes, is an ancient Palestinian text, as evidenced in the Qumran exemplars. The Genizah text is the selfsame text, even though it gives every external appearance of being a text more at home in the medieval Jewish Aramaic literary tradition that gave rise to Pseudo-Jonathan. He believes that the situation is similar for the Palestinian Targums: Behind the present text stands an early text, later elaborated as found in the extant witnesses. Towards the end of his paper he observes that (1) the Palestinian Targum cannot be dated as early as Qumran, because in addition to kinds of differences enumerated by him in his paper (that is where the Palestinian Targum shares features with the Cairo Genizah side of the Testament of Levi text), the Palestinian Targum has numerous and regular distinctive grammatical features and lexical differences that point to a later period (four classes of which he instances). On the other hand, nothing within the text traditions of the Palestinian Targum demonstrates that there never was a single Palestinian Targum text. We can and must reconstruct “the” Palestinian Targum, as he has argued in his monographic joint article with Y. Maori; (2) Onqelos-Jonathan should be seen as a systematically modified version of an earlier common Targum (a common base shared with the Palestinian Targum) – a text subsequently

30 See K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte (n. 11 above), 49–58; English translation, Healey, The Aramaic Language, 34–43. For the Aramaic population numbers, he refers to J. Scheckenhofer, Die Bevölkerung Palästinas um die Wende der Zeiten: Versuch einer Statistik, Munich 1978 (about 1,750,000); M. Broshi, “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period”, BASOR 236 (1979), 1–10 (about 1,000,000); Y. Shiloh, “The Population of Iron Age Palestine”, BASOR 239 (1980), 25–35 (about 500,000). 31 The Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, Conference on “The Aramaic Bible: The Targums in their Historical Setting”, published (1994) under the same title by Sheffield Academic Press; Kaufman’s paper under the same heading, pp. 118–141.

6. Contents of Second-Century B.C.E. – Second-Century C.E.

193

modified using a distinctive set of characteristic changes, such as he has illustrated earlier in his paper.32 Kaufman expressed reservations about the validity of Tal’s reading of the evidence on the Targum of the Former Prophets. At the same conference E. M. Cook devoted an entire paper to Tal’s position.33 Contrary to the prevailing view, he does not believe that the evidence indicates that Onqelos and Jonathan were written in the west by Palestinian Jews. Neither does he accept the other view that they were written in the east by Babylonian Jews. The arguments for either opinion, in so far as they are founded on language, are weak. Indeed, he finds the east-west divide in this regard a bad one, and opts for an origin in what he calls the “Central Aramaic” dialect area. Imagine, he asks us, a triangle on a map of the Middle East with Damascus, Edessa, and Assur at the corners. Within that triangle would be found, in the period 200 b.c.e.–200 c.e., a clear majority of all speakers of Aramaic, as well as the important urban centres of Palmyra, Dura Europas, and Adiabene, besides the three cities just mentioned. Remember that this triangle encloses the ancestral home of Aramaic, with all its diversity. Remember also that the two Aramaic dialects most difficult to fit into an east/west dichotomy, namely Syriac and Palmyrene, are found therein. The irresistible implication is that the traditional dialectological implication is far too simple. There is a vast area of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia whose dialects cannot be accommodated into an east-west scheme. For lack of a better term, let us call these dialects “Central Aramaic”. He believes that Onqelos and Jonathan originated in this Central Aramaic area. It remains for future researches in this whole area to take up the points made by Dr Cook.

6. Contents of Second-Century b.c.e. – Second-Century c.e. Aramaic Literary Texts Among the Qumran Aramaic literary texts we have the biblical Book of Daniel, fragments of the Book of Tobit, sections of a Targum of Job (about 1/6 of the Hebrew Text) and other fragments of a Targum of the same book (Job 3:4–5; 4:16–5:4); fragments of a Targum of Leviticus 16 (16:12–15, 18–21), the Genesis Apocryphon (Book of the Patriarchs), apocryphal works 32

See S. A. Kaufman & Y. Maori, “The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum”, in Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project, vol. 16, ed. by M. Goshen-Gottstein, Jerusalem 1991, 13–78. 33 E. M. Cook, “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan”, in The Aramaic Bible: The Targums in their Historical Setting, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 142–156.

194

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

such as testaments of various Patriarchs and other persons, books of Henoch, the Prayer of Nabonidus, Pseudo-Daniel texts, Vision, apocalyptic and other texts. Eight of the 15 letters of Bar Cochba from 134–135 c.e. are in Aramaic. We have various funerary inscriptions. From Murabba‘at we have business transactions.

7. The Palestinian Pentateuch Targum and First-Century Aramaic We have seen the various opinions of scholars regarding the spoken Aramaic of first-century Palestine. A matter still unresolved is whether the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch can be presumed to have existed, orally if not in writing, in the first century of our era. Many questions are involved here. There is first of all the form of the Aramaic language in which these are written, which a number of reputable scholars regard as not earlier than the third century. Then there is the abundance of Greek (and the occasional Latin) loan words, which J. Fitzmyer takes as an indication of the late rather than an early date of composition, since “what evidence there is for Greek words borrowed into Palestinian Aramaic is very sparse indeed up to a.d. 200”, after which time it is surprisingly abundant.34 A further phenomenon emerging from detailed examination of these Targums is that they represent a very definite tradition of interpretation, the age and origins of which are not at all clear. While there are problems in regarding the Targums as representatives of first-century Judaism, their possible contribution to a consideration as a major element in Jewish thinking in that age warrants examination of this evidence and some of the questions it entails.

8. Greek and Latin Loan Words in First-Century Aramaic and Hebrew While the absence or paucity of Greek loan words in the Qumran texts, be these texts in Hebrew or Aramaic, is a fact, this does not prove that Greek loan words became a feature of Palestinian Hebrew and Aramaic only later. Any such conclusion would go beyond what the premises warrant. A certain purism among the Qumran scholars or scribes may explain the absence of such loan words. Their proficiency in the native languages and the absence of conditions favouring the use of such loan words are also probably a contributing factor. The Copper Scroll (3Q15), written in late Hebrew 34

See J. Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 525.

8. Greek and Latin Loan Words in First-Century Aramaic and Hebrew

195

outside of Qumran, has five or six Greek loan words (stoa, statêr, aloê[s], exedra, peristylon).35 The situation is similar for the Bar Cochba letters (asphaleia, xiphos, epitropos) and the Murabba‘at texts (nomos).36 Whether we accept Onqelos and Jonathan’s Targum of the Prophets as pre-132 c.e., it is generally accepted that the original of Onqelos is Palestinian and early.37 It too has Greek loan words. Gustav Dalman lists 25 of them.38 The presence of such Greek loan words in the languages of the Middle East is well attested for Late Egyptian. There are also a number of Greek loan words in the Palmyrene texts, and of the same kind (having to do with commerce, architecture and such like) as we find in Hebrew and Aramaic.39 There are also some Latin loan words in the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, less than thirty in all and fewer than those from Greek. This in itself is not a proof of late origin. There are a few (six) Latin loan words already in New Testament Greek (legio, speculator, praetorium, securis, sudarium, denarius). There are Latin loan words in Egyptian Greek papyri, although much less numerous for the first than for later centuries of our era, especially from Diocletian’s reign (284–305 c.e.) when Latin for the first time became the official lan35 See J. T. Milik in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, vol. 3: Les petites grottes de Qumrân, ed. by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Oxford 1962, 221–235, at 230; see also G. Ogg, “The Cultural Setting” (n. 5 above), 78. 36 See Fitzmyer, “The Languages”, 523–524. 37 A view, as we have just seen, now contested by Dr Edward M. Cook. 38 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1905, 182–197. These are as follows: taxis (Exod 14:6), glyphô (Exod 28:11), pronos (Gen 15:2), kêryx (Exod 36:6), anagkê (Lev 26:40), mêlôtê (Gen 49:11), porpê (Exod 26:6), stolê (Gen 45:22), chrôma (Exod 28:20), charakôma (Deut 20:20), chlaina (Gen 25:25), epikairos (Deut 3:14), nomos (Lev 18:3), bêryllos (Exod 28:19), spongos (Exod 29:23), idiôtês (Gen 28:17), Trachôn (Deut 3:13), taxis (Num 2:2; 10:25), magis (Num 4:7), basis (Exod 30:18), kraspedon (Num 15:38), maniakion (Gen 41:42), anthrakion (Exod 28:19), ipanthêrion (Exod 28:20), kenchrion (Exod 28:19), smaragdion (Exod 28:18), psyktêr (Exod 38:3), aêr (Deut 4:17). Not all of these are necessarily borrowings from the Greek. On these loan words in Onqelos see also P. Joüon, “Mots grecs de l’araméen d’Onkelos ou de l’hébreu de la Mishna qui se trouvent aussi dans les Évangiles”, RSR 22 (1932), 462–469; J. P. Brown, “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-Words in the Targums”, Bib 70 (1989), 194–216. For Greek and Latin loan words in the Palestinian Targums see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 16–23, with nn. 73–74 at 16–17. 39 For the Palmyrene texts see C.-F. Jean & J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest, Leiden 1965. The words in the order of occurrence are as follows: epigramma (but from Persian), andrôn, andriantes, autokratôr, ôkeanos, automaton, exedra, eile (an army corps), homologia, as (Hatra; Latin), stoa, stobilos, stratêgos (also Nabataean), strateuma, assarion, epitropos, epitropeia, epimelêtês, epanorthôtês, akaloutha, archê, archôn, bouleutês, benephikiarios (from Latin beneficiarius), basilikê, basis (Nabataean), genos, gnôstês, grammateus, grammateia, dogma, doukenarios (from Latin ducenarius), dromedarios (from Latin dromedarius), hêgemôn, hypatikos, hippikos, eparchos, eparchia, eparcheia, taxis, tropos, syndikos, sôma, synklêtikos, sêstertion (from Latin sestertium), symphônos, pantoplôleion, proedros, plateia, politeia, phiskos (from Latin fiscus), pragmateutês, kolôn, centuria (Latin), kentyriôn (from Latin centurio), xestôn, krastistos, carrus (Latin), kerkis, tagma.

196

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

guage in Egypt.40 There are numerous Greek and Latin loan words in the Hebrew of the Mishnah, which are clear evidence of the ascendancy that Hellenistic culture had gained in Palestine. These terms concern primarily the spheres of the political constitution and military affairs, judicial affairs, public baths and public hostelries, architecture in general, games and amusement, matters connected with writing, the monetary system, objects of commerce, foreign comestibles, clothing materials, household utensils of foreign origin, place names and personal names.41 The precise date such loan words were first taken in, however, still remains to be determined.

9. Targumic Loan Words and Interpretation The presence of Greek or Latin loan words in Targums need not be a mere accident due to Hellenistic or Roman cultural ascendancy. At times the particular foreign word seems to be chosen with the intention of stating clearly what the precise meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase of the Hebrew Text is taken to be. Sometimes they may represent a manner of understanding this word that has become accepted in Jewish circles and may be found both in Hebrew interpretative midrash and the Aramaic Targums. 9.1 ĕāċ – ĠďěėƮ We may have an instance of this in the mohar (Hebrew Text ĕāċ) of which Shechem spoke to Jacob in Gen 34:12. The Septuagint translates as ĠďěėƮ, “gift to bride from groom” (as it does in Exod 22:15). Onqelos uses the same Septuagint term to translate ĕāċ of the Masoretic Text, and so also do the Palestinian Targum texts (Neofiti, Fragment Targum ms. V, and Cairo Targum ms. C). J. P. Brown has shown that in twelve of the Greek loan words (ten common words plus two place names) Onqelos uses the same Greek 40 See S. Daris, Il lessico latino nel greco d’Egitto (Papyrologica Castroctaviana Studia et Textus 3), Barcelona 1971. See also R. J. Bonner, “The Conflict of Languages in the Roman World”, CJ 25 (1929–1930), 579–592, esp. 589. For comparative material on Latin official terms as transliterated or translated, see M. G. Bertinelli Angeli, Nomenclatura pubblica e sacra di Roma nelle epigrafi semitiche, Genova 1970. 41 See Ogg, “The Cultural Setting” (n. 5 above), 53–80, for a list and analysis of these loan words. For an earlier collection and study see S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud und Midrasch, 2 vols., Berlin 1898–1899; reprint Hildesheim 1964 (index in vol. 2, 623–653). There are more recent collections and studies in: D. Sperber, Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, Jerusalem 1982; idem, Roman Palestine 200–400: Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974; idem, Nautica, Ramat Gan 1986. The Greek and Latin loan words in the Targum of the Former Prophets can be found in A. Tal, The Language of the Targum (n. 25 above), 175–186.

9. Targumic Loan Words and Interpretation

197

word as the Septuagint, which seems to indicate that the Onqelos tradition is drawing from the Greek Septuagint.42 9.2 þĂą§ĉĈ – ĎēċĒƮĔđ/ ŁĚęĒƮĔđ If this contention of J. P. Brown regarding Onqelos is true, the reference by Jewish Aramaic interpretative tradition to the Greek must have begun early. It must be noted, however, that agreement with the Septuagint in the Palestinian Targum tradition does not pass beyond ĠďěėƮ found at Gen 34:12 and Exod 22:15. None the less, the use of Greek and Latin loan words in the Palestinian Targums texts, in a number of cases at least, seems to serve the same purpose as in these two texts, namely to make precise an ambiguous term of the Hebrew Text. Thus Gen 24:10 says that on his journey to seek a wife for Isaac, Abraham’s servant had ĂĀĆþĂĆčĀýþĂą§ĉĈ. What precisely was this þĂą§ĉĈ? Palestinian exegetical and targumic tradition was divided, and interpreted by two different Greek loan words, ŁĚęĒƮĔđ and ĎēċĒƮĔđ.43 According to the Palestinian Targum as found in Neofiti, in an Aruk citation, and in Gen. Rab. 59:11 the servant had “all the best of the diathêkê of his master in his hand”. The Greek word ĎēċĒƮĔđ can mean “covenant”, a “will” or “testament”. As a loan word in Aramaic (and Hebrew) its meaning seems to have been restricted to “will, testament”, also “document”. Abraham’s servant carried “the best of his father’s will”, or “testament” (Aramaic, ýĔĆėĆĆĀ, dyytyq’). The use and connotation of the Greek term ĎēċĒƮĔđ in Semitic-speaking Palestine may be of some significance for New Testament Studies.44 According to other Palestinian Targum texts of Gen 24:10 the servant had all the best of his master’s ĆĔĆėĂđý (’pwtyqy); thus the Fragment Targums PVNL, Neofiti margin, Pseudo-Jonathan. How vocalise and understand this word is not quite certain. Marcus Jastrow45 in some instances derives it from Greek ŁĚęĒƮĔđ, “storehouse”, in others from Greek ƊĚęĒƮĔđ, “pledge, mortgage”. Sokoloff understands as “mortgage, title deeds”, deriving from Greek ƊĚęĒƮĔđ.46

42

J. P. Brown, “The Septuagint as a Source” (n. 38 above). For the two words see Sokoloff, Dictionary (n.  11 above), 69, 146 (s.vv.); also D. Sperber, Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, Ramat Gan 1984, 84. 44 P. Joüon, “Mots grecs” (n. 38 above), 466. 45 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, Midrashic Literature and Targumim, New York & London 1886–1903 (repr. New York 1950, etc.), 101, for Tg. Gen 24:2 and some other texts deriving from the Greek ŁĚęĒƮĔđ, “store-house”; in other texts he reads as ’ippôtiqî, from the Greek ƊĚęĒƮĔđ, “pledge, mortgage”. 46 Sokoloff, Dictionary, 69, with reference to D. Sperber, Greek and Latin Legal Terms, 55. 43

198

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

9.3 ČĂċý (’amôn) – ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ We have a similar example to the above in a gloss on ČĂċý of the Hebrew Text, a term which occurs only twice (Prov 8:30; 52:15), vocalised ’amôn in the Masoretic Text. With regard to Prov 8:30 (ČĂċýĂĉēýāĆāýĂ), Palestinian rabbinic tradition (as found in Gen. Rab. 1) understood ČĂċý through the Greek loan word ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ. In Num 11:12 Moses complains to God with regard to the burden of caring for Israel: “Am I their mother? Have I brought them into the world, and am called to carry them in my bosom like the Čċý carries the suckling?” (MT: ĔčĆā§ėýČċýāýĖĆĕĖýĈ), the Palestinian Targum understands Čċý of this text in the same manner, and renders through the Greek loan word ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ (āÿĂÿĀĆđ, pydgwgh). The same loan word is used in a gloss to Neof. Gen 24:59 to render Hebrew Text āėĔčċ (meniqtah), the term used to describe Rebekkah’s companion, and generally understood as “nurse” (from the root ĔčĆ). Neofiti, both in Gen 24:59 and 35:8 renders by the cognate Aramaic term āėĔčĆċ (mynqth, “nurse”). In Greek civilisation the ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ enjoyed a well-established role and is generally understood as a slave who took the young heir to school and back. The pedagogue was generally depicted in a stylized fashion as a grumpy Socrates lookalike, and this because the terracotta figures with representations of the pedagogue were modelled after the satyr Silenus, Socrates and Silenus being often portrayed as having similar features. However, together with this harsh representation, there is in Greek tradition another in which the ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ was depicted in the role of a nurse. It appears that as a loan word in Aramaic, ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ was understood mainly, if not solely, in the gentle role of nurse rather than as that of a slave forcing the young to education. This transference of meaning may have some significance for an understanding of the ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ in Pauline theology, specifically of the Law as our ĚċēĎċčģčƲĜ to Christ (Gal 3:19–25).47 9.4 ĔęěČǬėƂőĝĞēėĎȥěęė (Mark 7:11) According to Mark 7:11 in a legal discussion with some Pharisees and scribes Jesus has his adversaries say: “But you hold that if anyone says to his father or mother, ‘Anything I have which might have been used for your benefit is 47 On the loan word in Aramaic see Sokoloff, Dictionary, 430 (with reference to Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter, 420). Sokoloff renders as “instructor”. See also N. H. Young, “The Figure of the Paidagogos in Art and Literature”, BA 53 (1990), 80–86; T. D. Gordon, “A Note on paidagôgos in Galatians 3:24–25”, NTS 35 (1989), 150–154; R. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7”, JETS 25 (1982), 53–61; idem, “‘The Law was our Pedagogue’: A Study of Galatians 3:19–25”, JBL 105 (1986), 481–498; N. H. Young, “Paidagôgos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor”, NovT 29 (1987), 150–176.

10. Conclusion on Aramaic in First-Century Palestine

199

Corban, that is a gift’ …”, ĔęěČǬėƂőĝĞēėĎȥěęė. I am here interested in the occurrence of the Aramaic or Hebrew term ČþĕĔ (korban) accompanied by the Greek gloss ƂőĝĞēėĎȥěęė. The fact that Mark retains the Semitic form as well as the Greek explanation might indicate that the combined SemiticGreek formula may have been current in Palestine. That this was so would appear to be borne out by Josephus, who also gives both (Ant. 4.4.4, § 73): “Such also as dedicate themselves to God as a corban, which denotes what the Greeks call a gift …” (ęŰĔęěČǬėċƉĞęƳĜŽėęĖƪĝċėĞďĜĞȦĒďȦ, Ďȥěęė Ďƫ ĞęȘĞę ĝđĖċưėďē ĔċĞƩ ŘĕĕƮėģė čĕƶĞĞċė …). The Septuagint renders ČþĕĔ of the Hebrew Text as Ďȥěęė without retaining the Hebrew term. It is worth noting that Ďȥěęė exists as a loan word in Aramaic (particularly the Palestinian Targums), sometimes as translating the Hebrew Text āĄčċ (min ah), but often in free paraphrase. It is sometimes to be translated “gift” (without cultic connotations). In a free paraphrase in Genesis 4 it occurs as an equivalent of the Aramaic ýčþĕĔ, for example Neof. Gen 4:3: “And it happened in the course of time [lit.: ‘at the end of days’] that Cain brought a gift (Ďȥěęė) from the fruits of the earth to the name of the Lord … (vv. 4–5). And the Lord received Abel and his offering (āĆčþĕĔ, qrbnyh) with favour but he did not receive Cain and his offering (āĆčþĕĔ, qrbnyh) with favour.” Other texts of the Palestinian Targums (for example margins of Neofiti and Cairo Genizah texts) have the loan word Ďȥěęė instead of ČþĕĔ. What exact significance this might have for the understanding of the use of this formula in New Testament Palestine or for the understanding of Mark 7:11 remains to be determined. I believe the existence of the phenomenon merits attention.

10. Conclusion on Aramaic in First-Century Palestine Aramaic was the language principally spoken in Palestine during the first century of our era, from Syrian Antioch in the north to Idumea in the south. It was also the principal language of the Transjordan. The spoken Aramaic belonged to the Western Aramaic branch. There were probably a number of distinct dialects or at least regional differences within the spoken Palestinian (and Transjordanian) Aramaic language of the period, but not to the degree of not being understood throughout the entire region. The manuscripts from Qumran and the Dead Sea area (Murabba‘at, Na al ever) give evidence of the existence of a literary form of Aramaic that was a continuation of the literary Aramaic of the Persian Empire. There is evidence that this literary language had evolved somewhat beyond the literary Aramaic of the Book of Daniel. The evidence does not permit us to form a definite judgement on how much this literary Aramaic differed from the spoken language in Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee or elsewhere.

200

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

There is clear evidence that Aramaic was a literary language for Rabbinic Judaism in the third century of our era and later. In the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and elsewhere we have a corpus of biblical interpretation in this language. We do not know whether this tradition represents an exegetical activity which was at work already during the first century of our era, and if so whether this was in the precise form of Aramaic of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums. That Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic is beyond question. This Aramaic must have been that then spoken in Galilee. It probably had some differences in vocabulary and elsewise from Judean and literary Aramaic. Of the few Aramaic words transmitted to us by Christian tradition, one – ýėĆĉą ( alîta), “young woman” – is unknown to Qumran Aramaic, where the corresponding term would be ýėċĆĉĂď, ‘ûlemita’ (the feminine form itself is not attested there, but the masculine is: ýċĆĉĂď (‘wlym’, “[this] child”; ĆċĆĉď ‘lymy, “my young men”).48

11. Greek in First-Century Palestine In the Expository Times under the heading “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, a controversy was carried on over the three years 1955 to 1957. A. W. Argyle and J. K. Russell defended the view that Jesus spoke both Aramaic and Greek, while H. M. Draper and R.McL. Wilson argued against Jesus’ use of Greek.49 This particular aspect of the question is an old one and from J. Vossius in the seventeenth century on there have been proponents of the view that Jesus spoke Greek, de Christo graece loquente. It was defended by the Neapolitan Domenico Diodati in the eighteenth century, whose position was countered by Gianbernardo de Rossi. In the nineteenth century the bilingualism of Jesus (Greek and Aramaic, or Hebrew), was defended by H. E. G. Paulus, L. Hug and K. A. Credner.50 G. Dalman examined the question in great detail in his work Jesus-Jeshua.51 He defended the view that in Jesus’ day Palestine was trilingual and that Jesus knew Greek and on occasion used that language. In defence of his position Dalman marshalled most of the evidence then available, which incidentally is fundamentally 48 See M. McNamara, “The Spoken Aramaic of First Century Palestine”, in Church Ministry, ed. by A. Mayes (PIBA 2), Dublin 1977, 95–138, at 130. 49 A. W. Argyle, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955–1956), 92–93, 383; J. K. Russell, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955–1956), 246; H. M. Draper, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955–1956), 317; R.McL. Wilson, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 68 (1956–1957), 121–122. 50 See A. Díez Macho, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 1963), 95–132, at 125–126 (and separately, under the same title, as booklet, Madrid 1976). 51 G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, English translation, London 1929, 1–7.

11. Greek in First-Century Palestine

201

the same as we have today: the Hellenization of the Middle East from the time of Alexander the Great; the use of Greek by the Roman representatives in Palestine (Pilate, Felix, Festus); the fact that, outside of strictly military ones which were in Latin, Palestine inscriptions referring to Roman emperors were in Greek; road signs on Roman roads from Vespasian on were in Greek; coins from the Hasmoneans onwards had Greek inscriptions; in their coins the last kings of the Jews designated themselves ČċĝēĕďƴĜ; they gave Greek names to the cities and fortresses they founded; the fact that Hasmonean princes from 135 b.c.e. onwards carried a Greek name as well as their Jewish one. Furthermore, the sarcofagi in the environs of Jerusalem very often have Greek names; there are even Greek names transcribed in Hebrew characters. In Jerusalem the Hellenists had their own synagogues and formed communities (Acts 6:1, 9). There was even a synagogue of the Alexandrians. In Jaffa, and probably at Sepphoris, there was a community of Cappadocian Jews (Acts 2:9). The inscriptions in Greek in the synagogues of Ashdod, Gaza and Sipporis, the numerous inscriptions wholly or in part in Greek in the Jewish ossuaries of Jerusalem and Jaffa (42 in Jerusalem and 48 in Jaffa according to Klein’s corpus of Palestinian Jewish inscriptions) vouch for the penetration of Greek even among Palestinian Jews. The influence of Greek was particularly strong in Jerusalem. But this influence must have also been felt at Nazareth, a town near the chief cities of Herod Antipas and near the traffic routes. The region of the Sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, must have felt the influence of the Greek of the Decapolis, a region deeply hellenized with regard to religion, constitution and organisation. Almost all the inscriptions of that region are in Greek. Jesus passed by the district of Hippos (Tell el-Husn) and probably through that of Gadara, Pella and Scythopolis. Near Capernaum stood Magdal Nunaya, called by its Greek name Taricheia (“Pickling City”): the name and the hippodrome betray its Hellenisation. Sebaste (the ancient Shomeron or Samaria), with its porticos, its stadium, its temples, even today gives the impression of one of the many Hellenistic cities of the East. At Jericho there was an amphitheatre and hippodrome, and in Jerusalem a theatre. Many names in the Gospels are Greek; Philip and Andrew who were from Bethsaida were accosted by some Greeks in the temple at Jerusalem to take them to Jesus. Simon is the Greek pronunciation of Shimeon, and is the name of Peter in the New Testament and of other Jews in rabbinic literature. The name “Petros” occurs in the Gospels and in rabbinic literature. Thaddeus comes from Theudas, which is Theodotos or some similar Greek name. Cl(e)opas (Luke 24:18; John 19:25) derives from Cleopatros. Jesus spoke with Pilate during the Passion scene (John 18:34 ff.; 19:11) without an interpreter, and Pilate would certainly have questioned in Greek. Jesus spoke with the Canaanite woman (Mark 7:26) who undoubtedly spoke Greek.

202

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

Some further evidence has been added to that produced by Dalman in 1929, for example the Greek texts from Qumran Caves 4 and 7, from Murabba‘at and for the Bar Cochba Revolt (134–135 c.e.) from Na al ever. The evidence may also be presented more fully and somewhat differently, and has been so presented by such later scholars as G. Ogg,52 J. N. Sevenster,53 J. A. Fitzmyer54 and others. Opinion, however, is still divided with regard to the evaluation of the evidence.

12. Arguments Favouring a Knowledge of Greek There are a number of arguments arguing towards a knowledge of Greek in first century Palestine. 12.1 General Hellenisation and Hellenistic Cities Hellenisation of Palestine, as the rest of the Middle East, had been in progress since Alexander the Great. This process would have been deepest where Jewish religious and political power was weak or non-existent. The Transjordan and the Mediterranean sea coast, from the north to Philistia in the south, was pagan as was Galilee until Hasmonean times.55 Even later, apart from Gaza and Jamnia, the coastal cities remained pagan. Transjordan remained predominantly pagan. Hellenism was promoted in a particular way by the new-founded Greek cities. Their existence and importance are clear from the title Decapolis given to a group of them. But their number was greater than this.56 12.2 Bilingual (Greek and Latin) and Other Inscriptions57 Josephus notes that Julius Caesar had issued some decrees in Greek and Latin. The resolution to appoint the Jewish high priest Hyrcanus II (47–41 b.c.e.) had to be engraved on a bronze tablet in Greek and Latin (ŒĕĕđėēĝĞƯĔċƯ 52

Ogg, “The Cultural Setting” (n. 5 above) (“The spread of Hellenism”, 29–80; Greek and Latin personal names from the papyri of the Bar Cochba period, 74, n. 249). 53 J. N. Sevenster, Do you know Greek? How much Greek could the first Jewish Christians have known? (NovTSup 19), Leiden 1968; to be read with the critical review by D. M. Lewis in JTS 20 (1969), 583–588. 54 Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 507–518. 55 See, however, n. 8 above and text to note. 56 See further Paul Winter, “Political Institutions”, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, rev. edition, vol. 2 (n. 5 above), 85–183 (studying 33 such Hellenistic cities). See also J. N. Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 96–114. 57 See Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 114–122.

12. Arguments Favouring a Knowledge of Greek

203

ȗģĖċĤĝĞư) and deposited with the official records of the town Sidon (Ant. 14.10.2, § 191); likewise at Caesar’s orders certain decrees similarly engraven in Latin and Greek characters (čěƪĖĖċĝēė ȗģĖċĤĔęȉĜĔċƯŒĕĕđėēĔęȉĜ) had to be erected in the temples of Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon (14.10.3, § 197). Mark Anthony wrote to the people of Tyre that he wanted one of his decrees included in the official public proclamations, in Latin and Greek, in a place where the tablet was as visible as possible (őėĞȦőĚēĠċėďĝĞƪĞȣ) so that all could read it (Ant. 14.12.5, § 319). These bilinguals were intended for places outside of Palestine. The best known inscriptions in Greek and in Latin in Palestine are those mentioned by Josephus for the temple of Jerusalem, “some in Greek, and some in Latin characters” (ċŰĖƫėŒĕĕđėēĔęȉĜÞċŰĎƫ ȗģĖċĤĔęȉĜčěƪĖĖċĝēė), informing pagans that they were forbidden to go any further into the sanctuary (cf. War 5.5.2, §§ 193–194; 6.2.4, §§ 124–126; Ant. 15.11.5, § 417; see also Philo, Embassy to Gaius 31 [212]; Acts 21:26–30). Two exemplars of this inscription have been found.58 No copy of the Latin text has thus far been discovered. We have a lengthy Greek inscription, which appears to be an imperial rescript against the violations of tombs. Its exact provenance is unknown, but was said by the collector Froehner to have come from Nazareth in 1878. It seems to date from the first century of our era.59 We have also a Jerusalem synagogue inscription which commemorates its building by Theodotos Vettenos, a priest and leader of the synagogue;60 also the hymn inscribed in the necropolis at Marisa.61 12.3 Funerary Inscriptions We have a number of ossuary inscriptions from the Jerusalem area, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. A large number of those are in Greek only, some are bilingual – in Hebrew or Aramaic and Greek. 12.4 Murabba‘at and Na al

ever Greek Texts62

These texts represent the period from the first century to 135 c.e. In the Murabba‘at Greek texts we have examples of grain transactions (Mur 58

Greek text in Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 116; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, 285, n. 57 (in both cases with bibliographical references). See also Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 512, n. 41. The Greek text says: “No foreigner is to enter within the ballustrade and embankment around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows.” 59 See further, Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 117–120; Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 512, n. 44. 60 Fitzmyer, “The Languages”, 512, n. 42 for references. 61 Ibid., n. 43 for references. 62 The texts of Murabba‘at, Les Grottes de Murabba‘at, ed. by P. Benoît, OP, J. Milik & R. De Vaux, OP (DJD II), Oxford 1961; K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte (n. 11 above),

204

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

89–107), IOU’s (Mur 114), contracts of marriage and remarriage among Jews (Mur 115–116), fragments of philosophical and literary texts (Mur 108–112), even texts in Greek shorthand (Mur 164). From Wadi abra (Na al ever) we have letters from Bar Cochba, the leader of the Second Revolt (132–135 c.e.) and his circle in all three languages Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 12.5 Evidence of Greek Literary Activity in Palestine and the Transjordan63 As evidence for literary activity in Greek the following can be instanced: a) Philodemus of Gadara,64 a Greek educated Palestinian Jew (ca. 158–70 b.c.e.).65 b) Pseudo-Eupolemus, ca. 300 b.c.e.; probably a Samaritan.66 c) Nicolaus of Damascus, the trusted friend and counsellor of Herod. He came from a distinguished non-Jewish family.67 d) Justus of Tiberias, a Jew of Greek education who held, together with his father Pistus, a prominent position in Tiberias during the Jewish War in 66–67 c.e.68 e) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian. f) Translation of Esther in Greek, in Jerusalem, by Dositheus a priest and a Levite, in the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, 113–112 b.c.e.69

304–319; texts of Na al ever, ed. by Y. Yadin, “The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1960: Expedition D”, IEJ 11 (1961), 36–52; texts in K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte, 319–323. 63 See among others, A. R. C. Leaney, “Greek Manuscripts from the Judean Desert”, in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by J. K. Elliott (NovTSup 44), Leiden 1976, 283–300, esp. 283–292 for earlier Palestinian Jewish Greek writers. 64 On Gadara, see T. A. Burkill, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, rev. edition, vol. 2, at 132–136: “23. Political Institutions. I: The Hellenistic Cities”. On Philodemus, see works on the history of philosophy, especially on Epicureanism, for example G. Di Napoli, “Filodemo”, in Enciclopedia Filosofica, Venice & Rome 1957, vol. 2, 388–390; P. H. De Lacy, “Epicureanism and Epicurean Schools”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York & London 1967, vol.  3, 2–3. See also R. Philippson, “Philodemos”, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. by G. Wissowa, vol.  19/2, Stuttgart 1938, cols. 2444–2482. 65 See Leaney, “Greek Manuscripts”, 286; also M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period, London & Philadelphia 1974, vol. 1, 186; vol. 2, 90–91, n. 215; also idem, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, London & Philadelphia 1989, 20. 66 See M. McNamara, Intertestamental Literature, Wilmington 1983, 214–215. 67 See L. Calista Olds, “§ 3. Sources”, in Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, rev. edition by G. Vermes et al., vol. 1, Edinburgh 1973, 28–32. 68 Ibid., 34–37. 69 See M. McNamara, Intertestamental Literature, 216–218.

13. Arguments against a General Knowledge of Greek

205

g) Later Jewish revisions of Greek translations.70 These are known in particular through the Greek biblical texts of Qumran Caves 4 and 7 and through the Murabba‘at texts. After a study of the Qumran texts Leaney writes:71 “To summarize, the relevant history of Israel accustomed the nation to Greek language and culture, and use of the Greek language was pervasive enough to allow it to be used sometimes to inculcate stricter religious-patriotic ideas; the Greek MSS found at Qumran and Wadi Khabra are consistent in their text affiliation and vocabulary with the possibility that they were written for members of the Qumran sect with its intense desire to recreate a primitively innocent nation; and therefore that the sect included members whose first language was Greek.”

12.6 The Hellenists and Hebrews (ŒĕĕđėēĝĞċư, ŒČěċȉęē) of Acts 6:172 It seems best to understand the ŒĕĕđėēĝĞċư and ŒČěċȉęē of Acts as Jerusalem Jews who spoke Greek and Aramaic or Hebrew respectively. These two groups are thus evidence for the presence of resident Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem.

13. Arguments against a General Knowledge of Greek 1. Josephus Flavius’s native language was Aramaic; he had to learn Greek. Josephus tells us he wrote the Jewish War originally in his native language (ĞǼĚċĞěưǹ[čĕƶĝĝǹ]), destining it for Parthians, Babylonians, the tribes of Arabia, Jews beyond the Euphrates and in Adiabene (War 1.1.2, § 6). The language in question must have been the lingua franca, that is Aramaic. Josephus also tells us that he later translated this into Greek (ŒĕĕƪĎēčĕƶĝĝǹ ĖďĞċČċĕƶė) to provide subjects of the Roman Empire with his version of the Jewish war. In Ant. 1.1.2, § 7 he tells us that Greek was for him “foreign and unfamiliar”. In his translation of the Jewish War in Rome Josephus used assistants for the sake of the Greek (Against Apion 1.9, § 50). 2. An interpreter from Greek was required for the citizens of Jerusalem. Towards the end of the Jewish War Titus spoke in Greek and Josephus acted as interpreter, speaking to the populace in his native language (ĞǼĚċĞěưǹ čĕƶĝĝǹ) (War 5.9.2, § 361; cf. 6.2.1, § 96; 6.2.5, § 129; 6.6.2, § 327). This would seem to imply that people could not understand Greek.73 Sevenster74 70

Ibid., 218–220; Leaney, “Greek Manuscripts”, 283–300. Leaney, “Greek Manuscripts”, 300. 72 See C. F. D. Moule, “Once more, who were the Hellenists?”, ExpTim 70 (1958–1959), 100–102; Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 37; J. Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 515–516, with reference n. 53. 73 See also Ogg, “The Cultural Setting” (n. 5 above), 74–75. 74 Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, 63–65. 71

206

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

suggests that the reason for this might be Titus’s lack of fluency in Greek rather than an inadequate knowledge of Greek among his Jewish audience,75 an explanation which J. Fitzmyer considers “plausible”.76 However, as D. M. Lewis has noted in his review of Sevenster’s work, “a reference to Suetonius, Titus 3, would have saved the author this one: “Latine Graeceque, vel in orando vel in fingendis poematibus, promptus et facilis ad extemporalitatem usque.” (“… he made speeches and wrote verses in Latin and Greek with ease and readiness, and even off-hand.”) Likewise, when Paul wished to be heard by the people in Jerusalem he spoke to them ĞǼ ŘČěċȈĎē ĎēċĕƬĔĞȣ (Acts 21:40), that is in Hebrew or more probably in Aramaic. Even in later Christian times, when the Christian liturgy was in Greek, an interpreter was used to translate from Greek into Aramaic for the benefit of those who could not understand Greek. Thus at Scythopolis in the reign of Diocletian77 and in the fourth century in Jerusalem, according to Itinerarium Egeriae.78

14. Conclusions on Greek in First-Century Palestine We may be permitted to end this survey on the use of Greek with citations from two of the writers we have referred to above. First the words of J. Fitzmyer:79 “The general evidence that we have been considering would suggest the likelihood that Jesus did speak Greek. Further, his conversations with Roman officials – Pilate or the centurion, and perhaps even that reflected in John 12 – would point in this direction. … However, what evidence there is that he used Greek yields at most a probability; if it be used to insist that we might even have in the Gospels some of the ipsissima verba Iesu graeca,80 actually uttered by him as he addressed his bilingual Galilean compatriots, then the evidence is being pressed beyond legitimate bounds.”

G. Ogg81 expresses himself somewhat differently: “These new papyri [Dead Sea Scrolls etc.] and the increased number of Greek – mainly funerary – inscriptions discovered in Palestine have persuaded some scholars that

75

Ibid., 65. Fitzmyer, “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 511. 77 Eusebius, De martyrio Polycarpi, the “long recension”; Syriac text, edition and translation in Die palästinischen Märtyrer des Eusebius von Cäsarea: Ihre ausführlichere Fassung und deren Verhältnis zur kürzeren, ed. by B. Violet (Texte und Untersuchungen 14,4), Leipzig 1896, 4; see Ogg, “The Cultural Setting” (n. 5 above), 75, n. 252. 78 CSEL 38; SC 21. See further Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, 75, n. 252. 79 “The Languages” (n. 14 above), 516. 80 Thus Argyle, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955–1956), 93. 81 Ogg, “The Cultural Setting”, 79–80. 76

15. Conclusion: Aramaic in New Testament Studies

207

bilingualism was widespread in Jewish Palestine in the first century a.d., and that it is quite proper to ask whether Jesus and his immediate disciples could speak Greek.”

His own conclusion from the evidence is that in the first century c.e. familiarity with the Greek language may be taken as certain in Jerusalem, with its educated classes and its immigrants from the Diaspora, and also among Jews living in the Hellenistic cities of Palestine. Elsewhere, only a superficial acquaintance with spoken basic Greek may be assumed. Any knowledge of Greek that the people might have possessed was therefore incomplete. On the other hand, it is probable that a rough familiarity with it was fairly widespread and that the more educated used it without difficulty.82

15. Conclusion: Aramaic in New Testament Studies: Some Methodological Considerations That Jesus and his first followers spoke Aramaic is beyond doubt. It is also clear that Aramaic was a language in which the Gospel message was transmitted and developed during its early stages. If the question is put as to what form of Aramaic was used by Jesus and the early Church and how is one to reconstruct this, I believe certain basic principles must be borne in mind. One is that we should not concentrate solely on Palestinian Aramaic, especially as this is known to us from Palestinian sources from about the time of Jesus. It is a legitimate supposition that our extant texts reflect but a small part of the living and literary language. Any form of Palestinian Aramaic of Jesus’ day was part of a language that had a history of a thousand years or more. Any particular dialect can be presumed to have had the common Aramaic language content, together with its dialectal variants. Even if a term or form is not attested in first-century documents for “Palestinian” Aramaic, but is in “common” Aramaic, we can legitimately use it for New Testament studies. To illustrate by an example: In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called a ĞƬĔĞģė, and in Matt 13:55 the son of a ĞƬĔĞģė. The corresponding Aramaic (or Hebrew) term would be ĕÿč or ýĕÿč (naggar, naggara’). This word, however, is not found in biblical Aramaic or Hebrew, or in Aramaic documents of the New

82 Ibid., 75. With regard to the later period (third to fourth centuries) commenting on the researches of S. Krauss, M. Schwabe, S. Lieberman, B. Lifshitz et al. J. Fitzmyer writes: (“The Languages” [n. 14 above], 517): “The materials which these scholars have amassed make it abundantly clear that the Palestinian Jews of the third and fourth centuries a.d. were quite hellenized and used Greek widely.” Ogg (“The Cultural Setting”, 75, n. 252) has a different view and believes that indirect evidence of a lack of general bilingualism appears in mid-fourth century reports.

208

Chapter 9: The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine

Testament period. However, the term belongs to common Aramaic, where it seems to be a loan word from Akkadian.83 When we come to consider the Aramaic spoken by Jesus, we may presume that he used the Aramaic spoken in Galilee, with whatever differences this may have had from Judean or conventional literary Aramaic of the period. This could differ in vocabulary and in other ways from that known from the Qumran texts. One of his few recorded Aramaic words is ýėĆĉą (ĞċĕēĒƩĔęȘĖ, Mark 5:41), “girl, maiden, young girl”, a term not occurring in the Qumran texts, but found in one branch of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, in other Palestinian texts, and in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.84 In a consideration of the form of Aramaic to be expected in Christian Aramaic texts of the New Testament period (if any such existed), one cannot presume a priori that they would have been in the “standard” literary Aramaic of the period (if such really existed). I do not think we have reason to believe that the early Christians would have felt obliged to follow such Jewish conventions. Most probably the oral tradition would have been transmitted and developed according to the spoken idiom and this would have been respected when the tradition was being consigned to writing. It would have been a tradition formed by Christian believers and put to writing for the sake of Christian believers. Given these considerations, any reconstruction of any first-century form of Aramaic will, of course, have to bear in mind what forms of the language can be presumed to have existed in Palestine at that period. In this sense, targumic linguistic forms, terms, phrases or such like, demonstrably or presumably later developments, cannot be used for this purpose.

83

See S. A. Kaufman, Akkadian Influences in Aramaic, Chicago 1974, 75, with a note (223) that ngr is found in Ugaritic (in the KRT epic) as the title of a god and is generally translated “carpenter”. The context, however, is broken and the term could well be nagiru, “herald”. If it is “carpenter” there is no way to determine whether the word persisted in North West Semitic from that time on or was later re-borrowed. 84 See Sokoloff, Dictionary, 225.

Part Three

Targum and Biblical Exegesis

Chapter 10

Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums* The Targums are early Jewish translations of books of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. They are, by definition and in practice, interpretations at two levels: through translation of the Hebrew texts and through their efforts to bring out what was perceived to be the meaning of these texts for later generations.

1. The Targums We possess three Targums of the Pentateuch: Targum Onqelos, the Palestinian Targum, represented by Codex Neofiti 1 and the Fragmentary Targums, and the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan. Targum Onqelos contains all five books of the Pentateuch. It was composed before 135 c.e. and revised later. It is preserved in more than sixty manuscripts. For the most part it aims at translating the sense of the Hebrew Text both idiomatically and as closely as possible to literal meaning. On debated issues of halakah it favours the school of Rabbi Aqiba against that of Rabbi Ishmael.1 It also contains non-halakic midrash2 and in a number of instances agrees with the midrashic paraphrase of the Palestinian Targums (for example, Gen 49:10; Num 20:18–20; 24:17–19). Behind our present text of Targum Onqelos there seems to stand an old form of a Palestinian Targum represented also by Targum Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targums. Since Onqelos became the official Targum of Babylonian Judaism in the second century, and later of Western Judaism, its text is cited in rabbinic writings as an authoritative understanding of the Torah. The different forms of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch are all possibly based on a first-century c.e. prototype, even though the wording we have in the extant manuscripts comes from no earlier than the third * First published under the same title in A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, ed. by A. J. Hauser & D. F. Watson, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2003, 167–197. 1 See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988, 33. 2 See G. Vermes, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum”, JJS 8 (1963), 159–169. Reprint in Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (StJLA 8), Leiden 1975, 127–138.

212

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

century c.e. Codex Neofiti 1 was copied out in 1504 (or 1499) and contains many glosses and evidence of considerable reworking of the text prior to the writing of the present manuscript, although much of the text seems to be from the first century c.e. It includes the entire Pentateuch except for sixteen or so omitted verses. Apart from the beginning (Gen 1:1–3:4) and the ending (Deut 29:17[18]–34:12), which are probably from another Palestinian Targum manuscript, Neofiti represents a unitary translation. It is a literary work, not a pastiche of traditions or compilation of different pieces of translation. Words and phrases of the Hebrew Text tend to be translated in the same manner throughout the entire work. The Fragmentary Targums preserve portions of the Palestinian Targum in manuscripts in Paris (P; fifteenth century) the Vatican Library (V; thirteenth century), Nürnberg (N; thirteenth century), and Leipzig (L; thirteenth / fourteenth century). Fragmentary texts from the eighth to thirteenth centuries were also found in the Cairo synagogue genizah. Pseudo-Jonathan was composed in the seventh to ninth centuries and printed in 1591 from a manuscript now lost. It is also preserved in a British Library manuscript of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It is now generally recognised that Pseudo-Jonathan should not properly be classified as representing the Palestinian Targum. It uses sections of the Palestinian Targums and of Targum Onqelos, but also apocryphal and other writings. It is the work of a scholar and was not intended for synagogue use. The Targum of the Prophets (Tg. Neb., from Hebrew nebi’im) contains both the “Former Prophets” (Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings = Tg. Josh., and so forth) and the “Latter Prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets = Tg. Isa., and so forth) of the Hebrew Canon. It was originally composed before 135 c.e. (though whether before or after 70 c.e. is disputed), and revised later. It is now preserved in more than twenty manuscripts, The Targum of the Writings (Tg. Ket., from Hebrew ketubim) contains the third part of the Hebrew Canon except for Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, of which no Targum is known. The text of Targum of Psalms (Tg. Pss.) goes back to the seventh to ninth centuries and is preserved in fourteen manuscripts. The text of Targum of Job (Tg. Job) also goes back to the seventh to ninth centuries and is also preserved in fourteen manuscripts. The date of origin of Targum of Proverbs (Tg. Prov.) is uncertain (second to seventh centuries). It is preserved in at least eight manuscripts from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. The date of Targum of Ruth (Tg. Ruth) is also uncertain (third to seventh centuries); it is preserved in many manuscripts from Europe and Yemen. Targum of Canticles (Tg. Cant.) is preserved in two distinct forms, Yemenite and Western and is very similar in language to Targum of Lamentations (Tg. Lam.). It was composed possibly in the seventh cen-

2. Origin and Development of Targumic Tradition

213

tury and is preserved in over sixty manuscripts of varying provenances and dates. Targum of Qoheleth (Tg. Qoh.) was probably composed in Palestine in the seventh century and is preserved in over seven manuscripts. Targum of Lamentations is preserved in two recensions, Western and Yemenite, like Targum of Canticles probably of the same date (possibly seventh century). The two related Targums of Esther (Tg. Esth.), distinguished as 1 Targum Esther and 2 Targum Esther (= Targum Sheni), are of uncertain date (fifth to tenth centuries) and are preserved in many manuscripts of the twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Targum of Chronicles (Tg. Chron.), probably originally composed in the fourth century but receiving its final redaction in the seventh or eighth century, is preserved in three German manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

2. Origin and Development of Targumic Tradition Rabbinic tradition (y. Megillah 74d; b. Megillah 3a) traces the origin of the Targum institution back to the solemn reading of the Law of Moses by Ezra in the seventh year of the Persian king Artaxerxes (458 or 398 b.c.e.), as recounted in Neh 8:1–3, 8, interpreting Neh 8:8 thus: “And they read in the book, in the law of God, this indicates the Hebrew Text; Ėĕđċ (meporaš; “clearly”?), this indicates Targum.” It is very doubtful, however, that there is mention of translation into Aramaic in this text. For one thing, Hebrew was still probably the language of the Jewish people in Judah and Jerusalem, making an Aramaic translation or interpretation unnecessary. However, by the turn of the era, and well before 70 c.e., Aramaic was the vernacular of Jewish communities throughout the Middle and Near East, in Palestine (Judah and Galilee), Syria (Damascus, Antioch on the Orontes), Northern Mesopotamia (Haran and surrounding district), Middle Mesopotamia (Babylon) and elsewhere. It also seems clear that the work of Ezra in having the Scriptures, and in particular the Pentateuch, read, explained and understood, was a central part of Jewish life in these areas. With the aim of bringing out the meaning, or rather multiple meanings, of the text, the Scriptures were the object of philological examination and of religious and devotional reflection. As we shall see below, an examination of the extant Targums seems to indicate this. Midrash grew out of reflection on the text, on the Pentateuch or the Scriptures regarded as a unit, the book in which God spoke to Israel and through which Israel conversed with God and came to know her God. The reflection was probably in a bilingual setting, where the vernacular was Aramaic and the teachers were bilingual. The results of this study of the Scriptures would be conveyed to the people in Aramaic.

214

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

The evidence does not present clear indications as to when Aramaic translations were first introduced into the use and explanation of the Scriptures in the synagogues. The first Aramaic translations may have been for private or scholastic, rather than liturgical use. This may have been the case with the Targum of Job from Qumran (4QtgJob [4Q157] and 11QtgJob [11Q10]), possibly from the second century b.c.e., and also with the fragments of a Targum of Leviticus (4QtgLev [4Q156]), from the first century b.c.e. Rabbinic literature (t. Shabbat 13:2–3; cf. y. Shabbat 15c; b. Shabbat 115a) records a story about Rabban Gamaliel (ca. 25–50 c.e.) immuring a copy of Targum of Job, and about a copy of a Targum of Job being used by his grandson Gamaliel II (ca. 90–110 c.e.).3 It is reasonable to assume that an Aramaic Targum of the Pentateuch, and probably also of the Prophets, came into existence at a relatively early date, possibly in the closing century of the Second Temple. Some scholars would hold that a Palestinian Targum, on which both Onqelos and our present Palestinian Targums depend, was composed in the first century of our era,4 and a Targum of the Prophets (from which our present text descends) about the same time.5 In that age an Aramaic Targum could have served the needs of all parts of Aramaic-speaking Jewry. Even if we grant that Targums such as these were basically literal in character (without inclusion of expansive midrash), it still seems likely that portions of the “translation” was highly influenced by a midrashic understanding of the text, for instance in Num 21:16–20. Even if we restrict the presence of midrashic development in these “original” Targums, we should not forget that the interpretative tradition in which they originated continued to exist and expand alongside the Aramaic translation, and might indeed invade the Targum at any later stage of its transmission, whether with regard to haggadah or to halakic interpretation. The existence of such an early Targum or Targums would be in keeping with early rabbinic tradition. They are legislated for in the Mishnah, m. Yadaim 4:5; m. Megillah 4:10. Certain Aramaic translations of Pentateuch passages were cited, sometimes for censure, in the second, third and fourth 3 See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 64–65; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Grand Rapids 2010, 95. 4 See S. A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 118–141, at 130; E. Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon”, in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Ch. Rabin & Y. Yadin (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), Jerusalem 1958 (repr. 1965), 1–35, at 10. 5 See A. Tal (Rosenthal), The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (in Hebrew), Tel Aviv 1975; English summary, p. x.

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

215

centuries. Rabbis from ca. 250–300 recommended reading at home the Aramaic translation of the section of Scripture currently being read in the synagogue6 (b. Berakoth 8ab).7 This evidence would seem to indicate the existence of written Targum texts in Palestine about 250–300 c.e. Such early Targum texts could undergo change from a rich variety of sources. One (as in the case of the Greek translation of the Tanak) would be revision to have them conform with the normative Masoretic Text. Another would be revision to have the translation conform to a given halakic tradition (as may have happened with Onqelos to have it conform to the prevailing halakic interpretation of the school of Rabbi Aqiba). Midrashic expansions of the biblical text, arising from the text and still current in the community, could be inserted into the Targum text itself. The form of the language into which the Targum was originally rendered could easily be changed without affecting the underlying translation itself. At some given time these various forms of the text attained a certain fixed status, and came to be transmitted as such within the original place of composition or formulation (Palestine, Babylon), and were later transmitted to Jewish communities in other quarters (Yemen; Egypt; Europe). Other and later translations of biblical books could also be made, some not quite in the literary genre of the earlier Targums (for instance Targum of Canticles, Pseudo-Jonathan). While all this possible development over the centuries has to be borne in mind, we should not look on the Targum corpus we possess as some haphazard assembly of diverse elements, put together over the centuries. For the greater part, we find in them a common approach to the Scriptures, common terms, phrases and theological concepts and may legitimately presume that many of these were there from an early age, possibly even from the very origins of the proto-rabbinic or rabbinic Targum tradition. Close examination of these features, in fact, help us to understand the targumic interpretation of the Tanak. We now turn to a study of some of these features.

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings 3.1 Translations of the Hebrew Text With few exceptions (such as Targum of Canticles, Targum of Qoheleth) the primary aim of the Targums known to us seems to have been (in the 6 See McNamara, Targum and Testament, 82–85; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 124–128; idem, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1966 (repr., with additions, 1978), 45–60. 7 See McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 125–128.

216

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

words of Neh 8:8): “(To) give the sense so that the people understood the reading”. This is true in a particular way of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, of Onqelos and of the Targum of the Prophets. The more or less uniform translation technique in Targum Neofiti seems to indicate that the rendering was well planned, and in no way haphazard. The import of certain words of the Hebrew Text must at times have appeared unclear or uncertain to the Aramaic translator, or as having more than one meaning. In some such cases the Targums translate the Hebrew by two or more terms. Thus ĐĂó, occurring twice in Gen 3:15 (rsv: “bruise”), is rendered as “he shall aim at and smite”, “aim at and bite”. Likewise þĔď, ‘qb of the same verse is translated both as “(in the) heel” and “(in the) future” (“in the days of King Messiah”). Sometimes the targumist uses two words (“targumic doublets”) to bring out the sense of a single word of the Hebrew Text, for example ýôč (ėýô, rsv, “it will be accepted”) is rendered as ĔþóĂĆĕó, “loose and forgive” (a pair of words, we may note, occurring rather regularly in the Palestinian Targum). For examples see Neof. Gen 4:13; 18:26; 50:17; Exod 23:21; 32:32; Num 14:18. 3.2 Stylized Translation In the Targums we find certain fixed translation terms and formulas, sometimes differing from one Targum to another. Thus, ďĕă (“seed”) of the Hebrew Text, when human progeny is intended, is rendered by “sons” (Targum Neofiti), or “descendants of sons” (Targum Neofiti margins and other texts). When respect for persons, rather than adoration of the God of Israel, is intended, the Hebrew ėĂĄėóā is rendered as “inquire about the welfare (of)”, to which “according to the custom of the land” is added if the Hebrew adds āēĕý (“to the ground”). “A land flowing with milk and honey” becomes “a land bearing good fruits, pure as milk and sweet as honey”.8 There is a tendency in the Targums to turn a metaphorical turn of phrase into something more readily understood, and also to use certain stock phrases and a more limited vocabulary than that found in the Hebrew, with the result that often the particularity, and with it the vitality, of the original text is lost in the process.9

8 See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1992, 31, 103; idem, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus, Collegeville 1994, 3–6. 9 With regard to this tendency in the Targum of the Prophets see K. J. Cathcart & R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Wilmington 1989, 2; J. S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1994, 22.

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

217

3.3 Contemporising of Names In the Targums many names of the biblical text tend to be identified with what were probably regarded by the targumists as their contemporary equivalents. Together with this in the Targums we find other later place names without correspondence in the biblical text. Sometimes such identifications can help us regarding the presumed location of biblical events. Bashan becomes Batanea (in the Palestinian Targum; Matnan in Onqelos and Targum of the Prophets); Dan becomes Caesarea (Philippi); Hamath becomes Antioch (on the Orontes); Erech becomes Edessa; Kalneh Ctesiphon; Lesha (of Gen 10:19) Callirrhoe; Kadesh becomes Reqem (that is Petra); Kadesh-barnea becomes the nearby Reqem de-Gaya; Shur near the Egyptian border (and Bered) becomes alu a in the Palestinian Targum, and agra in Onqelos and in Targum of the Prophets. All the identifications in the Palestinian Targum and Targum of the Prophets are attested from the first centuries of our era. Pseudo-Jonathan (Num 24:24) mentions Constantinople and names Adisha and Fatima (Gen 21:21), the wife and daughter of Mohammed. It is recognised that, at least in its present form, Pseudo-Jonathan is a late composition.10 3.4 Contemporising in Halakah Jewish halakah regulated the main thrust and the details of Jewish life, as it was believed this should be lived in keeping with the biblical tradition and current Jewish understanding of itself. The main basis for Jewish halakah was the Law of Moses as set out in the Pentateuch, although the Prophets and other biblical books had also to be reckoned with. The Aramaic translations, intended to interpret the biblical message for the common people, had of necessity to take account of the contemporary understanding of the halakah. At the end of their discussion of the halakah in Targum Jonathan of the Prophets Smolar and Aberbach write:11 “Summing up, it may be confidently stated that the evidence leaves no doubt that the laws and customs depicted in TJ [Targum Jonathan of the Prophets] are not necessarily what they were in biblical times, but a retrojection of halachic practice in the 10 For the place names in the Palestinian Targum see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 190–205; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 284–309; M. McNamara & E. G. Clarke, in Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1995, 8–21; for place names in the Targum of the Prophets, see L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets [and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by P. Churgin], New York & Baltimore 1983, 63–128 (“Historical and geographical allusions”); for place names in Targum of Chronicles, see J. S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles, 19–20. 11 Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 61.

218

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

Talmudic age. It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the central purpose of the Aramaic translation of Biblical texts was not to provide an accurate rendering for the benefit of scholars, but to instruct the masses with an up-to-date version of the Scriptures, one which perforce had to agree with current laws and customs. Inevitably, accuracy and historical truth had to be sacrificed on the altar of halachic orthodoxy.”

The principal Targum with regard to halakic interpretation was and is Onqelos. However, with regard to Onqelos or the Palestinian Targums it should be borne in mind that the entire Aramaic translation need not conform verbally with the official halakah. Together with the Bible and its translation, Judaism had its legal institutions. Implementation of some texts depended on the courts or judges, even though many of the biblical prescriptions were intended directly for the entire community. Exod 21:29 stipulates that in the case of an ox that has already gored twice, killing someone, the ox was to be stoned and its owner also put to death. Contrary to the wording of the text, according to Jewish halakah the owner was not to be executed but was rather to make monetary compensation. Despite this, Onqelos renders literally (as does the Palestinian Targum), not according to the halakah. The same seems true with regard to “an eye for an eye”, and so forth, of Exod 21:24, which Onqelos again (as apparently also the Palestinian Targum) renders literally, although the halakah stipulates monetary compensation.12 Matters are different with regard to some other halakoth. Thus Exod 12:46 stipulates that the Paschal lamb be “eaten in one house”, which Onqelos, in accordance with the halakah, renders: “it should be consumed by one group”. The Palestinian Targum (Neofiti), likewise, replaces “house” by “groups”. Exod 23:19; 34:26 and Deut 12:21 commands: “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” In keeping with the official halakah Onqelos translates: “Do not consume meat with milk”, as does the Palestinian Targum. Other examples in which the Targum interprets in accordance with the halakah are: Lev 23:11, 15 where “the day (the morrow) after the Sabbath” is rendered “after the first day of the Passover” (Neofiti; Onqelos: “after the Festival”), in keeping with the well-known Pharisaic interpretation of this verse, against the Sadducees.13 In Lev 23:29 in the Palestinian Targum (not in Onqelos, however, nor in a marginal gloss to Neofiti), “who is able to fast” is added to the biblical text to make allowance for the sick and the infirm who are unable to fast on the Day of Atonement. In the Palestinian Targum (not however in Onqelos) Exod 22:17, in keeping with rabbinic 12 On both texts see B. Grossfeld, “Targum Onqelos, Halakha and the Halakhic Midrashim”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 228–246, at 229. 13 See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988, 51.

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

219

halakic texts, the death penalty prescribed for the “sorceress” in the biblical text is expanded to include the male sorcerer as well. While noting such agreements of the Targums with halakah one should note that there was a certain diversity in Jewish tradition with regard to particular halakah, and inclusion of halakic material in the Aramaic translation probably varied from age to age.14 3.5 Converse Translations Sometimes the Aramaic translation says the opposite of what is in the biblical text. There can be a variety of reasons, whether theological or midrashic, for this process, for instance belief that the biblical text took from the honour of God or the honour due to Israel. In Gen 4:14 Cain says to God: “From your face I will be hidden.” All the Targums (Onqelos and Palestinian Targum) render as: “It is impossible to hide from before you.” In Deut 2:6 God tells Israel to purchase food and water from the sons of Esau. Not so in the Palestinian Targum which renders (Neofiti): “You have no need to buy food from them for money because manna descends for you from heaven; and you have no need to buy water from them for money, because the well of water comes up with you.” We have a related phenomenon where a text is slightly altered to avoid the plain meaning, as when Num 12:1 (which says Moses married a Cushite) is made to say Moses’ wife was “like a Cushite in complexion” (Palestinian Targum), or simply renders “Cushite” as “beautiful” (Onqelos). We have a straightforward case of converse translation in Tg. Mal 2:16a, where the Hebrew Text “For I hate [or: ‘he hates’] divorce, says the Lord” is rendered as “But if you hate her, divorce her, says the Lord”. This converse translation may have been influenced by Rabbi Aqiba’s interpretation and his liberal views on divorce.15 We may note that Jerome’s Vulgate rendering is in the tradition of the Targum: cum odio habueris, dimitte, “when you hate her, put her away”. 3.6 Euphemistic Translations and Respect for the Elders of Israel The rabbis and the targumists were profoundly committed to appropriate language and the avoiding of gross expressions. This principle was possibly responsible for having the phrase “a maiden [or: ‘wench’] or two for every man” (as war spoil) of the biblical text translated in Tg. Judg 5:30 as “a man and his house to everyone”, without any philological basis for the 14

See Grossfeld, “Targum Onqelos, Halakha”, 238–239. See discussion in Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 3, and the note to the verse in Cathcart & Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 235. 15

220

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

rendering. The phrase “one pissing against a wall” of 1 Sam 25:22, 34; 1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21 and elsewhere is rendered as “one knowing knowledge” – itself a euphemism for “a male”, a rendering (“male”) we may note adopted by most modern English translations.16 The vivid sexual metaphors occurring in Ezekiel 16 and 23 presented special problems for synagogue audiences. We shall return to the matter below. Related to the above is the delicacy required in treating of the respect due to Israel’s elders, and the rendering (or non-rendering) of phrases or passages in the Bible detrimental to this respect. Such phrases and passages tended to be toned down or changed in translation. This “whitewashing” is present already in the Septuagint translation and possibly already in the Elohist’s presentation of Abraham’s untruths (compare Gen 20:12–13 with Gen 12:19). Gen 29:17 says Leah’s eyes were weak, a description rendered literally in some early Palestinian Targum texts, it would appear, which rendering was objected to by rabbis ca. 250 c.e.17 Onqelos renders the phrase as “beautiful”; Neofiti as “raised in prayer”. Gen 29:31, 33 says that Leah was “hated” by Jacob. While Neofiti and Onqelos render literally, a Cairo Genizah text (ms. E) and a marginal gloss to Neofiti tone it down as “she was not loved in the face of her husband”. 3.7 Forbidden Targums18 The end of the Mishnah treatise Megillah (m. Megillah 4:10) lists certain texts which were to be read out in Hebrew but not rendered into Aramaic. This was because the texts in question (with the exception of the blessing of the priests) were detrimental to the honour of Israel. The texts are: the story of Reuben lying with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22); the second story of the golden calf (Exodus 32; exact verses unspecified); the blessing of the priests (Num 6:24–26); the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2–17); the story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13). Since some of those are actually translated in our Targum manuscripts, there was evidently a certain fluidity in the application of the principle “to be read but not translated”. 3.8 Converse Translation in Tg. Ezekiel 16 Ezekiel 16 and 23 presented a special problem for the Aramaic translator because of their explicit sexual language. There was an added difficulty in 16 Further instances in Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 50–54. 17 See also pp. 168–169 above. 18 See also pp. 164–167 above.

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

221

chapter 16 by reason of its ruthless condemnation of the people of Jerusalem and Judah: “Your origin and your birth are in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (16:3). One early rabbi (R. Eliezer) held that this was sufficient reason for omitting the entire chapter from synagogue readings. His opinion was not universally accepted. The Targum allegorizes the sexual references, for example “your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare” (16:7b) becomes in the Targum: “and because of the good deeds of your forefathers, the time had come for the redemption of your congregation, because you were enslaved and oppressed”. The Targum does not translate the biblical text, but instead transforms the entire chapter. In S. Levey’s words:19 “The Targumic exegesis … is … designed to counteract the prophetic denunciation of Israel as a worthless piece of brush by its very nature (Ezek. 15:5), and Jerusalem as an offshoot of the Amorites and Hittites in v. 3. Instead, it [i.e. Targum] harks back to the biblical story of Abraham, and the promise of redemption from Egyptian slavery, the invocation of the Merit of the Fathers to drive out the Amorites and the Hittites to make way for Israel.”

Throughout this chapter (Ezekiel 16) a word or two from the Hebrew Text is used as a springboard for the midrashic interpretation. This is an instance in which, contrary to Neh 8:8, the targumist saw to it that the people did not get the message of the Hebrew Text. 3.9 Derogatory Translations The Targums in general avail of translation to speak in a derogatory fashion of the gods and worships of pagan nations. The term “gods” (ĊĆāĉý) when referring to pagan gods is rendered as “idols” (lit.: “errors”). Pagan priests and pagan altars were designated by terms different from those employed for Jewish ones. Any incautious statement on this matter in the biblical books is carefully recast. Thus, as one among many, Mic 4:5: “all the peoples walk each in the name of its god” becomes in the Targum: “all the peoples shall be guilty because they worshipped idols”.20 3.10 Avoidance of Anthropomorphisms; God not Direct Subject or Object The Bible, particularly in the earlier writings, has certain anthropomorphic ways of speaking of God (hands, eyes, face of God, and so forth; divine anger, and so forth). Later biblical writings tend towards greater abstraction. This tendency becomes much more general in the Targum, especially 19 20

S. H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1987, 51. See further Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 150–156.

222

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

in the stronger cases of anthropomorphisms, and such phrases as “hands of God”, “face of God” are rephrased in different ways, for example “Is the Lord’s hand shortened?” of Num 11:23 becomes in Neofiti: “Is there deficiency before the Lord?”; in Onqelos: “Can the Memra of the Lord be restrained?”. The rephrasing of anthropomorphic statements has, however, not been consistent. Some have been allowed to remain. “If I have found favour in your sight” of Gen 18:3 is given in Neofiti (and Onqelos) as “If I have found favour in your face”. “The sanctuary which your hands have established” of Exod 15:17 is translated almost intact in Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum (“… your sanctuary, O Lord, your two hands have perfected it”). In keeping with this anti-anthropomorphic tendency, the Targums tend to avoid having God as the direct subject or object of an action. Rather than God doing things, these are done before the Lord, or God’s Memra, his Glory (ýĕĔĆ, ĕĔĆ), his Presence or Shekinah does them. “The Lord regretted that he had made man” of Gen 6:6 in the Palestinian Targum becomes, “There was regret before the Lord (that he created Adam)”; more clumsily in Onqelos: “The Lord regretted through his Memra.” The Targums tend to replace such phrases as “the Lord was angry” by “there was anger before the Lord”, for example Tg. Jer 7:19a (Hebrew Text: “Is it I whom they provoke to anger?” becomes: “Do they imagine that it is before me that they are provoking anger?”); “The Lord saw” tends to become “it was revealed [or: ‘manifest’] before the Lord” (Pal. Tg. Gen 1:4, and so forth). God, or the Lord, as direct object of such verbs as “seeking, finding, clinging to” presented special difficulty for targumists. Onqelos renders as “seeking, finding, clinging to, the fear [or: ‘reverence’, ýėĉĄĀ] of God”, the point apparently being that the believer does not seek and find God, but only evidences and manifestations of his presence.21 The Targum of the Prophets is in the same tradition as Onqelos.22 Targum Neofiti has the same concern with regard to these verbs, and also the verbs “fearing, forgetting, returning to”, with the difference that its object is “the instruction of the law of the Lord”. Neofiti includes the verb “love” in this category. Thus, “love the Lord your God” in Neofiti becomes “love the instruction of the law of the Lord your God” (Neof. Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, and so forth), where Onqelos retains “God” as the direct object. The biblical text often speaks of God or the Lord “being with” a person, or contains a prayer that God may “be with” him or her. This expression, too, is perceived in the Targums as too anthropomorphic, and is rephrased 21 See further B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6), Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988, 32 (with biblical references). 22 See Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 139–141 (with texts).

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

223

as God “being at the aid / help” of the person in question. Thus, to give one example of several: “God was with the boy” of Gen 21:21 becomes in Onqelos: “the Memra of the Lord was at the aid / assistance of the boy” (Ishmael). In Neofiti, however, this is not universal. There the text in question is rendered literally: “the Lord was with the boy”, and so also in a number of other instances. The paraphrase “at the assistance of” may have been a later, internal, targumic development, absent from the earlier stages of the tradition. The word “before” is very common in the Targums in such contexts. Thus in Ps 51:6, Hebrew Text “To you (ćĉ) alone have I sinned, and what is evil in your sight I have done” becomes in the Targum: “Before you alone have I sinned and what is evil before you have I done.” It must be noted, however, that such use of “before” is not restricted to the Targums. It occurs also in secular and in other religious Aramaic texts as a polite form of expression. 3.11 Divine Immanence and Transcendence, Memra of the Lord, Glory, Shekinah “Memra (of the Lord)” is one of the most characteristic terms of the Targums, one not attested in other Jewish sources. The term itself (from the root ĕċý, ’mr, “to say”) generally means “word”. On occasion, but rarely, it means “command”. Sometimes in the Targums it can be used of or by persons other than the God of Israel, in which cases it probably means “self”, as for instance Tg. 2 Chr 16:3, where Asa speaks to Benhadad: “There is a covenant between my Memra and your Memra” (= between me and you), and Tg. 2 Chr 32:1: “the Lord decided in his Memra to …” followed by “Sennacherib … said in his Memra to …”. Generally in the Targums, however, the term seems to be used to avoid making God the direct subject or object of an action, and may have no greater theological significance than this. To give some examples: “And the Memra of the Lord said: ‘Let there be light.’ … And the Memra of the Lord separated the light from the darkness … And the Memra of the Lord called the light daytime …” (Neof. Gen 1:3–5). The problem of maintaining a balance in the expression of divine immanence and transcendence was early felt in the Bible. We have it in the “Name” theology of the deuteronomic writings. God is in heaven, but present on earth through his name. No one can see God and live (Exod 33:20). Thus, the rabbis early noted that Exod 24:10, “they saw the God of Israel”, cannot be translated literally. It must be rendered “they saw the glory of the God of Israel”. The glory (kabod) (of the Lord) is a good biblical expression, and the equivalent Aramaic term ĕĔĆ or ĕĔĆý (yeqar or ’yqar) is very

224

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

frequent in the Targums, where the frequency of its use probably represents a religious attitude which used such language in speaking of God. Shekinah, meaning Divine Presence (from the root ČĈó, šakan, “to dwell”) is very frequent in all the traditional Targums, in the sense of God’s presence with his people, and especially the manifestation of that presence in particular circumstances. A peculiarity of Targum Neofiti is that it speaks of “the glory of the Shekinah” rather than of the Shekinah alone. In this Targum it is used in particular in association with certain verbs, such as “to dwell”, “was revealed”, “lead”, “go up”, “rebel against”, “tempt”, “meet”, “see”, “will accompany”, “be in the midst of”. Another term found in the Targums, even if rarely, in these contexts is dibbera, in the sense of divine discourse, or revelation. As a designation for God its use in the Targums is unstable in its attestation, and at times is found in one text where a parallel Targum passage sometimes has “Memra”. (See Neof. Exod 33:22–23.) While each of those terms probably had originally a particular theology and range of usages attached to them, in some texts one wonders whether through the passage of time some of them came simply to be regarded as sort of synonyms, and as kind of buffer words to protect the divine transcendence. This is true in particular of “Memra” and “Glory (of the Lord)” in Neofiti, as in Gen 1:26–28: “And the Lord said: ‘Let us create man …’; and the Memra of the Lord created the man … and the Glory of the Lord blessed them, and the Memra of the Lord said to them …”. The combination of these terms in some paraphrases at times appears cumbersome. Thus for instance in Neof. Exod 33:22–23: “And it shall come to pass that when the Glory of my Shekinah passes by, I shall place you in a cleft of the rock. And I shall spread my palm over you until the troops of angels, which you will see, pass by. And I will make the troops of angels pass by and they will stand and minister before me, and you will see the Dibbera of the Glory of Shekinah, but it is not possible that you see the face of the Glory of my Shekinah.” (Biblical text Exod 33:22b–23: “I will cover you with my hand until I pass by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”) 3.12 The Holy Spirit and the Father in Heaven Occasionally the Bible speaks of certain persons being endowed with the spirit of God, the sense being that they had received special gifts. In Neofiti, in general, “spirit” of these texts is paraphrased as “a holy spirit [lit.: ‘a spirit of holiness’] from before the Lord”. For instance in Gen 41:38, Pharaoh seeks “a man … in whom is the spirit of God”, and in Neofiti this becomes: “… upon whom there dwells a holy spirit from before the Lord”. The us-

3. Some Characteristics of Targumic Renderings

225

age is extended to include texts without explicit mention of the spirit in the Bible. Outside of Neofiti the usual expression is “the spirit of prophecy”. “Father in Heaven” as a designation for God occurs in the Palestinian Targums, but rarely, and what attestation there is is unevenly distributed. In all we find thirteen occurrences, and only in one single instance do all the Palestinian Targum texts have it, that being Exod 1:19, in the words of the Hebrew midwives to Pharaoh (targumic paraphrase in italics): “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous. Before the midwife comes to them, they pray before their Father in heaven, and he answers them and they give birth.” In the Targums the designation is found in three contexts: prayer before the Father in heaven; reward before the Father in heaven; merciful as the Father in heaven.23 The designation itself would seem to be a very early one, even though it has not strongly affected the targumic translation. 3.13 The Law, Good Deeds, and Reward in Heaven Reference to the Torah (the Law of Moses given by God to Israel) is ubiquitous in the Targums, and somewhat less frequently there is reference to good deeds, to action in keeping with the Law. The Palestinian Targums, and Neofiti in particular, are replete with references to the “instruction of the Law”, so much so that on occasion the expression seems to function somewhat as “Memra of the Lord”, as a sort of buffer word for God, as in such stock phrases as “love (seek, return to, adhere to) the instruction of the Law of the Lord”. The Targums also have a theology of the Law, based on the identification of the Law with wisdom (Prov 8:22–31), which was created before the world, and is with God daily (Hebrew ĊĂĆĊĂĆ, lit.: “day day” = two days; midrashically = 2000 years; see Ps 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8). For example, Pal. Tg. Gen 3:24 (expansion noted by italics): “And he banished Adam; and he had made the Glory of his Shekinah dwell from the beginning to the east of the Garden of Eden, between the two cherubim. Two thousand years before he created the world he had created the Law; he had prepared the Garden of Eden for the just and Gehenna for the wicked. He had prepared the Garden of Eden for the just that they might eat and delight themselves from the fruits of the tree because they had kept the precepts of the Law in this world and fulfilled the commandments. For the wicked he prepared Gehenna, which is comparable to a sharp sword devouring with both edges. He prepared within it darts of fire and burning coals for the wicked to be avenged of them in the world to come because they did not observe the precepts of the Law in this world. For the Law is a tree of life for everyone 23 Texts in M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1992, 35–36; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 177–186; below, pp. 480–517.

226

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

who toils in it and keeps the commandments: he lives and endures like the tree of life in the world to come. The Law is good for all who labour in it in this world like the fruit of the tree of life.”

The Palestinian Targum has also some touching excursuses on reward in heaven, as in the expansive introduction to Gen 15:1 in the Palestinian Targum: “After these things, after all the kingdoms of the earth had gathered together and had drawn up battle-lines against Abram and had fallen before him, and he had killed four kings from among them and had brought back nine encampments, Abram thought in his heart and said: ‘Woe, now, is me! Perhaps I have received the reward of the precepts in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come. Or perhaps the brothers or relatives of those killed, who fell before me, will go and will be in their fortresses and in their cities and many legions will become allied with them and they will come against me and kill me. Or perhaps there were a few meritorious deeds in my hand the first time they fell before me and they stood in my favour, or perhaps no meritorious deed will be found in my hand the second time and the name of the heavens will be profaned in me.’ For this reason there was a word of prophecy from before the Lord upon Abram the just saying: ‘Do not fear, Abram, for although many legions are allied and come against you to kill (you), my Memra will be a shield for you; and it will be a protection for you in this world and although I delivered up your enemies before you in this world, the reward of your good works is prepared for you before me in the world to come.’”

3.14 Eschatology, Resurrection of the Dead, the World to Come, the Messiah In paraphrases and occasional excursuses the Targums evidence an overall view of the next life and of the place of this life as a preparation for it.24 This eschatology would appear to have originated in an apocalyptic matrix, and to represent central Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism, though its origins were probably multiple. Jews would naturally have attempted to associate their beliefs with, if not base them on, biblical texts, particularly on the Pentateuch. In 4 Maccabees, a work originating in a Stoic Hellenistic context, with belief in immortality rather than in resurrection of the body, the mother exhorts her children to face death, reminding them of the Scripture texts by which their father used to confirm their faith (4 Macc 18:6–19). It is interesting that three of these (Prov 3:18; Ezek 37:2–3; Deut 32:39 with 30:20) were understood in Rabbinic Judaism as implying the doctrine of bodily resurrection. The Pharisaic tradition was particularly interested on 24 On these themes in the Palestinian Targum and related texts see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 133–141; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 200–220; for the Targum of the Prophets, Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 179–187.

4. Lectio Divina and the Origin of Targumic Traditions

227

founding belief in the resurrection on texts of the Pentateuch. We have such belief expressed in two texts of the Palestinian Targum, Gen 3:19 and Deut 32:39. To God’s words to Adam (Gen 3:19): “You are dust and to dust you shall return”, the Palestinian Targum adds: “But from the dust you are to arise again to give an account and a reckoning of all that you have done.” In Deut 32:39 God says: “See now …; I kill and make live.” In the Palestinian Targum (not in Onqelos) this becomes: “I am he who causes the living to die in this world, and who brings the dead to life in the world to come.” In similar manner, as the texts present themselves, the targumist slips into the translation mention of “this world, the world to come”, “the day of great judgement”, the sufferings in Gehenna and the rewards in Paradise. Sometimes we get a lengthy paraphrase, giving an insight into the larger picture of the beliefs which the targumists carried within them. An example of this is seen in Pal. Tg. Gen 3:24, cited above. There are relatively few references in the Targums to the Messiah (or King Messiah as he is called in the Palestinian Targums). In Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums, Gen 49:10–12 is interpreted messianically, as is Num 24:7, 17. There is mention of King Messiah in a prophecy ascribed to Eldad and Medad in Pal. Tg. Num 11:26, and in a beautiful composition on the “Four Nights” in Pal. Tg. Exod 12:42, which we shall consider below. It is interesting to see a messianic reference included in the midrashic interpretation of the Protevangelium (Gen 3:15) preserved in the Palestinian Targums. The text reads: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your sons and her sons. And it will come about that when her sons observe the Law and do the commandments they will aim at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah.”

4. Lectio Divina and the Origin of Targumic Traditions By lectio divina I here mean the devotional, reflective, reading of the Scriptures, taken to be the record of God’s dealings with his people Israel through the centuries. Such reflection can be seen as enjoined on Israel by the context of the Shema itself. Israel was to love the Lord her God; his words should be upon the hearts of the Israelites; they were to teach them diligently to their children, talk about them when they sit down or walk about, when they lie down or get up (Deut 6:4–7). The ideal Israelite is described in Ps 1:2 as one who delights in the Law of the Lord and meditates on that Law

228

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

day and night. An examination of the evidence would seem to indicate that one of the factors operative in the formation of the Targum tradition was precisely this attitude toward the Scriptures, toward God’s law and revelation. Furthermore, some of the midrashic compositions of this sort in our Targums are demonstrably very early. We shall consider some of these targumic interpretations here. 4.1 Prayer One of the prominent features in the Targums is prayer.25 Rabbinic tradition lists thirteen words in the Hebrew Bible which were regarded as synonyms for prayer. The Targums in general agree here with the Rabbinic tradition, rendering these words and some others as if referring to prayer. Some of the words in question are: bless, inquire, seek, cry out, entreat, make supplication, groaning, draw near, prostrate oneself, raise (one’s hands), serve, worship, pass by, stand, answer, entreat, intercede, pray, stretch forth one’s hand, cry (Ĕďē), call upon (ýĕĔ), cry out in entreaty (Ččĕ), meditate (ĄĂô, ĄĆô), bow down and hear. It is, then, not surprising to find in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, and in the other Targums as well, frequent mention of prayer. As an example we may give Gen 12:8, where according to the Hebrew Text Abraham called on the name of the Lord. This becomes in Targum Neofiti: “he worshipped and prayed in the name of the Memra of the Lord.” The “still small voice” that Elijah heard in Horeb (1 Kgs 19:12b) becomes in the Targum of the Prophets: “the voice of them that praise [God] softly [or: ‘silently’; ‘in a whisper’].” 4.2 The Four Gifts We have in the Targums what appears to be a very informative midrash on the gifts that God gave to Israel in the wilderness wanderings – the manna, the well, and the pillar of cloud. In the midrash these three (or four, if the quails are included) gifts are brought together, to act as a reminder of God’s loving providence towards his people. The section of the midrash on the well that followed Israel itself originated in various references to water and a rock in the biblical account (Marah, Exod 15:23; Meribah, Num 20:1–11). The midrash is summarized most suc-

25 For the Targums in general see M. Maher, “The Meturgemanim and Prayer”, JJS 41 (1990), 226–246; idem, “The Meturgemanim and Prayer (2)”, JJS 44 (1993), 220–235; for the Targum of the Prophets see Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 164–169.

4. Lectio Divina and the Origin of Targumic Traditions

229

cinctly in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (20:8), a work originating most probably in the first century of our era. The text runs:26 “And after Moses died, the manna stopped descending upon the sons of Israel [see Josh 5:12], and then they began to eat from the fruits of the land. And these are the three things that God gave to his people on account of the three persons: that is, the well of water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. And when these came to their end, these three things were taken away from them.”

The four gifts, including Miriam’s well, are mentioned elsewhere in the same Biblical Antiquities (10:7): “Now he led his people into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail to them from the sea and brought forth a well of water to follow them. Now with a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a pillar of fire he gave them light by night.”

We have a further and informative mention of the well in the Biblical Antiquities (11:15),27 in a section dealing with the giving of the Law: “And there he commanded him [that is Moses] many things and showed him the tree of life, from which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet. And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up into the mountain with them and went down with them into the plains.”

This first-century c.e. text is almost Targum-like in its composition, passing from biblical narrative into midrash and back again to biblical text. We have a similar treatment of the biblical text in the Palestinian Targum, immediately after the account of the death of Aaron (Num 20:28–21:1) and before a major text on the well that followed Israel (Neof. Num 20:28–21:1; expansion noted by italics): “And [Moses] stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain, and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain. And all the people of the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and the whole house of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days. And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the south heard that Aaron, the pious man for whose merits the clouds of the glory used to lead Israel forth, had been removed; and that Miriam the prophetess, for whose merits the well used to come up for them had been removed; that Israel had reached the route through which the spies had come up. And they waged war on Israel and took captives from among them.”

The well is spoken of in Num 21:16–20. As currently understood this biblical text mentions the place name Beer (in Hebrew meaning “well”), and then 26 The translations of the Biblical Antiquities as in D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP 2, 297–377, at 329. 27 Ibid., 319.

230

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

a well said to be connected with Moses, and goes on to give further place names in Israel’s itinerary. The Targums of this passage are interesting in that, instead of translation, midrash has taken over completely and given us an extended account of the well. The place names are interpreted as common names. The paraphrase is practically the same as the description of the well in Biblical Antiquities (Neof. Num 21:16–20): “(16) And from there the well was given to them. This is the well of which the Lord said to Moses: ‘Gather the people together and I will give them water.’ (17) Then Israel sung this song of praise: ‘Spring up, O well’, they sang to it; and it sprang up. (18) It is the well which the princes of the world, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, dug from the beginning; the intelligent ones of the people perfected it, the seventy sages who were distinguished; the scribes of Israel, Moses and Aaron measured it with their rods; and from the wilderness it was given to them (as) a gift. (19) And after the well had been given to them as a gift, it went on to become for them swelling torrents; and after it had become swelling torrents, it went on to go up with them to the tops of the mountains and to go down with them to the deep valleys; (20) and after it had gone up with them to the tops of the high mountains and had gone down with them to the deep valleys, it was hidden from them in the valley which is at the boundaries of the Moabites, the top of the height which looks out opposite Beth Jeshimon.”

Further evidence of the early date of this entire text can be seen in the fact that it is found in an almost identical fashion in Onqelos, a text rarely identical with the Palestinian Targum for any length. Onqelos’s paraphrase runs:28 “At that time the well was given to them, that is the well about which the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Gather the people together, and I will give them water’. So Israel offered their praise, ‘Rise, O well, sing to it’. The well which the princes dug, the leaders of the people dug, the scribes, with their staffs, and it was given to them, since wilderness . Now since it was given to them, it went down with them to the valleys, and from the valleys it went up with them to the high country. From the high country to the descents of the Moabite fields, as the summit of the height, which looks out towards Beth Jeshimon.”

A further instance of the influence of the midrash concerning Miriam and her merits can be seen in the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Num 12:15– 16 (I cite the text of Targum Neofiti; the passage within brackets is missing from the text but is supplied in the margin.): “And Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days; and the people did not journey until such times as Miriam was healed. Although Miriam the prophetess was sentenced to become leprous, there is much teaching (in this) for the sages and for those who keep the Law, that for a small precept which a man does, he receives for it a great reward. Because Miriam stood on the bank of the river to know what would be the 28 Translation B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988, 126.

4. Lectio Divina and the Origin of Targumic Traditions

231

end of Moses, Israel became sixty myriads – which is a total of eighty legions. And the clouds of the glory and the well did not move nor journey from their places until such time as the prophetess Miriam was healed of her leprosy. (And after the prophetess Miriam was healed of her leprosy,) after this the people moved from Hazeroth and camped in the wilderness of Paran.”

4.3 The Four Nights A long history of prayerful reflection on the biblical narrative very likely stands behind the following beautiful text on the high points of sacred history summed up in four nights. The text is found only in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, and its point of insertion is the biblical passage on the night of Passover: “So this same night is a night of watching kept to the Lord by all the people of Israel throughout their generations” (Exod 12:42). Here Targum Neofiti’s text is translated; the passage within angular brackets, on the Messiah, absent from Neofiti, is reproduced from the other Palestinian Targum texts. (The Palestinian Targum text and context have been examined in detail by R. Le Déaut.29) “It is a night reserved and set aside for redemption to the name of the Lord at the time the children of Israel were brought out redeemed from the land of Egypt. Truly, four nights are those that are written in the Book of Memorials. The first night: when the Lord was revealed over the world to create it. The world was without form and void and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss and the Memra of the Lord was the Light, and it shone; and he called it the First Night. The second night: when the Lord was revealed to Abram, a man of a hundred years, and Sarah his wife, who was a woman of ninety years to fulfill what the Scripture says: Will Abram, a man of a hundred years beget, and will his wife Sarah, a woman of ninety years, bear? And Isaac was thirty seven years when he was offered upon the altar. The heavens were bowed down and descended and Isaac saw their perfection, and his eyes were dimmed because of their perfection, and he called it the Second Night. The third night: when the Lord was revealed against the Egyptians at midnight; his hand slew the first-born of the Egyptians and his right hand protected the first-born of Israel to fulfill what the Scripture says: Israel is my first-born son. And he called it the Third Night. The fourth night: When the world reaches its appointed time to be redeemed: the iron yokes shall be broken and the generations of wickedness shall be blotted out and Moses will go up from the midst of the desert . One will lead at the head of the flock and the other will lead at the head of the flock and his Memra will lead between the two of them, and I and they will proceed together. This is the night of the Passover to the name of the Lord: it is a night reserved and set aside for the redemption of all Israel, throughout their generations.” 29 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963.

232

Chapter 10: Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums

4.4 Imitation of God’s Humility and Kindness Targum Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases Lev 22:28 as follows: “My people, children of Israel, just as I am [a variant has: ‘just as our Father is’] merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth.” Although this paraphrase is not found in other Palestinian Targum texts, its sentiments are well expressed in the following midrash of the Palestinian Targum of Gen 35:8. The text is further evidence of deep reflection on God’s nature as revealed in the sacred text. I here give the text of Targum Neofiti for these two verses, with which the texts of the Fragment Targums and of a Cairo Genizah manuscript (CTgC) substantially agree: “And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died and she was buried under the oak and he called the name of the oak ‘Weeping’. O God of eternity – may his name be blessed for ever and for ever and ever – your humility and your rectitude and your justice and your strength and your glory and your splendour will not pass for ever and ever. You have taught us to bless the bridegroom and the bride from Adam and his consort [see Gen 1:28]. And again you have taught us to visit those who are ill from our father Abraham, the righteous one, when you were revealed to him in the Valley of the Vision while he was still suffering from circumcision [see Gen 17:1, 9–14; 18:1]. And you taught us to console the mourners from our father Jacob the righteous one. The way of the world overtook Deborah, the foster mother of Rebekah his mother. And Rachel died beside him on his journey and he sat down crying aloud and he wept and lamented and wailed and was dejected. But you in your good mercies were revealed to him and blessed him; (with) the blessing of the mourners you blessed him and consoled him. For thus the Scripture explains and says: And the Lord was revealed to Jacob a second time when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him.”

4.5 Moses, the Model Dispenser of Justice The Pentateuch has four texts in which Moses gives judgement on practical cases of law infringement (Lev 24:12; Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5). In the Palestinian Targums these four cases are worked into a midrash on Moses as model for judges. The midrash is inserted fully at the translation of each of the four texts. The midrash itself grew out of reflection on the texts, but is inserted rather awkwardly into the translation, as is clear from the present instance of Pal. Tg. Num 9:8, where the Hebrew Text has: “And Moses said to them: Arise and I will make (you) hear what the Lord will command concerning you.” This text illustrates the formation of a midrash and paraphrase and also the occasional complex nature of our present Targum texts, where translation and added midrash come together. I here give Targum Neofiti’s paraphrase of Num 9:8–10.

4. Lectio Divina and the Origin of Targumic Traditions

233

“And he said to them: This is one of the four legal cases which came up before Moses; in two of them Moses was quick and in two of them Moses was slow. In (the case of) the unclean persons who were not able to keep the Passover at its appointed time and in the judgement of the daughters of Zelophehad Moses was quick because such judgements were judgements concerning wealth. In (the case of) the wood-gatherer who willfully profaned the Sabbath, and in the case of the blasphemer who pronounced the sacred Name with blasphemies Moses was slow because such cases were capital cases, to teach the judges to arise after Moses that they be quick in judgements of wealth and slow in capital cases, lest they precipitately put to death someone who should be put to death by law, and lest they be ashamed to say: We have not heard (a similar case), since Moses our master said: I have not heard; and Moses said to them: Arise now and I will make you hear what is established before the Lord that you should do. And the Lord spoke with Moses, saying: Speak with the children of Israel saying: If any one of you or of your (future) generations is unclean through the defilement of the corpse of a man, or is afar off on a journey, he shall keep the Passover before the Lord.”

Chapter 11

Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes* 1. The Targums in Second Temple Judaism 1.1 Terminology In the context of the present volume, as of biblical studies in general, the meaning intended by the term “targum” is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.1 The quadrilateral Hebrew verb and noun Ċÿĕė seems to have the basic meanings of “translate, interpret”, and “translation, interpretation”. The word itself appears early in the Semitic languages (for instance Akkadian targumannu, “translator”), and seems to have entered the Semitic languages from Indo-European, possibly Hittite.2 In Hebrew the term can mean translation into any language, and in early rabbinic texts it is also used to refer to the Greek Septuagint translation. In modern biblical and Jewish studies its usage is restricted to Jewish (and Samaritan) translations of the Tanak into Aramaic. 1.2 Admissibility of Targums in Study of Second Temple Judaism We have Qumran Aramaic biblical translations which were composed during the Second Temple period – the Targum of Job from Qumran (4QtgJob and 11QtgJob), possibly from the second century b.c.e. and also fragments of a Targum of Leviticus 16 (4QtgLev), from the first century b.c.e. Since these form part of the literature of the Second Temple no objection can be raised to their use in studies of the period. * First published as: “Some Targum Themes”, being chapter 11 of Justification and Variegated Judaism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid, Tübingen & Grand Rapids 2001, 303–356. 1 For a general introduction to Targums see P. S. Alexander, “Targum, Targumim”, ABD 6 (1992), 320–331; M. McNamara, “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums”, in A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, ed. by A. J. Hauser & D. F. Watson, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2003, 167–195; reproduced above, pp. 211–233. See also A. D. York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School”, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86. 2 See Ch. Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew”, Or 32 (1963), 134–136.

1. The Targums in Second Temple Judaism

235

Matters are different with regard to the “traditional” Targums known to us. We have texts of Jewish Aramaic translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (portions of which books are already in Aramaic). For the Pentateuch we have the Targum of Onqelos, the Targums of the Pentateuch (represented almost completely by Targum Neofiti 1; partially by the Fragment Targums found in the four manuscripts from Paris, the Vatican Library, Nürnberg and Leipzig – with the sigla PVNL; by texts from the Cairo Genizah and by the numerous glosses to Codex Neofiti 1 – given the siglum Neof. mg.). For the Pentateuch we also have the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, a later work which used both Onqelos and a form of the Palestinian Targum, and other sources as well. We have a full Targum of the Prophets (Former Prophets, Major and Minor Prophets) and Targums for the individual writings (two for Esther), with the exception as said of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah. As is well known from the history of New Testament and Jewish studies, much use was made of certain of these Targums (especially that known as the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch) in New Testament studies, particularly of the Gospels and this because these Targums were believed to pre-date the New Testament period and to represent in language and thought the situation in New Testament Palestine. Very serious objections have been raised against this position, in particular after the discovery of the Aramaic texts from Qumran, dating from immediately before or from the New Testament period, and differing significantly from the traditional Targums both in language, in concepts and in the manner of translating the Hebrew Text. Scientific study of the Aramaic language strengthened this position. At best, while the language of Onqelos and the Targum of the Prophets might be considered pre-132 c.e., the language of the Palestinian Targum is considered to be somewhat later than this, say third century at the earliest.3 This, in the view of some of the specialists, does not preclude the existence of a first-century c.e. ProtoPalestinian Targum, from which both Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch are separately descended.4 Together with this research on the language of the Targums there has over recent years also been intensive examination of the interpretative tradition enshrined in our present Targums, mainly in Targum Onqelos, the Targums of the Prophets and in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. In many instances the interpretation is regarded as not all of the same date; Targums 3 See S. A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First-Century Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 118–141, at 122. 4 See ibid., 130.

236

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

may have layers of interpretation from different periods. In fact some speak of the tel-like structure of the Targum of the Twelve Minor Prophets, a sensitivity to which tel-like character is required in our investigation of it since the extant text probably includes stratified elements representing as much as several centuries of targumic development.5 In an essay to appear in a volume such as the present one, the position of E. P. Sanders regarding the use of the Targums in a study of Judaism contemporary with Paul merits special attention. In the introduction to his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion he regards it necessary to make a few comments about Palestinian Jewish sources for the years 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e. His general intention is to consider the entire body of material available from the period. The sources he lists are rabbinic (tannaitic) literature (which he takes to be, on the whole, the latest body of literature to be treated in his work), then the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thirdly the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings, from Ben Sira to 4 Ezra. He then goes on to say:6 “I have further left out of consideration the Aramaic Targums which are now sometimes dated to this period.7 In part, I am not persuaded of the antiquity of the Targums as we have them.8 Even if generally late, the Targums may, to be sure, contain early traditions, but these must now be sought out one by one. In general, the present state of Targumic studies does not permit the Targums to be used for our purposes. At present the Targums can be used in motif research, in which one can investigate a given theme or idea and attempt to date the Targumic material which is relevant. We are not at the stage, however, of being able to discuss the view of religion and the religious life in the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and especially not to date a coherent view of religion to the period which falls within our purview.”

It must be conceded that scholarly opinion with regard to the dating of the Targums and targumic tradition has not changed considerably, if at all, since these words were written. Some would even go further, expressing the view that the conceptual world of the Targums depends on rabbinic views

5 On this see R. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden, New York & Cologne 1994, 152–153. 6 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London 1979, 25–26. 7 With reference to the present writer’s The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966, 35. 8 With reference to J. Fitzmyer’s reviews of the present writer’s The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, in TS 29 (1968), 322–326, and of A. Díez Macho’s edition of Neofiti in CBQ 32 (1970), 524–525, as well as other essays by Fitzmyer; likewise J. Greenfield’s review of the republication of Etheridge’s translation of the Targum to the Pentateuch in JBL 89 (1970), 238–239; B. Z. Wacholder’s review of the present writer’s Targum and Testament in JBL 93 (1974), 132–133, and A. D. York’s essay, “The Dating of Targumic Literature”, JSJ 5 (1974), 49–62.

1. The Targums in Second Temple Judaism

237

(and are therefore late).9 There has been no breakthrough that would prove that targumic tradition in whole or in part belongs to the Second Temple period, nor is there likely to be any unless we discover a Hebrew Text of a rewritten Bible along the lines of the targumic paraphrase. We thus have currently three groups with regard to the use of the Targums in New Testament or Second Temple studies. Some regard the Targums as definitely later than the period in question; another group of scholars consider an early date unproven. A third group, while aware of the problems, believes that there are sufficient indications of the early origins or roots of the central group of Targums (Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch; Onqelos; Targum of the Prophets) to warrant their being taken into consideration in the study of Second Temple Judaism. A number of scholars would regard the basic redaction of the Targum of the Prophets as having been made about the year 100 c.e., and Onqelos as from roughly the same period. While the basic redaction of the Palestinian Targum as we now have it (distinct from Onqelos) may be somewhat later (say late second or third century c.e.) the interpretative tradition it represents can be presumed to belong to the period of Second Temple Judaism. If we accept these dates as probable, it is a justifiable assumption that the interpretative tradition which these Targums represent belongs to the Second Temple period of Judaism. While admitting the uncertainties involved, to exclude the targumic evidence would be to run a serious risk of not paying due attention to the complexities of Second Temple Judaism. 1.3 Origins and Early Development of Interpretative Biblical Tradition and of Targums One of the phenomena revealed by modern biblical studies is inner-biblical interpretation. The Hebrew Scriptures reached the final and canonical stages of their development through evolution in law, in doctrine and in traditions. While still in the process of formation this development would be registered as part of Scripture. Even the first stage of a work such as the Book of Jere9

Thus, for instance, B. L. Visotzky, “Text, Translation, Targum”, in Fathers of the World, ed. by B. L. Visotzky (WUNT 80), Tübingen 1995, 106–112, esp. 107: “Finally, it must be remembered that the world of ideas found in the Targums are a watered down version of rabbinic (and therefore late) theology held captive to the necessity of translating the biblical text (even loosely) in a synagogal-lectionary and late setting” (essay earlier in Prooftexts 9 [1989], 93–98). Likewise Visotzky in his introduction to this volume of collected essays (p. 21): “[In this essay] I take to task those scholars (particularly Christian) who fall prey to anachronism in their quest for recovery of some element (in this case, Aramaic language and literature) of the historical Jesus. I point out that Targums as we have them are notably late, often post-Islam. One may as well rely on Syriac literature to recover Jesus’ Aramaic.”

238

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

miah as translated into Greek could be developed to give us the longer and canonical Jeremiah of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Once a work was regarded as canonical any further development could not be registered as part of the canonical text itself. The canonical text, however, gave rise to further reflection and would always present questions as to its precise meaning as God’s inspired word, or in the case of law codes as a practical guide for living. We have a practical example of what is intended in the solemn reading and interpretation by Ezra and the Levites of the “law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel”, an event which took place in the seventh month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 b.c.e. if Artaxerxes I is intended; 398 if Artaxerxes II). See Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 8. On that occasion “they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation (?;óÃđöċ, meporaš) and gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8). Detailed exegesis of this passage is not required for our purpose here: for instance: Who read? Who gave the sense? What is the meaning of óÃđöċ? What is important is the evidence the text provides of the existence of “the book of the law of God, given through Moses” (apparently identical in substance at least with our present Pentateuch), together with the concern that this be read to the covenant community, that the meaning of the book’s message be put before the people and that the people be helped to understand. The book of the law was in Hebrew. The explanation would have been given in the language of the people. What the spoken language was at that time in Jerusalem is not altogether clear, but it probably was still Hebrew rather than Aramaic. The concerns shown on that occasion can be presumed to have continued in the generations and centuries that followed. The book of the Law of Moses would continue to be explained and the traditions it contained developed. One can only surmise the centres at which the study of, and reflection on, the law of Moses and the Tanak took place. In part it would have been at liturgical gatherings and at synagogues when these came into being. We know from the Prologue to Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) that by the year 200 b.c.e. or so the Law, the Prophets and the Other Writings were studied and piously reflected on in the academies and schools of the wisdom tradition. The traditions that developed from and around the Law of Moses (and indeed the other books of the Tanak, we can presume) were not unilinear. With regard to Moses one line of development passed through the Qumran communities, another to and through early and later rabbinic tradition. The traditions enshrined in the Targums (notably the Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets) have been transmitted to us through the rabbis. There is also close connection between the interpretative tradition found in the Targum and in rabbinic tradition. A question arises as to whether the Targums depend on rabbinic tradition, or vice versa, and whether the Tar-

1. The Targums in Second Temple Judaism

239

gums reflect the tradition of the synagogues or of the school (ĖĕĀċāėĆþ). It would seem unwise to set one over against the other. Both stand within a larger tradition, with a concern to understand the sense of the Bible and to bring its message to the general public. One can envisage a broad Jewish approach to the Bible (independent of that of Qumran) which is reflected in the Targums, rabbinic tradition and in other works such as the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. When the language of the Jewish community in Palestine came to be Aramaic rather than Hebrew, instruction of the people in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in their religious tradition in general, would have been in Aramaic. How early the change from Hebrew to Aramaic came cannot be ascertained with certainty, but Aramaic was at least the spoken language of a good portion of the Jewish population, if not of the majority, by 200 b.c.e. or so. Some form of instruction on the Bible through the medium of Aramaic can be presumed to have originated at the same time. And the aim of the Aramaic instruction would be to give the sense of the biblical text, and have the people understand the import of the biblical message. Thus, an Aramaic translation or paraphrase, a Targum of some sort, can be presumed to have existed during the Second Temple period, at least for the Pentateuch and the Prophets. We can reasonably presume that the translation would not be haphazard, an ad hoc translation in the synagogue in keeping with the expertise of the member of the congregation called on, or volunteering, to do it. Translation is rather work for the school, requiring expertise in translation techniques. In point of fact, all our extant Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets indicate that they are works of expert translators, even though these employ somewhat differing translation techniques. We can say very little of the origins and early development of the Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets. All we have to go on are the extant Targums of these biblical works, together with what conclusions we can draw from an analysis of the language of these texts and from their contents. As already noted, some scholars deduce from this evidence that within our present Targums there are layers of interpretative tradition, indicating a growth over some considerable time. 1.4 Some Questions of Methodology in the Use of Targums in Second Temple Studies 1.4.1 Targums as Translation and Expanded Paraphrase The Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets are first and foremost translations of the Hebrew Text. Their chief aim is to give the

240

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

sense of the biblical text. Together with this they have certain expanded paraphrase and some additional midrash. In our study of the Targums as witnesses of Second Temple Judaism we must take this whole evidence into account. The Targums as literal translations may at times have served as a counterbalance to some later popular opinions also to be found in these same Aramaic translations. The translator may not always have held the same beliefs, or formulations of belief, as the text he has translated. Of course, there is ample evidence that the translation very often reflects beliefs and mind sets later than those of the biblical authors. In these interpretative translations, expansions and additions the Targums provide rich information on the language and beliefs and mind sets of later generations. 1.4.2 The Targums and Jewish Rabbinic Midrash and Rabbinic Biblical Interpretation It is quite clear that traditions found in the Targums are closely related to rabbinic tradition. It is a matter of debate as to which is dependent on the other, or whether the similarities are to be explained by dependence of both on a common earlier tradition. Studies in this area usually indicate the rabbinic parallels to targumic texts. We refrain from so doing in this study, in which I consider the targumic evidence alone. Detailed examination of any particular topic would require examination of all the relevant evidence from rabbinic and other sources, together with consideration of the probable date to be assigned to the tradition in question. 1.4.3 Choice of Targums Used Since consideration of the select topics in all the Targums would prove too difficult in a study of this nature, I have confined myself to the Targums of the Pentateuch (with the exception of the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan) and of the Prophets. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan is commonly regarded as a late work, the product of a scholar’s desk rather than representing an early living tradition.

2. Law (The Torah) The Targums pass beyond the biblical text in particular by the added references to the Torah (in Aramaic āėĆĕĂý, āėĆĆĕĂý). The references would appear to be ubiquitous. Reference to the Law is made where the biblical text being translated affords some basis for its introduction, and very often where it provides none. This holds true for the Targum of the Prophets as well as the

2. Law (The Torah)

241

Targums of the Pentateuch.10 One’s attitude to God is measured by one’s attitude to the Law. Conversion (āþĂėė, tetuba) is turning or returning to the Law. These repeated references to the Law are an indication of how central the concept was in late Second Temple Jewish thought, how near to the hearts of those who produced the Targums. No single definition can be given that will hold for Torah in all its uses in the Targums. It seems to sum up God’s revelation to Israel and expressed Israel’s response in obedience to God.11 Here I consider some aspects of the teaching of the Palestinian Targums on Torah, seen especially against the biblical background. 2.1 Wisdom and the Torah in Ben Sira (Late Second Temple Judaism) In their teaching on the Law (Torah) the Targums develop further what is already very much present in late Second Temple Judaism, as evidenced for instance in Ben Sira and the Book of Baruch. In their approach to the Law the Targums are heirs to the traditions of the school, the óĕċāėþ (bet ha-midrash), which by the time of Jesus Ben Sira (180 b.c.e. or so) was meditatively reflecting on Israel’s entire tradition, the Law (of Moses), the Prophets and the Other Writings. In singing her own praises, Wisdom personified, which came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir 24:3), tells us that the Creator of all things gave her a commandment, the one who created her assigned a place for her tent, and he said: “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance” (Sir 24:8). Ben Sira himself practically identifies wisdom with the Law of Moses: “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the Law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob” (24:25). The Torah, or “the Law which Moses commanded” is brimful with wisdom, it runs over with understanding, it pours 10 What has been observed with regard to the Targum of Isaiah can be taken as true for the other Targums. J. F. Stenning notes with regard to Targum of Isaiah: “A noticeable feature of the translation is the frequent reference to the Law and the insistence on obedience to it as the basis of religion. In the majority of the passages cited the reference can be regarded as a legitimate, if narrow, explanation of the text, but in others the context affords no justification for such a limited interpretation” (J. F. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford 1949, xv, with examples from twenty-three of the chapters between chapters 1 and 63). Likewise, B. D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, Sheffield 1982, 13: “The meturgeman is so convinced that law is the means offered God’s people for relating themselves to him that he frequently introduces the term when there is no analogue to it in the Hebrew text”, with as example Tg. Isa 1:2–3: “Hear, heavens, which trembled when I gave my law to my people … they have rebelled against my Memra … my people has not had the intelligence to return to my law.” 11 For the concept and term in the Targum of the Prophets see L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets [and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by P. Churgin] (The Library of Biblical Studies), New York & Baltimore 1983, 159–164 (“Torah and good deeds”).

242

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

forth instruction (ĚċēĎďưċė) (24:25–27). A. A. Di Lella remarks on this text: “The Torah, like wisdom in v. 3, is viewed as a spirit. Hence Ben Sira can speak of the Torah as being ‘brimful, like the Pishon … with wisdom’ …; it also ‘runs over like the Euphrates … with understanding’.”12 The central theme of the Book of Ben Sira and the relationship of recurrent themes such as wisdom, fear of God and the Law has exercised the minds of scholars. Di Lella believes that R. Smend suggests the best approach to this question when he writes: “Subjectively, wisdom is fear of God; objectively, it is the law book of Moses (chap. 24).”13 Di Lella continues: “Accordingly, I would argue that Ben Sira’s primary theme is wisdom as fear of God, and that the fundamental thesis of the book is the following: wisdom, which is identified with the Law, can be achieved only by one who fears God and keeps the commandments. Or, as Ben Sira himself writes: ‘The whole of wisdom is fear of the Lord; complete wisdom is the fulfilment of the Law’ (19:20).” 2.2 Summary of Targumic Position in Pal. Tg. Gen 3:15, 24 Sir 24:25–27 compares the Law, identified with wisdom, with the rivers of Paradise, spoken of in Gen 2:10–14, and goes on to say that the first man (in the Garden of Eden presumably) did not know wisdom fully. There was a tree of life in the middle of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:9), a tree which could be regarded as capable of making one wise (Gen 3:6). In Prov 3:18 Wisdom is described as a tree of life for all those who lay hold of her; long life is in her right hand (Prov 3:16). It is, then, not surprising to find the fullest Targum statement on the Law in the translation and paraphrase of Genesis 2 and 3 in the Palestinian Targum, especially in Targum Neofiti. After the naming of the rivers flowing from Eden the Bible says that the Lord God took the man (ĊĀýā, ha-’adam) and put him in the garden to till it and keep it (Gen 2:15). This is paraphrased in the Palestinian Targum as follows: “And the Lord God took Adam and had him dwell in the Garden of Eden to toil in the Law and observe its commandments.” That the Law already existed presents no problem. According to Prov 8:22–31 Wisdom (for the targumic tradition identified with the Law) was present with God at creation, and according to Prov 8:30 was ĊĂĆĊĂĆ (generally translated as “daily”) his delight. Now, according to a Jewish principle as found in 2 Pet 3:8 (see also Ps 90:4) one day in the Lord’s sight is as a thousand years. The Law was thus regarded in targumic tradition as created 12 A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes by P. W. Skehan. Introduction and Commentary by A. A. Di Lella (AB 39), New York 1987, 336. 13 Di Lella, ibid., 75, citing R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906, xxiii.

2. Law (The Torah)

243

two thousand years before the world. The Palestinian Targum paraphrases the biblical account of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:22–24) as follows (italics indicate targumic expansions): “(3:22) And the Lord God said: ‘Behold, the first Adam whom I have created is alone in the world as I am alone in the heavens on high. Numerous nations are to arise from him, and from him shall arise one nation who will know to distinguish between good and evil. If he had observed the precept of the Law and fulfilled its commandment he would live and endure forever like the tree of life. And now, since he has not observed the precepts of the Law and has not fulfilled its commandment, behold we will banish him from the Garden of Eden before he stretches out his hand and takes of the fruit of the tree of life and eats and lives for ever.’ (23) And the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to till the earth from which he had been created. (24) And he banished Adam; and he had made the Glory of his Shekinah dwell from the beginning to the east of the Garden of Eden, between the two cherubim. Two thousand years before he created the world he had created the Law; he had prepared the Garden of Eden for the just and Gehenna for the wicked. He had prepared the Garden of Eden for the just that they might eat and delight themselves from the fruits of the tree because they had kept the precepts of the Law in this world and fulfilled the commandments. For the wicked he prepared Gehenna, which is comparable to a sharp sword devouring with both edges. He prepared within it darts of fire and burning coals for the wicked to be avenged of them in the world to come because they did not observe the precepts of the Law in this world. For the Law is a tree of life for everyone who toils in it and keeps the commandments: he lives and endures like the tree of life in the world to come. The Law is good for all who labour in it in this world like the fruit of the tree of life.”

Twice in v. 22 Neofiti speaks of the fulfilling of a commandment (in the singular) of the Law (āĀĂĔđ, “its [feminine] commandment”) on Adam’s part in the Garden of Eden. The commandment in question may be the single prohibition regarding the eating of the forbidden fruit. Use of the singular case may be accidental, since elsewhere in the paraphrase of these verses in the Palestinian Targum the plural form is used (“its commandments”). 2.3 Earthly Reward for Keeping the Commandments of the Law In the paraphrase of Gen 3:22–24 eternal life, on earth or in eternity, is promised as the reward for keeping the precepts of the Law in this world. Victory over enemies, or defeat by the enemy, is promised in some other texts, for instance in the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Gen 3:15 where the biblical text speaks of the constant struggle between the woman, her seed and the serpent. This is paraphrased as follows in Neofiti (italics indicate targumic expansion): (3:15) “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your sons and her sons. And it will come about that when her sons observe the Law and do the

244

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

commandments they will aim at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah.”

There is a similar presentation of the doctrine in the paraphrase of Gen 27:40 in Isaac’s valedictory message to Esau (“By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose, you shall break his yoke from your neck”), which is thus paraphrased in the Palestinian Targums: (27:40) “And by your sword shall you live and before your brother shall you serve and be subjected. And when the sons of Jacob toil in the Law and keep the commandments they will place the yoke of their burden upon your neck. And when the sons of Jacob abandon the commandments and withhold themselves from toiling in the Law you will rule over him and shall break the yoke of servitude from off your neck.”

Similar teaching is found in Neof. Deut 32:14: “If Israel toils in the Law and keeps the commandments, from one bunch of grapes they will drink a kor of wine” (MT: “You drank fine wine from the blood of grapes”). Likewise in Neof. Deut 32:30: “When Israel toiled in the Law and kept the commandments, one of them would pursue a thousand and two of them would put to flight ten thousand. Because they have sinned and provoked anger before him, the Strong One, he has forsaken them, and the Memra of the Lord has handed them over to the hands of their enemies” (nrsv: “How could one have routed a thousand, and two put a myriad to flight …”). Similarly in Neof. Deut 33:29: “… And your enemies will be broken before you; and you, my people, children of Israel, shall tread on the necks of their kings when you toil in the Law and do the commandments” (nrsv: “Your enemies shall come fawning to you, and you shall tread on their backs”). In this point the Targums scarcely pass beyond biblical, especially Deuteronomic, teaching; see Deut 28:1 ff.; 30:16–18; Ps 18:20–24, 37–42. Likewise Ps 81:14–15: “O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways! Then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn my hand against their foes. Those who hate the Lord would cringe before him, and their doom would last for ever. He would feed you [HT: ‘he would feed them’] with the finest of wheat, and with honey from the rock I would satisfy them.” 2.4 Toiling in the Law Targum Neofiti speaks on a number of occasions of “labouring (Ćďĉ) in the Law” (Gen 3:24; 27:40; Deut 32:4, 14, 30; 33:29; see also Neof. mg. Gen 3:15; 27:40), some of which texts we gave already cited. That the basic meaning

2. Law (The Torah)

245

of the Aramaic word Ćďĉ is “labour, work, toil” seems clear from its use in conjunction with the noun Ăďĉ, “work”, e.g. Gen 3:18: “Let us arise now and let us toil (Ćďĉč), and from the work (ėĆďĉ) of our hands let us eat food.” See also Neof. Deut 28:33: “and your toil (ČĂĈėĂďĉ) a people whom you have not known shall eat.” Mehetabel worked (Ćďĉ) with his hunting-spear (Neof. Gen 36:38). The people of Sodom were labouring (ČĆďĉ) to find the door of the house and did not find it (Neof. Gen 19:11). It is used in the intransitive sense of “being weary” in Neof. Exod 18:18 and Neof. (and Neof. mg.) Deut 25:18. When used in relation to the Law the term is used in conjunction with “keep the [or: ‘its’] commandments”, for instance Gen 3:24: “For the Law is a tree of life for everyone who toils in it and keeps the commandments.” In words addressed to Esau we read: “And when the sons of Jacob toil (ČĆĆďĉ) in the Law and keep the commandments …”. Likewise in Neof. Deut 32:14, 30; 33:29. The meaning to be attached to “toiling in the Law” does not appear to differ significantly from “observing the Law”, and this is what we find in Neof. Gen 3:15: “… when her sons [that is, the sons of the woman] observe the Law and do the commandments.” Neof. Deut 32:4 says Moses saw the Master of all ages, the Lord, dividing the day and making four portions of it: “three hours Ćďĉ in the Law” (three hours sitting in judgement; three hours binding the marriage bond between man and woman, raising on high and bringing low, and three hours sustaining the whole world). The meaning to be given to Ćďĉ in this context is not clear. Sokoloff14 renders as “study”, as he also translates the word in Neof. Deut 32:14; 33:29. This is doubtful with regard to Neof. Deut 32:4. There is a diversity in the other witnesses of the Palestinian Targum for this particular verse with regard to the term used of God with relation to the Law. Three manuscripts of the Fragment Targums (VNL) have ĔĆĎď, “was occupied with”, and the Paris manuscript (P) has the composite ĔĆĎďĂĆďĉ. In Neofiti and in P Ćďĉ can be presumed to have a meaning similar to ĔĆĎď, and is thus to be understood as “to labour / toil in” rather than “to study”. 2.5 The “Instruction of the Law of the Lord” A phrase that occurs frequently in the Palestinian Targums is “instruction (ČđĉĂý) of the Law of the Lord”.15 14

M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 284. 15 A phrase occurring some thirty-two times in the margins of Neofiti (never in the text of Neofiti itself) is “the āĆĆĂĂĄý (sometimes written āĆĆĂĂĄ) (of the Law)”, which term M. Sokoloff and S. A. Kaufman render as “instruction (of the Law)”; see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 46; S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to

246

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

Outside of this phrase, the term ČđĉĂý is used in contexts of personal contact, or encounter, of Israel’s leaders with God. Its use seems part of the effort to avoid speaking of direct human contact with God. Thus the phrase “to seek” or “consult” (óĕĀ) God is rendered “to seek instruction (ČđĉĂý) from before the Lord” (Exod 18:15). Somewhat similar in Neof. mg. (not Neof.) Gen 15:17. Without use of the word óĕĀ, but in a context of encounter with God (“go up to God” and such like) the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) renders in like fashion: “to seek instruction (ČđĉĂý) before the Lord” (Exod 4:16: “and you shall be for him as one seeking instruction before the Lord”; HT: “you shall be to him as ’elohim”). Similarly in Exod 18:19 (MT: “be you for the people opposite God”; rsv: “you shall represent the people before God”); 19:3 (Neofiti, Fragment Targums PVN; Cairo Genizah mss. F, J, NN: “And Moses went up to seek instruction from before the Lord”; HT: “And Moses went up to God”); 24:1 (similar to 19:3); 33:7 (Neofiti: “and everyone who sought instruction from before the Lord went out of the tent of meeting …”; MT: “everybody seeking the Lord”); 34:28 (Neofiti: “And he [Moses] was there seeking instruction from before the Lord”; MT: “And he was there with the Lord”). We have a variant in Neof. Exod 23:17: “seeking instruction before the Lord of all ages”. There is mention of “seeking instruction from the dead” in Neof. Deut 18:11 (MT: “consult, óĕĀ, the dead”).16 2.6 “A People Hard (Difficult) with Regard to Receiving Instruction of the Law” The phrase “a stiff-necked people” is rendered in the Palestinian Targum as “a people hard (difficult) with regard to receiving instruction of the Law” (Gen 26:35; Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13). In Neof. Deut 31:27, however, the Hebrew Text is rendered rather literally, but this section of Codex Neofiti 1 most probably does not represent the central Neofiti tradition. Targum Neofiti: A Guide to the Complete Palestinian Aramaic Text of the Torah, Baltimore & London 1993, 34. The term also occurs in the Fragment Targums, from whence we can presume it has come to the margins of Neofiti. This term āĆĆĂĂĄý/ āĆĆĂĂĄ, from the root ĆĂĄ, in the Pail and Afel “to show”, is the same as āĆĂĄý, “manifestation” of Dan 5:12. In the Fragment Targum and in the glosses of Neofiti the phrase occurs in places where Neofiti has “decree of the Law” (āėĆĆĕĂýėĕĆăÿ), that is in places where the term torah of the Hebrew Text is seen to refer to a specific regulation, not to the Mosaic dispensation as such. See McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995, 6; idem, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1997, 5. In these contexts the phrase “instruction (āĆĆĂĂĄý) of the Law” is quite distinct from that expressed by the term ČđĉĂý. 16 Occasionally the phrase “instruction (ČđĉĂý) of the Law of the Lord” is used in other contexts, such as in Pal. Tg. Deut 15:11 in free introductory paraphrase: “if the children of Israel keep the instruction of the Law and do the commandments there will not be any poor among them”; Israel “neither rested nor reposed from the instruction of the Law”, Pal. Tg. Deut 33:3.

2. Law (The Torah)

247

2.7 “Instruction of the Law of” Inserted in Rendering of Hebrew Text Expressions to “Love”, “Hold Fast to”, “Fear”, “Listen to”, “Forget”, “Forsake”, “Return to” the Lord God17 The phrase “instruction of the Law (of the Lord)” is found in Targum Neofiti in the rendering of the verbs “love”, “hold fast to”, “fear”, “listen to”, “forget”, “forsake”, “return to”, in instances where in the Hebrew Text these have God as object. When God is the subject of these verbs Neofiti can render literally; the Lord loved Israel’s fathers, and graciously chose their children after them (Neof. Deut 4:37: if Israel obeys his ordinances, the Lord will love and bless them [cf. Neof. Deut 7:13]). The same is true when the subject is a human being, with another human as object; thus for instance Jacob loved Rachel (Neof. Gen 29:18); the Israelite is told to love his neighbour as himself (Neof. Lev 19:18); the slave may love his master (Deut 15:16). 2.7.1 Love the Lord In the context of the general principle of God’s rewarding those who love him (Exod 20:6: “love him / me”; Deut 5:10: “love me”; Neof. Deut 7:9: “love him”), Neofiti renders literally. Neofiti renders literally, with an expanded paraphrase, also in Deut 33:3, where the Masoretic Text (rsv) “Yea, he loved his people” is rendered in Neofiti: “Yet all this was to show that he loved his people, the children of Israel.” The text goes on to paraphrase the remainder as follows: “myriads of holy angels descended; since although he brought numerous chastisements on them, they neither rested nor reposed from the instruction (ČđĉĂý) of his Law, and were led and came to the foot of his clouds, and set out and encamped according to his commandments” (rsv: “all those consecrated to him were in his [HT: thy] hand; so they followed in his steps, receiving direction from thee”). In the other cases where Yahweh, or the Lord God, is the object of “to love” Neofiti renders as “love the instruction of the Law of the Lord”. Thus in Neof. Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:4; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20. 2.7.2 “Hold fast to the Lord” The Hebrew Text phrase “hold fast (cleave) to the Lord” is similarly treated. Thus Neofiti renders Deut 13:5 as: “obey the voice of his Memra, serve before him with a perfect heart, and hold fast to the instruction of his Law” (rsv: “obey his voice, serve him and cleave to him”). Neofiti of Deuteronomy does likewise in other texts: “before him you shall pray; and you 17

See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1997, 6.

248

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

shall hold fast to the instruction of his Law” (10:20; rsv: “you shall serve him and cleave to him”); “loving the instruction of the Law … and holding fast to the teaching of the Law” (rsv: “loving the Lord your God … and cleaving to him”). Similarly in Neof. Deut 4:4. 2.7.3 Likewise with regard to the places where the Hebrew Text speaks of “listening to (§ĉďċó) me (to the Lord)” In Neofiti this becomes “listen to the instruction of my Law” (Neof. Lev 26:14, 18, 21, 27, and Neof. mg. Lev 26:23). 2.7.4 Similarly with regard to the phrase “forget the Lord” The verb with God as subject and the covenant as object is rendered more or less literally (Neof. Deut 4:31; also with Israel as subject, Neof. Deut 4:9, 23). When the Lord is the object this becomes “forget the instruction of the Law of the Lord”. Thus in Neof. Deut 6:12; 8:11, 14, 19. Neof. Deut 32:18, however, does say of Israel: “You have forgotten the Memra of the Lord who perfected you”, although (as already observed) these last chapters may not represent the central Neofiti tradition. 2.7.5 In Deut 28:20 the Lord speaks of the punishments to come “because you have forsaken me” In Neofiti this becomes: “because you have forsaken the instruction of my Law”. 2.7.6 In Deut 30:2 Israel is invited to return to the Lord In Neofiti this becomes: “Return to the instruction of the Law of the Lord your God.” A question arises as to whether this terminology of Neofiti represents an early form of the Palestinian Targum or is a later creation of the tradition that produced or transmitted Targum Neofiti. Unfortunately the other witnesses of the Palestinian Targums are of no help at all in this, since none of the texts in question (with the seven verbs mentioned) has been preserved either in the Cairo Genizah texts or in any of the Fragment Targums manuscripts (PVNL), although as noted in 2.5 above, the phrase “instruction of the Law” occurs in a number of all texts of the Palestinian Targums without association with these verbs. The Targum of Onqelos does not have a uniform approach to the set of texts we have just studied. Onqelos renders literally the texts speaking of loving the Lord God. It translates “cleaving [staying close] to the Lord” (Deut 4:4; 10:20; 13:5) as “cleaving [staying close] to the reverence [or: ‘fear’:

2. Law (The Torah)

249

ýėĉĄĀ] of the Lord (your God)”. Likewise with regard to “forget the Lord” of the Hebrew Text. Onqelos paraphrases as “forget the reverence [or: ‘fear’: ýėĉĄĀ] of the Lord”. Similarly with regard to “forsaking the Lord”. Onqelos renders as “forsaking the reverence [or: ‘fear’: ýėĉĄĀ] of the Lord”. Israel in Onqelos (Deut 30:2) is invited to return to the “reverence [or: ‘fear’: ýėĉĄĀ] of the Lord”. Finally, Onqelos paraphrases “listen to the Lord” as “listen to the Memra of the Lord”. This takes us to the meaning of the phrase “instruction of the Law” in Neofiti. It does not appear that study of the Law is what is intended. It has much more to do with the instruction for living (ĚċēĎďưċ) that comes from the Law, the way of life in keeping with the Law, shown in the observance of the commandments, as is expressed in the phrase that generally accompanies it. In a number of instances it is not far removed from the fear of the Lord, or reverence for the Lord, as Onqelos often paraphrases the texts in question.18 In some instances it would appear that “the instruction of the Law of the Lord” has become a kind of buffer word, much in the sense of Memra of the Lord, “the fear of the Lord”, or “the reverence of the Lord”. A question arises as to whether with regard to Neofiti’s paraphrase of “love the Lord” as “love the instruction of the Law of the Lord” this is a later adaptation by the Neofiti tradition of an earlier literal rendering “love the Lord” as is found in Onqelos. It seems clear from the Gospels that the “great commandment” as known to the Jews in the first century c.e. read as in the Bible, not as in Neofiti’s paraphrase, that is “You shall love the Lord your God …” (Mark 12:30, 33; Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27). It is, however, conceivable that both the biblical phrasing as found in the Gospels and the paraphrase found in Neofiti could have existed side by side. In one context, or in a particular religious group, God could be made the direct action of the verb “to love”, while in another context (such as the biblical paraphrases), or another group, people could have reservations with regard to speaking of humans loving directly the invisible God, and may have preferred to speak of love made manifest through behaviour, through devotion to his Law. There may be a reflection of this attitude in 1 John 4:20–21: “We love because he [God] first loved us. (20) Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brother or sister, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. (21) The 18 On this usage in Onqelos see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 22. K. J. Cathcart & R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Wilmington 1989, 4: “Scarcely less important [than the Memra concept] from a targumic operational point of view are the terms pûl ana’ (‘service’, ‘worship’) and da leta’ (‘fear’), whose surrogate role could be illustrated from a host of passages. Hos 14:2 (‘Return, O Israel, to the fear of the Lord your God’) and Hos 14:3 (‘Return to the worship of the Lord’) are especially useful in that they show the high degree of compatibility between the two terms.”

250

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

commandment we have received from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.” 2.8 Summary and Conclusion The emphasis on the Law in the Targums is indicative of the central place of the Law in Jewish life. The practical identification of wisdom with the Law led to the transferral to the latter of characteristics predicated of wisdom, such as being the tree of life, the source of life for those who observe the commandments. When interpreted otherwise than as figures of speech or metaphors this would almost of necessity lead to direct conflict with the Christian position where Christ, incarnate Wisdom, was seen as the sole source of life and healing. The positions taken up by both sides because of this may have helped towards the Jewish accentuation of the central place of the Law of Moses and towards the formulation of the Christian position on salvation through faith in Christ, and Paul’s emphasis on Christ being the end of the Law.

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace 3.1 Treatment of the Hebrew Terms ĔĀē, ĔĆĀē, āĔĀē of the Pentateuch in the Targums19 3.1.1 ĔĀē The term ĔĀē, generally with the sense of “true, just”, occurs only rarely in the Pentateuch. Neofiti renders by the noun ąĂóĔ (in status emphaticus ýąóĂĔ) (with variants ąóĔ, Lev 19:36; Deut 1:16), “truth”. Thus in Lev 19:15, 36; Deut 1:16; 16:18, 20; 33:19, or the corresponding adjective ąĆóĔ (Deut 25:15). Thus also Onqelos (but with substantive ąĂóĔ in Deut 25:15). 3.1.2 ĔĆĀē The term ĔĆĀē ( addiq), adjective “righteous, just”, of the Hebrew Text is reproduced with this same word in Aramaic in Neof. Gen 6:9; 7:1, with reference to Noah, and in Exod 9:27 with reference to Yahweh. It also occurs in non-translational texts with reference to Noah (Gen 6:8), the “Fathers” (patriarchs) in general (Gen 38:25; Exod 17:12; Num 23:9), the “mothers” of Israel (Num 23:9), individual patriarchs such as Abraham, Jacob; in the 19 For treatment of ĔĀē ,āĈă and related terms in tannaitic literature, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 183–205 (“Proper religious behaviour: zakah and tsadaq”).

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

251

plural of pious multitudes, pious nations; of the just in general in contrast with the wicked (especially with regard to eternal rewards). Otherwise, in Neofiti, the other Palestinian Targums and in Onqelos the Hebrew word is translated by the Aramaic ĆĈă (with the same meaning as ĔĆĀē). 3.1.3 āĔĀē In Neofiti, the Palestinian Targums and Onqelos the Hebrew āĔĀē, “righteousness”, is almost invariably rendered as ĂĈă. In the Pentateuch the sole exception is Gen 18:19 where āĔĀē in the phrase “ąđóċĂ āĔĀē” of the Hebrew Text is retained in Neofiti, PseudoJonathan and Onqelos as āėĔĀē (Neofiti; in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan: ýėĔĀē), which Kaufman and Sokoloff20 render as “charity (and justice)”. (Neofiti margin has ČĀĕĀĎĂĂĈă.) In Neof. Gen 35:9, in an added midrash, the term ĂĔĆĀē occurs, and is rendered by Sokoloff and Kaufman21 as “righteousness”: “God of the universe – May his name be blessed for ever and for ever and ever – your meekness and your rectitude and your righteousness (ćėĂĔĆĀē), and your power and your splendour shall not come to an end for ever and ever …” Otherwise the almost universal translation of the Hebrew term āĔĀē in the Targums of the Pentateuch (in the Palestinian Targums and in Onqelos) and in the Targum of the Prophets is ĂĈă. It is worthy of note that the Targum of Psalms renders with the cognate Aramaic word ýĔĀē, as does occasionally the traditional (rabbinic) Targum of Job (Tg. Job 33:26; 35:8; 37:23; not however on 27:6). It is also noteworthy that in the sole occurrence of a section with the Hebrew noun in the Qumran Targum of Job the Aramaic renders with the cognate Aramaic word (ćėĔĀē; 11QtgJob col. XXVI 3; Job 35:8). 3.2 The Righteousness of God in the Targums of the Pentateuch In a text of Moses’ blessing of the tribe of Gad, Deut 33:21 says that some unnamed person (“he”) performed āĂāĆėĔĀē (āôñď), “the righteousness of Yahweh (and his ordinances with Israel)”. The subject of the verb seems to be Gad. Here Yahweh’s righteousness seems to be what is righteous in Yahweh’s eyes, what Yahweh considers right, the ordinances he gave to Israel – as the continuation of the text says. In Jewish tradition, as represented in 20 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 458; S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-inContext Concordance, 1162. 21 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 458; S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-inContext Concordance, 1162.

252

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

the Targums and rabbinic literature, this section of Moses’ blessing is understood to speak of Moses, of his death and burial, and so the person who did, executed, Yahweh’s righteousness is consequently understood as Moses. After an added paraphrase on Moses leading the people in this world and in the world to come, Neofiti renders literally as: “he [that is: Moses] executed the righteousness of the Lord (ĆĆĆėĂĈă) and he taught his judicial ordinances to the children of Israel”. Onqelos has the same basic understanding of the text as referring to Moses and translates: “He performed righteous deeds [or: ‘meritorious deeds’, ČĂĂĈă] before the Lord …” 3.3 The Righteousness of God in Targum of Isaiah22 Both terms ĔĀē and āĔĀē are of frequent occurrence in the Book of Isaiah, the latter sometimes in conjunction with ąđóċ (Isa 9:6; 33:5; 56:1; see also 1:27). Before examining the value of the evidence from the theological point of view we must first consider the targumist’s translation technique with regard to these terms. In general, as in the Pentateuch, ĔĀē is rendered as ąĂóĔ, “truth”.23 In 11:5 ĔĀē is rendered as ýĆĔĆĀē, “the just / righteous ones”, and at 45:8 by þĂą, “goodness”. In other occurrences ([42:21: āĆėĂýĈăĉ ĉýĕôĆĀ]; 51:5 – “my ĔĀē”; 58:8; 62:2; 64:4/5), probably due to the context, ĔĀē is rendered as ĂĈă, “righteousness” (the usual rendering for āĔĀē).24 As in 22 For the doctrine of Targum of Isaiah see in particular B. D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel; idem, The Isaiah Targum, Wilmington 1987. For this concept in Targum of Isaiah, see especially, K. Koch, “Die drei Gerechtigkeiten: Die Umformung einer hebräischen Idee im aramäischen Denken nach dem Jesajatargum”, in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen & Göttingen 1976, 245–267. Koch studies the three Aramaic terms used as a rendering of the Hebrew root ĔĀē, that is words from the Aramaic roots ĔĀē ,ĆĈă (mainly as an adjective ýĆĔĆĀē ,ýĔĆĀē), and ýąóĂĔ. He also notes the instances in which these terms occur in Targum of Isaiah as additions, without a corresponding term in the Hebrew Text. He examines the question in greater detail than is called for in this present study. A fuller examination of the question of the use of these terms in the Targum of Isaiah will be greatly facilitated by the publication of the Bilingual Concordance of Isaiah in the project A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, Project Director J. C. de Moor, Leiden, New York & Cologne (vols. 9–11: Isaiah, ed. by J. C. de Moor, 2002). (The entire concordance to the Targum of the Prophets has been published in 21 volumes 1995–2005, vol. 21: Introduction, Additions and Corrections, Indices, ed. by A. Houtman & J. C. de Moor, 2005.) 23 Thus 1:21, 26; 11:4; 16:5; 26:9; 32:1; 41:10 (“my ĔĀē”, God as speaker); 42:6; 45:13, 19; 51:1. 24 In Isa 42:21, ĔĀē in the biblical text is generally taken to speak of Yahweh’s righteousness: MT (nrsv): “The Lord was pleased, for the sake of his righteousness (ČďċĉĒđĄāĂāĆ ĂĔĀē), to make [his] teaching great and glorious” (ĕĆĀýĆĂāĕĂėĉĆĀÿĆ). Going apparently on the context immediately preceding, the Targum understands the suffix to refer to (the servant) Israel, and renders accordingly: “The LORD has good pleasure for the sake of the integrity (righteousness) of Israel (ĉýĕôĆĀ [l-zakka’ûteh] āĆėĂýĈăĉĉĆĀþ); he will magnify those who observe his law and will take hold of them” (Tg. Isa 42:21).

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

253

the Pentateuch, in Targum of Isaiah āĔĀē is, with few exceptions, rendered by the Aramaic ĂĈă.25 In 32:16 and 56:1 (where in the Hebrew it occurs in conjunction with ąđóċ) it is rendered as ýėĔĀē (see all Targums Gen 18:19 cited above) and also twice in 32:17 where there is no such connection. At 45:24 and 59:17 it is rendered as ČĂĂĈă, “righteous (or meritorious) deeds”. Some dictionaries define the Aramaic term ĂĈă as “merit, meritorious deed, acquittal, benefit”.26 However, within the Targum of Isaiah at least, the meaning of the term seems to be determined by the underlying term ĔĀē/ āĔĀē of the Hebrew Text, and by the parallel terms that accompany it such as redemption, vindication. Tg. Isa 46:12–13: “Attend to my Memra, you stubborn-hearted who are far removed from righteousness (ýėĂĈă). My righteousness (ĆėĂĈă) is near; it shall not be far off, and my redemption (ĆčĔĕĂđ) shall not be kept back. I will set a redeemer (ĔĆĕđ) in Zion for Israel my praise (ĆėĄþóė).” (MT: “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart who are far from āĔĀē [rsv, nrsv: “deliverance”]. I will bring near my āĔĀē [ĆėĔĀē; rsv, nrsv: “my deliverance”] … my salvation [ĆėďóĆ] will not tarry; I will put salvation [āďĂóĆ] in Zion, for Israel my glory.) Tg. Isa 45:6–8: “… that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. … I the Lord do all these things. Let the heavens minister from above and let the clouds flow with goodness [MT: “rain down righteousness”, ĔĀē]. Let the earth open and let the dead come to life [MT: “that they may bring forth salvation”], and let righteousness (ýėĂĈă) be revealed at the same time: I the Lord have created them.” (MT, nrsv, v. 8: “Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the skies rain down righteousness [ĔĀē], and let the earth open that salvation [ďóĆ] may spring up, and let it cause righteousness [āĔĀē] to sprout up also …”) Tg. Isa 51:4–5: “(4) Attend to my Memra, O my people, and give ear to my service (ĆčĄĉĂđ), O my congregation; for a [the] law shall go forth from before me, and my judgement as a light. (5) The peoples shall be gathered together to it. My righteousness (ĆėĂĈă; HT: ĆĔĀē) is near; my salvation [redemption; ĆčĔĕĂđ] is gone forth and by the strength of my mighty arm shall the peoples [nations] be judged.” (nrsv: “(4) Listen to me, my people, and give heed to me, my nation; for a teaching [āĕĂė] will go out from me, and my justice [Ćąđóċ] for a light to the peoples. (5) I will bring near my deliverance [ĆĔĀē] quickly, and my salvation [ĆďóĆ] has gone out …”) Tg. Isa 51:6: “… my salvation (ĆčĔĕĂđ; HT: ĆėďĂóĆ) shall be for ever and my righteousness (ĆėĂĈă: HT ĆėĔĀē) shall not fail.” Tg. Isa 48:1: “Hear this, O house of Jacob which are called by the name of Israel, and who are come forth from the family of Judah; with whom a covenant (ĊĆĔ) was 25 Thus in Tg. Isa 1:27; 5:7, 16, 23; 10:22; 28:17; 33:5; 45:8, 24; 46:12, 13; 48:1, 18; 51:6, 8; 54:17; 58:2; 59:16; 60:17; 61:10, 11; 63:1; 64:6. 26 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 176; M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York & London 1903 (repr. New York 1950), 399. J. Levy pays greater attention to the fuller targumic evidence in Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, Leipzig 1867–1868 (3rd edition 1881; reprint of 3rd edition, Cologne 1959), 221: “zakû, zekûta, zakûta) 1. Gerechtigkeit, Tugend. 2. Sieg.”

254

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

made in the name of the Lord God of Israel; your remembrance (memorial; ČĂĈčĕĈĂĀ) shall not cease. Does not his Memra stand firm in truth and in righteousness (ĂĈăþ)?” (48:1b nrsv: “… who swear in the name of the Lord, and invoke the God of Israel, but not in truth or right” [āĔĀēþýĉĂėċýþýĉ].) Tg. Isa 61:10: “Jerusalem has said: I will greatly rejoice in the Memra of the Lord; my soul shall exult in the salvation (ýčĔĕĂđþ; HT: ďóĆ) of my God; for he has clothed me with garments of salvation (ČĔĕĂđ); he has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness (ĂĈă) …” Tg. Isa 61:11: “For as the earth brings forth flowers …, so shall the Lord God reveal the righteousness (āėĂĈă) and the praise of Jerusalem before all the peoples” (HT: “… the Lord will cause āĔĀē and praise to spring up before all the nations”).

One may legitimately ask whether this translation is due to the targumist’s theological stance or is merely a consequence of his translation technique. It would appear that in the Targum tradition as represented by the Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch ĂĈă was the accepted rendering of the Hebrew āĔĀē. It could be that in the Aramaic translation of Isaiah the targumist is doing no more than abiding by this translation principle. However, even with the targumist’s translation techniques, we can say that in the Targum of Isaiah the prophet’s message on Yahweh’s saving plan for his people Israel and humanity, his righteousness, his salvation / redemption, his vindication of his eternal purpose, comes across clearly.27 The Lord’s righteousness is his saving plan. This comes from him; it is not any human doing. The meaning of the term used, ĂĈă, “righteousness”, is determined by its biblical context in the Book of Isaiah, not by what it might mean in another setting (for instance “merit”). Given the general use of ĂĈă as a rendering for āĔĀē in the Targums of the Pentateuch, one can legitimately presume that this was also the term used in the translation of the Book of Isaiah in Second Temple times. 3.4 The Righteousness of God in the Targum of Psalms The translation technique of Targum of Psalms with regard to the Hebrew Text terms ĔĀē and āĔĀē is quite different from that in the other Targums already examined. The usual rendering of the term ĔĀē is ýėĔĀē, or ĔĀē, ýĔĀē, ýĔĀĆē. It is rendered as ĂĈă in 7:9; 9:5; 50:6; 51:21; 52:7; 96:12(13) (which = 98:9 where it is rendered ýėĔĀē); 119:7, 106, 138; 132:9. It is translated as ąĂóĔ (“truth”) at 17:15; 45:5; 119:75. The term āĔĀē occurs thirty-three 27 See Koch, “Die drei Gerechtigkeiten”, 256–257: “Von menschlichem Verdienst ist im Umkreis der Wurzel zkj im Jesajatargum weit und breit nichts zu entdecken. Zakûta ist Gottes zurechtbringende eschatologische Machttat, die auf Erden unter seinem Volk – der zu ihm durch Bund gehörenden Gemeinschaft – durchsetzt, was Jahwäs Wort schon längst verheißen und was in Gottes Umgebung seit jeher wirksam war!”

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

255

times in the Psalter. It is generally rendered as ýėĔĀē. At Ps 72:3; 106:31; 111:3; 112:3, 9; at 11:7 we have ĂĈă (at 112:4 ĆýĈă), at 69:28 ýĆĔĆĀē. While the Targum of Psalms has a certain amount of paraphrase and midrashic additions, in general its rendering remains close to the Hebrew original, and in general it conveys in Aramaic the sense and message of the original Hebrew. This holds for the usages of the Hebrew Text in the matter of the meanings of ĔĀē and āĔĀē. Thus, for instance, for Ps 85:11–14 (in rsv rendering): “Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness (ĔĀē) and peace will kiss each other. (12) Faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness (ĔĀē) will look down from the sky … (14) Righteousness (ĔĀē) will go before him, and make his footsteps a way.”

In the Targum this reads: “Goodness and truth have met; righteousness (ýĔĀĆē) and peace have joined together. Truth has sprung up from the earth and righteousness (ýĔĀĆē) has looked down from heaven. Righteousness (ýĔĀĆē) will walk before him and set his footsteps in a good path (way).”

In Psalm 96 (Ps 96:13) Yahweh’s righteousness is mentioned in conjunction with the coming reign of God. “(10) Say among the nations, ‘The Lord reigns: Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity … (13) He will judge the world with righteousness (ĔĀēþ), and all the peoples with his truth.’” (rsv rendering)

This in the Targum reads: “(10) Say among the nations, ‘The Lord reigns; he has also established the world; it will not be moved. He will judge the nations in uprightness … (13) He will judge the world in righteousness (ĂĈăþ) and the nations in uprightness.’”

As already noted, the last verse also occurs in Ps 98:9, where the Targum employs ýėĔĀē instead of ĂĈă. 3.5 Israel’s Election Not Due to Her Own Righteousness (or Merit – ĂĈă) In seeking to determine the position of the Targums on any particular point, it is important to examine the Targums as translation, to see how faithful

256

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

they are to the message and teaching of the original biblical text. It may be that certain emphases within later Jewish tradition run counter, and depart from, the biblical text. On some occasions the Targum clearly rewrites the biblical text through what are known as “converse translations”, which say the opposite to what the text itself says. Such texts have generally to do with marginal issues. This does not appear to be the case with regard to God’s election of Israel being due to God’s free initiative, to divine grace, not to Israel’s merits. The point is made in the Hebrew Text of Deut 9:4–6: “Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them [the nations of Canaan] before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness (ĆėĔĀēþ) that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land’ … Not because of your righteousness (ćėĔĀēþ) or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess the land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word which he spoke to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know therefore that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land because of your righteousness (ćėĔĀēþ); for you are a stubborn people.”

The Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) renders this as follows: “(4) At the time the Memra of the Lord your God blots them out before you, do not say in your hearts, saying: ‘It is because of our merits (ČėĂĂĈăþ) that his Memra has brought us in to possess this land', whereas it is because of the sins of these nations that the Memra of the Lord has driven them out before you. (5) It is not because of your merits (ČĂĈėĂĂĈăþ) or the uprightness of your hearts that you are going in to possess their land; but because of the sins of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you, and that he may fulfil the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. (6) And you must know that it is not because of [correcting text, which has ‘their’] merits (ČĂāėĂĂĈăþ) that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people for receiving instruction.”

The translation of Onqelos is no different: “Do not say in your heart …: ‘It was because of my merit that the Lord brought me in to possess this land …’ It is not because of your merit (ćėĂĈăþ) and the truthfulness of your heart …” The same is true of Tg. Ezek. 36:20–23. In the original biblical text Ezekiel is commanded by God to prophesy to Israel in exile that the Lord is to redeem her from exile, not for her sake but for the sake of his own holy name, which has been profaned. The Targum is faithful to the biblical text, apart from brief expansions noted here in italics. “(20) And they came in among the nations to which they had been exiled, because they profaned my holy name, in that men said to them: If these are the people of the Lord, how is it that they have been exiled from the land which is the abode of his Shekinah? (21) But I had consideration for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they had been exiled. (22) Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake (ČĂĈĉĆĀþ) that I

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

257

am acting, O house of Israel, but for my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations, which you have caused to be profaned among them, and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified through you before their eyes.’” (Tg. Ezek 36:20–23)

Similarly in Isa 48:11 God says concerning the great deed of redemption soon to come: “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.” The Targum remains faithful to the fundamental idea: “For the sake (ĉĆĀþ) of my name, for the sake of my Memra, I will do (it), so that it is not profaned. And my glory which I revealed to you I will not give to any other people” (Tg. Isa 48:11). There is a similar idea in Isa 42:8: “I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other.” The Targum translates practically as at 48:11: “I am the Lord; this is my name and the glory I have revealed to you I will not give to any other people.” In Tg. Ezekiel 16 much of the Hebrew Text is rewritten. The rewriting of 16:3 speaks of God’s covenant with Abraham in Canaan. The rewriting of Ezek 16:6 speaks of the bondage in Egypt, and of God’s intervention because of his covenant with Abraham: “And the memory of the covenant with your forefathers came in before me, so I revealed myself in order to redeem you, for it was revealed before me that you were oppressed by your servitude.” At the end of the chapter (Ezek 16:60–62) God promises to make a new and everlasting covenant with Israel, a text rendered literally in the Targum: “Yet I, for my part, will remember my covenant with you of former days and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you” (Tg. Ezek 16:60). The text goes on to speak of God (the Hebrew Text says “you”, that is, Israel) taking Israel’s older and younger sisters and giving them to her as daughters, “but not on account of the covenant with you” (Ezek 16:61). The Targum paraphrases this passage of the Hebrew Bible of Israel waging war with countries that are mightier than herself as well as with weaker ones, and of God handing them over to her “even though you [that is, Israel] did not observe the Torah”. 3.6 The Merits (or: Righteousness – ĂĈă) of the Fathers (and Mothers) of Israel 3.6.1 Views of Scholars on the Matter In the course of their consideration of theological concepts of the Targum of the Prophets, M. Smolar and M. Aberbach write:28 “The concept of ancestral merit aiding and preserving their offspring – even when the children do not measure up to the standards of their forefathers – is well established in both Biblical and rabbinic theology. In particular, it is the Patriarchs, Abraham, 28 L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 219–220; with biblical, rabbinic and targumic (Targum of Prophets) references.

258

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

Isaac and Jacob, whose treasure-house of merit is an unfailing source of grace for their descendants, the children of Israel. Even when the latter are unworthy and sinful, they are saved from the full force of divine punishment and total destruction by the inexhaustible residue of ancestral merit. This concept is fully accepted by T[argum]J[onathan] … Because of the good deeds of Israel’s righteous and God-fearing ancestors, Israel’s transgressions are forgiven, and they are delivered from divine wrath. Even when they are punished because of their sins, God’s covenant with the Patriarchs protects them from annihilation, and ensures their ultimate redemption and restoration – a reward for the righteous acts of Israel’s forefathers, who are called by God’s name, and whom the Almighty created for his glory.”

A. Shinan writes in like vein in his doctoral dissertation on the haggadah of the Palestinian Targums:29 “The doctrine of inherited ancestral merit. This notion is often mentioned in the Targumim. It appears both as a factor in explaining the flow of events in the biblical narrative, for example Num. 21:1 (PsJ, TN, PT) and as an assurance which the Meturgeman offers his audience, for example Gen 15:11 (PsJ, TN, FT, MTN). This complete and simplistic belief in the inheritance of ancestral merit as a constant shield for the people of Israel is characteristic of Jewish folk belief and rabbinic sources contain quite a few comments opposed to this belief.”

Similarly in other introductions to the Targums. Thus S. Levey in his introduction to the Targum of Ezekiel:30 “The Rabbinic principle of zekut ’abot, ‘the merit of the fathers,’ finds a favourable response in Tg. [Ezekiel]. The idea that the ancestral faithfulness to the covenant is sufficient for God to redeem their descendants is expressed in [Tg. Ezekiel] 16:6, which combines this idea with the observance of circumcision and the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb as the rationale for Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage.”

In his commentary on the words “my merit” (ĆėĂĈă) in Onq. Deut 9:4 (“The Lord has brought me in to take possession of this land on account of my merits [ĆėĂĈăþ] …”) I. Drazin remarks:31 “MT: dk, ‘righteousness.’ The three Pentateuchal Targums have zkwt, merit. There is no implication here of the concept of proxy Zachuth, by which one can vicariously tap into the reward owed to others for their righteous acts. One aspect of this concept is Zachuth Aboth, whereby Jews were (or, according to some, are) able to reap the rewards of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The unofficial Targums contain many

29 A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1979 (Hebrew, with an abstract in English); in abstract in English, xiv. 30 S. H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, Wilmington 1987, 13. 31 I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with an Analysis and Commentary, Ktav Publishing House (no place of publication indicated), 1982, 125; with reference to his doctoral dissertation (St. Mary’s University, Baltimore, Maryland) Targumic Studies for a full discussion of Zachuth.

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

259

verses reflecting this concept, but it is not found anywhere in T[argum]O[nkelos]. The official Targum is simply rendering the Hebrew with an Aramaic equivalent.”

3.6.2 The Term and the Concept. (a) The term ĂĈă in the singular, absolute, can mean “vindication, innocence” in a legal case. Thus, for instance, Neof. Lev 19:16 (“when you know he is innocent [“that there is innocence to him”] in the trial”); 19:18; 24:12. Likewise in Neof. mg. Gen 18:19 (Neofiti mg.: “to perform ČĀĕĀĎĂĂĈă”; Neofiti: “ýčĆĀĂýėĔĀē”; for Neofiti see 3.1.3. above). In Neof. mg. Gen 15:1 the term occurs twice with the meaning “meritorious deed”, or “deed worthy of merit”: “perhaps he did not find ĂĈă in me the first time they (that is, the foreign kings) fell before me … or perhaps he will not find ĂĈă in me the second time …”32 (b) (ė)ĂĈă(þ) in sense of “for the sake of”.33 In Neof. mg. Gen 18:26 (ė)ĂĈăþ has clearly this sense. Abraham says: “(shall you not) loose and forgive the city for their sake [that is, of the fifteen righteous] – ČĂāėĂĂĈăþ”, rendering Hebrew Text ĊĕĂþďþ – a Hebrew word rendered in Neofiti here and elsewhere (apart from Gen 26:24) by ĉĉÿþ or ĉĉÿþČċ. In the Hebrew Text of Gen 12:13 both terms are used: Abram says to Saray: “Say, I pray, that you are my sister so that it may be well with me because of you (ćĕĂþďþ) and that my life may be spared on your account (ćĉĉÿþ).” Neofiti renders the first of these terms by ćĉĉÿþ, “because of you”, and the second by ćėĂĂĈăþ (“by your merits”; possibly to be understood as singular; so also Neof. Gen 28:14), clearly to be understood here as “on your account”. In Gen 26:24, with reference to Abraham (“ĕĂþďþ Abraham my servant”), Neofiti renders as ĊāĕþýĀýėĂĂĈăþ, “for the merits of Abraham”. The word ĉĉÿþ occurs, as just instanced, in Hebrew with the sense of “on account of, for the sake of”. In Neofiti it is rendered by ėĂĈăþ, “on account of, for the sake of [or: ‘for the merit of’?]” in Gen 39:5 (ėĂĈăþ, of Joseph) and Gen 30:27 (Laban said to Jacob: I know that the Lord has blessed me ćėĂĈăþ; “on your account”; or: “by your merit”?). In Deut 18:12 Neofiti renders by the cognate Aramaic ĉĉÿþ. We seem to have an indication of the practical equivalence of ĉĉÿþ and ėĂĈăþ, or rather the plural form ėĂĂĈăþ, in Neof. Num 22:30: “… the sons of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob because of whom (ČĂāĉĉÿþ) the world was 32 Pal. Tg. Gen 15:1 cited in full below, section 4.2. (p. 267). The term ĂĈă is used in connection with keeping the commandments in Neof. Deut 6.25: “it will be ĂĈă (= virtue; merit) for us if we do all these precepts”. The text is, however, not particularly significant since ĂĈă renders āĔĀē of the Hebrew Text. 33 According to Sokoloff (Dictionary, 176) ĂĈă, no. 2, “merit” is used especially in the phrase ėĂĈăþ, “for the sake of”, with example in the singular (ėĂĈăþ), from Neof. Num 23:9; 24:5, the midrashim; in the plural (ėĂĂĈăþ), Frg. Tg. P Gen 39:5; Neof. Gen 39:5; 12:13; Deut 9:5.

260

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

created from the beginning and for whose merits (ČĂāėĂĂĈăþ; or: “for whose sakes”?) it is remembered (read: ? being governed) before them.” Two questions arising from this evidence of Neofiti are made acute by the corresponding evidence of the other texts of the Palestinian Targums, in particular the glosses to Neofiti and the manuscripts (PVNL) of the Fragment Targums. These questions are the exact meaning to be given to – ėĂĈăþ in a number of texts, and whether there is any significant difference in this regard in the use of the singular (ėĂĈăþ) or the plural (ėĂĂĈăþ). We have seen that in Gen 12:13 Neofiti uses both terms ĉĉÿþ and ėĂĈăþ (ėĂĂĈăþ) apparently with the same meaning, “for the sake of”. That this is so seems confirmed by Neofiti margin, which corresponding to Neofiti’s ćėĂĈăþ has ćĉĉÿþ. In similar manner in Gen 12:26 corresponding to Neofiti’s āĉĉÿþ (“for her [Saray’s] sake”), Neofiti margin has āėĂĂĈăþ (“for her merits”, plural). Likewise for Gen 18:26, where for Neofiti’s “(will you … pardon all the sinners of the place) because of them” (ČĂāĉĉÿþ), Neofiti margin has “for their merits” (ČĂāėĂĂĈăþ). Texts such as these possibly indicate that we should not press the singular or plural form or even a very clear distinction in at least some texts between the rendering “for the sake(s) of” and “for the merit(s) of”. 3.6.3 The Merit (ėĂĈă) of the Fathers and Mothers in Neofiti and Margins In Neofiti Num 23:9 in the course of one of his oracular replies to king Balak Balaam says: “(8) How can I curse when the Memra of the Lord (blesses)? How can I diminish them when the Memra of the Lord multiplies them? (9) For I see this people travelling and coming34 for the merit (ėĂĈăþ; or: ‘merits’?) of the just Fathers who are comparable to the mountains – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and for the merit (ėĂĈăþ; or: ‘merits’) of the just Mothers who are comparable to the hills – Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.”

(The Masoretic Text has: “How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How can I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced? For from the top of the mountains I see him; from the hills I behold him.”) It may be noted that in Neof. Num 23:9 (as in Neof. Num 24:5) Sokoloff35 translates ĂĈăþ as “for the sake of”: “for the sake of the righteous fathers”. Moses blessed Joseph “with the finest produce of the ancient mountains, and the abundance of the everlasting hills” (Deut 33:15). The mountains and the hills are given the same haggadic interpretation as in Num 23:9. The text is thus paraphrased in Neofiti: “[The land of Joseph is] (a land) producing good fruits by the merit (ėĂĈăþ; or ‘merits’) of our fathers, who 34 35

Sokoloff, Dictionary, 139, renders as “travelling to and fro”. Ibid., 176.

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

261

are comparable to mountains – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and by the merit (ėĂĈăþ; or ‘merits’) of the mothers, who are comparable to the hills – Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.” The text of Neofiti in Deuteronomy 33, as the various forms of the Fragment Targum (manuscripts VNL) go on, we may note, to use the term ėĂĈă (“… of the land”), in the paraphrase of the verse that follows (Deut 33:16): “(a land) producing good fruits ėĂĈăþ of the land (ýēĕýėĂĈăþ) and of its fullness, and which does the will of him who made the glory of his Shekinah dwell in the thorn bush”. (The Masoretic Text has: “with the best of the earth and its fullness and the favour of him that dwelt in the bush”.) One writer36 believes that ėĂĈă (found in all witnesses) seems out of place in v. 16, and may be an intrusion from the preceding verse. However, it may be original, and to be translated not by “merit(s)” but simply as “on account of”.37 Mention is often made of the merit (or merits) of Abraham alone. God promises Abraham that in (for) his merit (ćėĂĈăþ; merits, 18:18 ,ýėĂĂĈăþ; Hebrew Text: “in you”) all the earth, peoples, etc., will be blessed: Gen 12:3; 18:18; 26:4. God promises Isaac: “I am with you, and I will bless and multiply your sons for the merits [ýėĂĂĈăþ; possibly to be understood as singular] of Abraham my servant” (Neof. Gen 26:24). Although the Hebrew Text has ĕĂþďþ (“because of”; rsv: “for Abraham’s sake”) here the use of the plural (ýėĂĂĈă) in the Aramaic indicates that Abraham’s merits are intended. The “merit [āĆėĂĈă, VN; or ‘merits’, āĆėĂĂĈă, PL, Neofiti] of their father Abra(ha) m” are mentioned in Pal. Tg. Gen 15:11 as protecting his sons against the schemes of the kingdoms of the earth. Pal. Tg. Gen 39:5 says the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian Potiphar “for the merit(s) of (āĆėĂĂĈăþ, āĆėĂĈăþ) Joseph”. Since the Hebrew Text has here ĉĉÿþ (“on account of”) it may be that the Aramaic ėĂĈăþ is to be understood in the same sense. Jacob blesses Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh with the words: “By your merit [ćėĂĈăþ; Hebrew Text: ‘in you’] shall Israel be blessed” (Gen 48:20). In an added paraphrase Jacob tells Laban: “The Lord has blessed me for my merits” (ĆėĂĂĈăþ, Neof. Gen 30:30) and in another free paraphrase Jacob speaks of his own merits (ĆėĂĂĈăþ, Neofiti, P; merit, ĆėĂĈăþ VN) and his own good works (Pal. Tg. Gen 48:22). God also promised Jacob than in (or by) his merits (ćėĂĂĈăþ) all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen 28:14). Benefits were bestowed on Israel for the merits of Miriam and Aaron. When Miriam was struck with leprosy her brother Aaron said to Moses: “Pray her dead flesh. … Why should we lose her merit?” (Pal. Tg. Num 36 B. B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Studies in Judaism), New York & London 1987, 335. 37 We may note here a somewhat similar case: “for the merits of the tents … for the merits of the school houses” in Neof. Num 24:5.

262

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

12:13) The benefits conferred on Israel through Miriam’s merits are noted in Targum Neofiti: Israel became sixty myriads (Num 12:16); while she was leprous the clouds of glory did not move (Neof. Num 12:16); for her merits the well used to come up.38 The benefits of the merits of both Aaron and Miriam are recalled in Pal. Tg. Num 21:1: “And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the south heard that Aaron, the pious man for whose merit (āĆėĂĈăþĀ) the clouds of glory used to lead Israel forth had been removed [that is, had died]; and that Miriam the prophetess, for whose merit (āĆėĂĈăþĀ) the well used to come up had been removed …” We may note in passing that the tradition in this paraphrase of Num 21:1 is very old, already clearly attested in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (LAB 20:7): “And these are the three things that God gave to his people on account of [= ? ėĂĈăþ; or: ‘for the merit of’] three persons: that is, the well of water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. And when these came to their end, these three things were taken away from them.”39 3.7 Divine Grace It is scarcely necessary to treat of this theme as a special section. The biblical teaching on this matter comes across in the Aramaic translation. Israel’s election as God’s chosen people is due to God’s free choice, to God’s goodness, not to any merit on Israel’s part. Israel has sinned and deserves punishment. In the Targums, as in the biblical text, Israel acknowledges this. But the nation also knows of God’s unbounded mercy and of the pardon he has promised for genuine repentance. Outside of passages which have direct translation there is abundant mention of divine mercy. In Israel, prayers of the nation and the individual were addressed to the merciful God. God was asked to listen to their supplications in his “good mercy”; they begged him to listen in the name of the “mercy that was before him”. See further below under the heading “repentance” (section 6.). 3.8 Summary and Reflection on ĂĈă, “Righteousness”, “Merit” in the Targums and in Paul It is clear that according to the Targum Israel’s election was not due to her own merits. This cardinal point is clearly stated in the biblical text (Deut 38 See the text of Neof. Num 12:12, with notes, in M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995, 78–79. 39 Translation of D. Harrington, in OTP 2, 329. Further references in McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, 79, n. 8.

3. Righteousness and Divine Grace

263

9:4–6), a doctrine equally clearly expressed in the Aramaic translation. It is also clear from Ezekiel 36, in both biblical text and Aramaic translation. The Targums also speak of merit (or merits) of the Fathers and Mothers of Israel, and also of Miriam and Aaron, but nearly always in the phrase ėĂĈăþ (or plural ėĂĂĈăþ). Sometimes this phrase is to be translated simply as “because of”, “for the sake of”. On other occasions it is doubtful whether we should render as “on account of”, or as “by / for / through the merit(s) of”. From the evidence examined earlier, it is not at all clear whether we should see any significance in the use of the plural rather than the singular form. Even if we do understand the phrase as “through the merits of” (the patriarchs in general, of an individual patriarch or mother of Israel, of Aaron, Miriam) the targumic evidence does not lead us to a doctrine of an inherited merit that of itself saves Israel, the descendants of these patriarchs. The belief must be taken in conjunction with God’s covenant with the patriarchs, with his oath to them, with the biblical doctrine of prayer and intercession. The Bible speaks of God remembering his covenant with the patriarchs. Moses, a model for prayer and intercession before God on Israel’s behalf, prays to God when the election and covenant were in danger: “Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, I will multiply your descendants, like the stars of heaven …” (Exod 32:12–13). The covenant was as a memorial before God. So too in later Jewish theology (but already well formulated by the first century c.e.) was the Aqedah, the Binding of Isaac.40 In the Palestinian Targums we have the following prayer of Abraham to God: “When his sons [that is, the sons of Isaac] are in the hour of distress you shall remember the Binding of the father Isaac, and listen to the voice of their supplication, and answer them and deliver them from all distress …” (Neof. Gen 22:14). It is doubtful that in the matter of ėĂĈăþ of the Fathers, the Targums are far removed from what Paul writes to the Romans concerning Israel: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption … and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs (Ơė ęŮ ĚċĞƬěďĜ)” (Rom 9:4–5). “As regards the Gospel they [the Israelites] are enemies of God for your sake (Ďē’ ƊĖǬĜ), but as regards election they are beloved because of the Fathers (ĎēƩ ĞęƳĜĚċĞƬěċĜ)” (Rom 11:28). The phrase ĎēƩ ĞęƳĜĚċĞƬěċĜ corresponds well to āėāþýėĂĈăþ (āĆĔĆĀē) of Balaam’s oracle in the Palestinian Targum of Num 23:9.

40 See Pseudo-Philo, LAB 18:5: “his [that is, Isaac’s] offering was acceptable before me, and on account of his blood I chose them”, with references by D. Harrington, “PseudoPhilo”, in OTP 2, 302, n. 12.

264

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

The development of Paul’s own specific theology on the revelation of God’s justice, and justification by faith owes much to the theology of Deutero-Isaiah and the Psalms of the kingship of Yahweh. The Targums, had Paul known them, would not have come between him and the biblical text, since the basic message of the original authors comes through in the Aramaic translation.41

4. Good Works and Reward of Good Works “Good works” and “evil works” are phrases which occur a number of times in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Acceptance of God’s plan for humans is shown in good works (or deeds; ČĆþąČĆĀþď/ ČĆĀþĂď), rejection of this by evil works (or deeds; ČĆóĆþČĆĀþď/ ČĆĀþĂď). Good deeds are rewarded in the next life (and occasionally in this); evil deeds are punished; retribution will be exacted by God for them. The occurrence and frequency of these phrases in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch is all the more significant in that they are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the Greek translation.42 4.1 Good Works The relevance of good or evil works, the doctrine of reward or punishment appears to have been a matter of debate in early Judaism. The conflicting viewpoints are put at some length in a debate between Cain and Abel in an added midrash on Gen 4:6–8. As preserved in Neofiti it reads (additional paraphrase noted by italics): “(4) And Abel also brought (his gift) from the first-born of his flock and from the fat ones among them. And the Lord received Abel and his offering with favour, (5) but he did not receive Cain and his offering with favour and Cain was greatly displeased and his countenance changed. (6)  And the Lord said to Cain: ‘Why, I pray, are you displeased and why has your countenance changed? (7). Surely, if you make your work in this world to be good, you will be remitted and pardoned in the world to come; but if you do not make your work in this world to be good, your sin will be kept for the day of great judgement and at the door of your heart your sin crouches. Into your hands, however, I have given the control over the evil inclination and you shall rule it, whether to remain just or to sin.’ (8)  And Cain 41

On the bearing of targumic evidence on Pauline doctrine on justification see B. Chilton, “Aramaic and Targumic Antecedents of Pauline ‘Justification’”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, 378–397. 42 On good deeds and rewards in the Targums see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 131–132; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 197–199.

4. Good Works and Reward of Good Works

265

said to Abel his brother: ‘Come! Let the two of us go out into the open field.’ And when the two of them had gone out into the open field, Cain answered and said to Abel: ‘I perceive that the world was not created by mercy and that it is not being conducted according to the fruits of good works and that there is favouritism in judgement. Why was your offering received favourably and my offering was not received favourably from me?’ Abel answered and said to Cain: ‘I perceive that the world was created by mercy and that it is being conducted according to the fruits of good works. And because my works were better than yours, my offering was received from me favourably and yours was not received favourably from you.’ Cain answered and said to Abel: ‘There is no judgement, and there is no judge and there is no other world. There is no giving of good reward to the just nor is vengeance exacted of the wicked.’ Abel answered and said to Cain: ‘There is judgement, and there is a judge, and there is another world. And there is giving of good reward to the just and vengeance is exacted of the wicked in the world to come.’ Concerning this matter the two of them were disputing in the open field. And Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.”

God’s will is that humans repent of the evil work, their evil deeds, and perform good works. For this reason he extended the age of his patience and gave his spirit to men to have them change before he sent the flood. In the paraphrase of Gen 6:3 in the Palestinian Targum God is made to say: “Behold I have put my spirit in the sons of man because they are flesh and their deeds are evil. Behold I have given them the span of one hundred and twenty years (in the hope that) perhaps they might do repentance, but they have not done it.” In the terminology of the Palestinian Targums the just were characterised by good deeds, the wicked by evil deeds. The Hebrew words Ċĉó (“whole, perfect”) and ĊĆċė (“perfect”) in the Pentateuch when they refer to a sacrificial animal are paraphrased in the Palestinian Targum as “perfect without blemish”; when referring to humans as “perfect in good works”.43 Noah was perfect in good works in his generation (Gen 6:9); and so also others (Gen 17:1; 25:27; 33:18; 34:21). Israel is to be different from those who seek direction from the dead. God tells them: “My people, children of Israel, you shall be perfect in good work with the Lord your God” (Neof. Deut 18:13; the Masoretic Text has ĊĆċė). Abram is told by God: “Serve before me in truth and be perfect in good work” (Neof. Gen 17:1; MT: “Walk before me and be perfect”). Jacob was a man perfect in good work (Neof. Gen 25:27). The dying Jacob called all his sons before him and blessed them; “each one according to his good works he blessed them” (Neof. Gen 49:1).

43

On this see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 73 (note on Neof. Gen 6:9).

266

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

4.2 The Reward of Good Works As expressed in the profession of faith in Pal. Tg. Gen 4:8 good works bear fruit in this world and in the next. They have their reward – in Aramaic ĕÿý þą. The basic sense of the Aramaic (as of the Hebrew) word ĕÿý is “payment for hire, wages, reward, profit”. God tells the Levites that they may have the choice part of liturgical offerings; “for it is your wages (ĕÿý; Hebrew ĕĈô) in return for your work in the tent of meeting” (Neof. Num 18:31). Jacob asks of Laban: “Where is the wage of my work?” (ĆėĂďĉĕÿý) (Frg. Tg. V Gen 31:39). We hear of the wage (ĕÿý) lost through enforced idleness (Neof. Exod 21:19).44 The same term is used for the reward for deeds or actions: a good reward or a bad reward in keeping with the action. We have already cited the words of Cain and Abel in their discussion of the question: “the giving of good reward (þąĕÿý) to the just”. In Lev 22:31 God tells Israel: “So you shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the Lord.” This in the Palestinian Targum becomes: “And you shall keep the commandments of my Law and do them. I am the Lord who gives a good reward to those who keep the commandments of my Law.” The good reward is already there, stored up for the just in the world to come, or for the world to come (ĆėýĀýċĉďĉ). It is thus expressed in an oracle of Balaam, in a midrashic expansion of the biblical text: “Blessed are you, just ones! What a good reward is prepared for you before the Lord for [or: ‘in’] the world to come” (Pal. Tg. Num 23:23).45 In another expansion of the Hebrew Text Balaam speaks of an eschatological divine intervention “when the Lord sets his mighty anger to take vengeance on the wicked, to give reward to the just ones …” (Pal. Tg. Num 24:23). All observance of the commandments has its reward, but some of the reward can be given by God in this life instead of being reserved for the world to come. In an expansion of the biblical text of Deut 7:10 the Palestinian Targum has Moses say of God: (7:9) “You shall know, then, that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps the covenant and steadfast love for a thousand generations for the just ones who love him and for those who keep the precepts of his law, (10) and who repays in this world the rewards of their good works to those who hate him, in order to take revenge on them in the world to come. And he does not delay the good reward for those who hate him: while they are still in this world he repays them the reward of the small precepts (ČĉĆĉĔČĂĂēċĕÿý) that are in their hands.” 44

Further examples in M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 34–35. The Fragment Targums (manuscripts PVN) have a slightly different text: “How happy are you, O righteous ones, what good reward is prepared for you with your Father in heaven, for the world to come.” 45

4. Good Works and Reward of Good Works

267

Abram expresses this great fear of being rewarded in this life, with no reward stored up for him in the world to come. This is clearly expressed in an expanded introduction to Genesis 15 in the Palestinian Targum, which is as follows (given in Neofiti’s translation): “(15:1) After these things, after all the kingdoms of the earth had gathered together and had drawn up battle-lines against Abram and had fallen before him, and he had killed four kings from among them and had brought back nine encampments, Abram thought in his heart and said: ‘Woe, now, is me! Perhaps I have received the reward of the precepts [or: ‘reward for (keeping) the commandments’ – āėĂĂēċĕÿý] in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come. Or perhaps the brothers or relatives of those killed, who fell before me, will go and will be in their fortresses and in their cities and many legions will become allied with them and they will come against me and kill me. Or perhaps there were a few meritorious deeds (ČĉĆĉĔČĂĂēċ)46 in my hand the first time they fell before me and they stood in my favour, or perhaps no meritorious deed (āĂēċ) will be found in my hand the second time and the name of the heavens will be profaned in me.’ For this reason there was a word of prophecy from before the Lord upon Abram the just saying: ‘Do not fear, Abram, for although many legions are allied and come against you to kill (you), my Memra will be a shield for you; and it will be a protection for you in this world and although I delivered up your enemies before you in this world, the reward of your good works (ćĆĀþĂďĕÿý ýĆþą) is prepared for you before me in the world to come.’”

In Pal. Tg. Deut 28:31 (in the text on the curses for violating the covenant) we find belief that good works could save from the enemy in this world. Here “there shall be no one to help you” of the Masoretic Text is paraphrased: “and you shall have no good works before the Lord your God which might deliver you from the hands of your enemies”. Similar sentiments are expressed in Tg. Isa 26:20: “Go, my people, make for yourself good deeds which will protect you in time of distress” (MT: “Go, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you”). 4.3 Summary and Reflection These phrases “good works”, “bad works”, frequent in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, are found neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the Greek Old Testament. It is the language we find in the Gospel of Matthew.47 Christ tells his followers to let their light shine before others 46 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 493, renders the Aramaic words ČĉĆĉĔČĂĂēċ of this text as “light commandments” and of the Fragment Targum of the text as “easy commandments” (Dictionary, 325). 47 See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 131–132; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 198–199. “Mt. 6:19–21 = Lk. 12:33 f. speak in current Jewish imagery” (H. Preisker, “ĖēĝĒƲĜ”, TDNT 4 (1967), 712–728, at 714, with reference to H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1, 429–431).

268

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

so that they see their good works (ĔċĕƩ ŕěčċ) and give glory to their Father in heaven (Matt 5:16). We also find mention of human good works in certain letters of the Pauline corpus: 2 Thess 2:17 (őė … ŕěčȣ … ŁčċĒȦ); 1 Tim 5:10, 25; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Tit 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; Heb 10:24; 13:21 (variant).48 As in the Palestinian Targums, so also does Matthew’s Gospel speak of reward. Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness. Christ tells them to be glad and rejoice, for their reward is great in heaven (Matt 5:11). Good works are to be done, but the glory is to be given to God. Christ tells his followers to beware of practising their righteousness before men (ŕĖĚěęĝĒďė Ğȥė ŁėĒĚƶĚģė) in order to be seen by them; for then they have no reward from (Ěċěƪ) their Father in heaven (Matt 6:1). They would already have received their reward on earth (Matt 8:2, 5, 16).

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future In Rom 9:4 Paul, in his anguish of heart, reminds his readers that his people, the Israelites, are most beloved by God: to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises. The covenants are principally two: the covenant with the Fathers and the covenant with Moses at Sinai. Because of the importance of the concept for Judaism and Paul, I here treat briefly of targumic evidence on covenant. This scarcely goes beyond the evidence of the biblical text, without denying or notably changing the biblical teaching. A vision of the future is connected with God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15). Here the Palestinian Targums expand considerably, and relate the text to later Jewish history and the rewards and punishments in the otherworld, retribution in keeping with observance or neglect of the precepts of the Law. Another person accredited with visions of the future is the patriarch Jacob. I also include treatment of his visions. The kingdom of God was central to the teaching of Jesus. There are a number of references to the revelation of this kingdom in the Targums, which I believe merit treatment here. The same holds true with regard to the expectation of the Messiah. In all these the Aramaic paraphrases go beyond the biblical text, and I believe that they are witnesses to the complexities of Second Temple Judaism.

48

For the Pastoral Epistles see Preisker, “ĖēĝĒƲĜ”, 723–724; for Hebrews, 726.

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

269

5.1 Covenant with Moses (The Sinai Covenant) As one would expect, the Targums transmit faithfully the biblical narrative of the covenant with Moses, as recounted in Exodus 19:49 and 24, even though there are the usual changes in the Palestinian Targum texts. Moses is called to the holy mountain. God tells him: “If you hearken to the voice of my Memra and observe my covenant, you will be to my name a beloved people, as a special possession from all the nations, because all the earth is mine. And you shall be to my name kings and priests and a holy nation” (Pal. Tg. Exod 19:5–6; Neofiti cited). In contrast with this sober narrative,50 the account of the giving of the commandments in Exodus 20 is highly colourful, following a lead given in the biblical text itself in 20:18. The targumic rendering of the biblical account of the ratifying of the Sinai covenant (Exodus 24) is also fairly literal: the sprinkling of the blood on the top of the altar; the people’s profession of obedience (“All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will obey”); Moses’ sprinkling of the blood on the people with the words: “behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord established51 with you, all these words” (Exod 24:6–8; Neofiti, only Palestinian Targum text extant). 5.2 Breaking of the Covenant In a number of instances the Hebrew Bible speaks of breaking (ĕđā, Hiphil from root ĕĕđ) the covenant with God or Yahweh.52 The Targums have nothing specific to add in this regard, apart from the manner in which the different traditions understand and translate the Hebrew term in these contexts. In the Pentateuch Neofiti renders throughout by a form of ĎĆđý, the Afel of the root ĎĎđ, “to desecrate”.53 Onqelos understands and translates differently in the Pentateuch, through a form of the verb Ćčó, “to change”. So, too, does the Targum of the Prophets, in all cases except Jer 33:20–21, where the context is somewhat different: “If you can break (ĂĕđėĊý) my 49 On Pal. Tg. Exodus 19, see A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, Tübingen 1986, 110–118. 50 Chester, ibid., 116, remarks on Pal. Tg. Exodus 19: “Overall, again, it is striking that the Targumim develop the account of the Sinai theophany so little; this stands in marked contrast to their treatment of the giving of Torah in the following chapter.” 51 On the terminology “establishing a covenant” in the Palestinian Targum see R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, Totowa 1981, 59–63. 52 Thus Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15, 44; Deut 31:16, 20; Judg 2:1; 1 Kgs 15:19; Isa 24:5; 33:8; Jer 11:10; 14:21; 31:32; 33:20; Ezek 16:59; 17:15, 18; 44:7; Zech 11:10; 2 Chr 16:3. The verb āđĕ is used also with objects other than the covenant. These cases do not concern us here. 53 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 440–441; Kaufman & Sokoloff, A Key-Word-inContext Concordance, 1141, with all occurrences (35) of the term in the text and margins of Neofiti.

270

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

covenant with the day and my covenant with the night … then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken” (ĕđė), a word which the Targum here renders as “abolish”, from the root ĉąþ. The terminology of “changing the covenant” may have entered Jewish religious vocabulary at an early date. In 1 Macc 1:49 we have a letter of king Antiochus to the Jews telling them that they “should forget the law and change all the ordinances” (ƞĝĞď őĚēĕċĒƬĝĒċē ĞęȘ ėƲĖęğ ĔċƯ ŁĕĕƪĘċē ĚƪėĞċ ĞƩ ĎēĔċēƶĖċĞċ).54 5.3 Promises of New Covenant The Targums do not play down the threat made to the very existence of Israel by her unfaithfulness. Jeremiah prays to the Lord in Tg. Jer 14:21: “For your name’s sake, do not remove us afar off; do not make vile the place of the house of the throne of your Glory; let the memorial of the covenant of our fathers come before you; do not alter your covenant with us” (nrsv: “Do not spurn us for your name’s sake; do not dishonour your glorious throne; remember and do not break your covenant with us”). The Targum paraphrases the simple verb “remember” as letting the memorial (remembrance) of the covenant with Israel’s Fathers (that with the patriarchs, and probably that with Moses) come before God. Apart from phrasing in keeping with that of the Targum of Prophets, there is no significant difference in the targumic rendering of the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34. We may note 31:32: “‘Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day that I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, which covenant of mine they changed (ĂčĆčóý), although I took pleasure in them’, says the Lord.” The same can be said of the corresponding prophecy in Targum of Ezekiel, which remains faithful in substance to the biblical Hebrew Text, apart from translating “new heart, new spirit” of 36:26 as “faithful heart, faithful spirit”.55 5.4 Covenant with Abraham and Abraham’s Vision of the Future The covenant par excellence with the Fathers was that with Abraham. This is colourfully narrated in Genesis 15. This is narrated in two stages. First a 54 In the Prayer of Azariah in the Greek addition (in Septuagint and Theodotion) to Daniel, however, the verb used is ĎēċĝĔďĎƪėėğĖē (“disband, annul”): ĖƭĎēċĝĔďĎƪĝǹĜĝęğ ĞƭėĎēċĒƮĔđė(Dan 3:34 – as in LXX Deut 31:16, 20; Judg 2:1; Isa 24:5; Jer 11:20; 14:21 [all with Hebrew Text root ĕĕđ]). 55 In thus translating Targum of Ezekiel differs from Targum of Psalms’ rendering of Ps 51:12: “Create a pure heart for me, O God, and renew (ėĆĀĄė) within me (variant: in my body) a right spirit in the fear of you (ćėĉĄĀþ).”

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

271

deep sleep (āċĀĕė) fell on Abram, during which the Lord told him of the sufferings his offspring were to endure before coming into possession of the promised land (Gen 15:12–16). The Palestinian Targum introduces into its paraphrase mention of Abram’s merits as a guarantee of delivery for his children. I here give the relevant portion of the text of the Palestinian Targum in Neofiti’s version (noting in italics deviations from the biblical text): “(15:8) And he [Abram] said: ‘I beseech by the mercies that are before you, how, I pray, will I know that I shall inherit it?’ (9) And he [the Lord] said to him: ‘Sacrifice before me a heifer, three years old; a goat, three years old; and a ram, three years old; a turtle dove and the young of a pigeon.’ (10) And he sacrificed before him all these things, and he divided them in the middle and he placed each piece opposite the other, but the birds he did not divide. (11) And the birds came down upon the pieces and the merit of Abram removed them. When the bird of prey came down it hovered over the pieces. What is this bird of prey? This is the impure bird of prey. This is the impure bird. These are the kingdoms of the earth; when they plot evil counsel against the house of Israel, in the merits of their father Abram they find delivery. (12) The sun was at the time to set and a pleasant sleep fell upon Abram; and behold Abram saw four kingdoms rising against him. Dread: that is Babylon; Darkness: that is Media; Great: that is Greece; Fell Upon Him: this . (13) And he said to Abram: ‘Know of a surety that the descendants of your sons will be strangers and sojourners in a land that is not theirs; and they will enslave them and afflict them for four hundred years. (14) I, however, will be avenged of the nations that will enslave them. After that they will go out with great riches. (15) And you shall be gathered to your fathers in peace and you shall be buried at a good old age. (16) And the fourth generation will return here, because the sins of the Amorites are not as yet complete.’”

The second part of the narrative (15:17–21) gives the ratification of the covenant, with mention of the “smoking fire pot and the flaming torch” that passed between the divided pieces of the covenant. The Palestinian Targum sees in this a vision Abram had of the end time, of the damnation of the wicked and of the salvation of the just. I here give the text of Neofiti, italics denoting expansions. “(15:17) And behold the sun set and there was darkness, and behold Abram looked while seats were being arranged and thrones were erected. And behold, Gehenna which is like a furnace, like an oven surrounded by sparks of fire, by flames of fire, into the midst of which the wicked fall, because the wicked rebelled against the Law in their lives in this world. But the just, because they observed it, have been rescued from the affliction. All was thus shown to Abram when he passed between these parts. (18)  the Lord established a covenant with Abram saying: ‘To your sons I will give this land, from the Nile of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates, (19) the Salmites, the Kenizzites and the Orientals; (20) the Hittites, the Perizzites and the Giants; (21) the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.’”

272

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

5.5 Jacob’s Vision of the End Times The biblical narrative of Jacob’s last words to his sons opens as follows (Gen 49:1–2): “Then Jacob called his sons and said: ‘Gather around, that I may tell you what will happen to you in the days to come (ĊĆċĆāėĆĕĄýþ). (2) Assemble and hear, O sons of Jacob; listen to Israel your father.’” The Palestinian Targums have an expansive paraphrase of the entire chapter 49, with the blessings of Jacob, and in particular of vv. 1–2 which interest us here. These verses are extant in Neofiti, in the Fragment Targums PVN and in a Cairo Genizah targumic tosefta (ms. FF) for v. 1. A long history of composition lies behind the Palestinian Targum’s paraphrase of Genesis 49, some of it very old. This is particularly true of vv. 1–2. In these verses manuscripts V and N are practically the same as Neofiti. The paraphrase of these verses is particularly interesting because of the eschatological concepts they contain.56 A central point in the introductory paraphrase in vv. 1–2 is that Jacob intended, even tried, to reveal to his sons the end time (variously called concealed secrets, hidden ends, Gehenna, Eden, determined times of redemption and consolation, the mystery), but was prevented by God from doing so.57 I here give the translation of Neofiti’s text. “(49:1) And Jacob called his sons and said to them: ‘Gather together and I will tell you the concealed secrets, the hidden ends, the giving of the rewards of the just, and the punishment of the wicked, and what the tranquillity of Eden is.’ The twelve tribes gathered together and surrounded the bed of gold on which our father Jacob was lying after the end was revealed to him and that the determined end of the blessing and the consolation might be communicated to them. As soon as the end was revealed to him, the mystery was hidden from him. They hoped that he would relate to them the determined end of the redemption and the consolation. As soon as the mystery was revealed to him, it was hidden from him and as soon as the door was opened to him, it was closed from him. Our father Jacob answered and blessed them: each according to his good works he blessed them.

56 For a detailed study of Genesis 49, and of the opening verses in particular, see R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study of the Targumic Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986 (119–124 for eschatology); M. McNamara in the notes to the chapter in Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 215–217 for vv. 1–2; Y. Komlosh, “Ha-Aggadah betargumê birkat Ya‘akob”, Annual of Bar-Ilan University: Studies in Judaica and the Humanities, vol.  1: Pinkhos Churgin Memorial Volume, ed. by F. Z. Hirschberg & P. Artzl, Jerusalem 1963, 195–206. 57 According to a tradition transmitted in rabbinic writings, Jacob suspected that the reason why the secret was not revealed was that one of his sons might be unworthy; he was however reassured by their unanimous profession of the unity of God: “Hear, O Israel [that is, Jacob], the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This is also probably the reason for the inclusion of the opening words of the Shema‘ in Pal. Tg. Gen 49:2. For the rabbinic tradition see b. Pesachim 56a; Gen. Rab. 98(99):3 (ed. by J. Theodor & Ch. Albeck, Bereshith Rabba, Jerusalem 1965, 1251–1252).

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

273

(49:2) After the twelve tribes of Jacob had gathered together and surrounded the bed of gold on which our father Jacob lay, they were hoping that he would reveal to them the order of the blessings but it was hidden from him. Our father Jacob answered and said to them: ‘From Abraham, my father’s father, arose the blemished Ishmael and all the sons of Keturah. And from Isaac, my father, arose the blemished Esau my brother. And I fear lest there should be among you one whose heart is divided against his brothers to go and worship before foreign idols.’ The twelve sons of Jacob answered together and said: ‘Hear us Israel, our father, the Lord our God is one Lord.’ Jacob answered and said: ‘Blessed be his name; may the glory of his kingdom be for ever and ever.’”

The section of Neofiti, given above in italics (“after the end … hidden from him”), not in VN, is probably an interpolation in Neofiti. The opening section, “Gather together … he blessed them” shows dependence on apocalyptic texts, for instance Dan 2:18, 28, 30, 47–48; 2 Baruch 81:4. Terms with an eschatological flavour are: “concealed secrets” or “hidden mysteries” (ýĆĆċĆėĎ ýĆĆăĕ); “hidden ends” (ýĆĆăĆčÿ āĆĆēĆĔ); “the rewards of the righteous” (ýĆĆĔĆĀēĀČĂāĆĕÿý); “the punishment [or: ‘retribution’] of the wicked” (ýďĆóĕĀ ČĂāėčďĕĂđ); “the tranquillity [or: ‘security’, āėĂĂĉó] of Eden”. Likewise such phrases as: “was revealed to him”, “was concealed from him”, “the end (ĒĔ) with bliss and consolation”, “each according to his good deeds”. We are not told what precisely “the determined end (ĒĔ) of the blessing and consolation” were. The text has been compared with the Qumran pesher of Habakkuk (1QpHab VII 5–8 on Hab 2:3): “For still the vision awaits its time and hastens to the end (ĒĔ), it will not lie. The explanation is that the determined fixed end (ĒĔ) will be of long duration, and it will exceed all that the prophets have said; for the mysteries of God (ĉýĆăĕ) are marvellous …” The eschatology of the verses can be, and has been, compared with Tg. Isa 24:14–16, 23, esp. 24:16: “(24:14) They will lift up their voice, they will sing in the name of the Lord; they will shout as they broke forth over the prodigies that were done for them at the sea … (16) From the sanctuary, whence joy is about to go forth to all the inhabitants of the earth, we hear a song for the righteous. The prophet said: ‘The mystery (ăĕ) of the reward for the righteous is visible to me, the mystery of the retribution of the wicked is revealed to me! …’ (23) For the kingdom of the Lord of hosts will be revealed on the Mount of Zion and in Jerusalem and before the elders of his people in glory.” (MT [nrsv]: “[24:16] From the ends of the earth we hear songs of praise, of glory to the Righteous One. But I say: I pine away. I pine away. Woe is me! The treacherous deal treacherously. The treacherous deal very treacherously … [23] … For the Lord of Hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his elders he will manifest his glory.”)

274

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

The vision of the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the wicked found in this text of Targum of Isaiah are in line with the eschatology of Pal. Tg. Gen 4:8 and 15:11. 5.6 “Being ashamed in the world to Come”: The Patriarch Judah and the Afterlife In keeping with the teaching on the final judgement and afterlife in the Palestinian Targum texts already cited, we may add a text from Judah’s profession of guilt in the affair of Tamar. It occurs in a lengthy paraphrase on Gen 38:25 in the Palestinian Targum, a text that may be compared with Christ’s words in Luke 9:26.58 I cite the text of Neofiti. “Judah immediately stood upon his feet and said: ‘I beg of you brothers, and men of my father’s house, listen to me: It is better for me to burn this world, with extinguishable fire, that I may not be burned in the world to come whose fire is inextinguishable. It is better for me to be ashamed in this world that is a passing world, that I may not be ashamed before my just fathers in the world to come. And listen to me my brothers and house of my father: In the measure in which a man measures it shall be measured to him, whether it be a good measure or a bad measure. Blessed is every man who reveals his works.’”

5.7 The Coming Kingdom of God Reference to God’s kingship, to the kingdom of God, to the kingdom of God to be revealed, is found in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and in the Targum of Prophets. In many of the cases the introduction of the expression can be explained through the description of God as king in the biblical text. It is not so always, however, and the occurrences of the phrase are an indication that it represents a once current religious terminology. We give the chief occurrences of the phrase here. At the end of the Song of Moses (or of Miriam) in Exod 15:18 the biblical text says: “The Lord shall reign (ćĉċĆāĂāĆ) for ever and ever.” Onqelos paraphrases slightly: “The Lord, his kingdom is [variants: ‘endures’] for ever and ever and ever.” The Palestinian Targum texts are much more expansive, and so may Onqelos once have been.59 Neofiti paraphrases v. 18 as follows: “The children of Israel said: ‘How the crown of kingship become you, O Lord!’ When your sons saw the signs of your wonders in the sea, and the might between the waves, at that hour they opened their mouths together and said: ‘The kingship belongs to the Lord before the world and for ever.’” 58 59

See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 135–136. See B. Grossfeld, The Targum of Onqelos to Exodus, Wilmington 1988, 42.

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

275

The Song of Moses in the biblical text and Targum mainly concerns a past event. Yahweh was proclaimed king at the Exodus. There are other texts which speak of Yahweh as king (ćĉċāĂāĆ, or āĂāĆćĉċ) with a future reference or in contexts that can be given such a reference. In these the Targums often render as the future kingdom of God, a kingdom to be revealed. Reference to the kingdom of God to be revealed can also be read into texts where no explicit mention of a kingdom is made in the biblical text. We give instances here. Isa 24:23 ends a hymn with the words: “Then the moon will be astounded, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before his elders he will manifest his glory.” The last part of this is thus paraphrased in the Targum:60 “for the kingdom of the Lord of hosts shall be revealed in the mountain of Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before the elders of the people in glory.”

A little later in the same Targum we find mention of the kingdom of God in a context of divine intervention in favour of his people. The biblical text has: “As a lion or a young lion growls over his prey … so will the Lord of hosts come down to fight upon Zion and upon its hill like birds hovering, so the Lord of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it” (Isa 31:4–5). This in the Targum becomes: “As the lion, even the young lion, roars over its prey … so shall the kingdom of the Lord of hosts be revealed to dwell upon Mount Zion and upon its hill. (5) And as a bird flies quickly so shall the might of the Lord of hosts be revealed over Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver, he will rescue and make free.”

This revelation or manifestation of the kingdom of God to protect his people and avenge them of their enemies recalls the heavenly “epiphanies”, appearances or manifestations for this same effect in 2 and 3 Maccabees (see 2 Macc 2:21; 5:4; 12:22; 14:15; 15:27; see also 2 Macc 3:24; 3 Macc 2:9; 5:8; likewise 2 Thess 2:8). There is mention of revelation of the kingdom (by which the kingdom of God may be intended) in a somewhat similar context of punishment in Tg. Ezek 7:7 (but this time against Israel), in the paraphrase of an obscure Hebrew word āĕĆđē (MT: āÃĆòđöē, epirah). The Masoretic Text has: “(7:6) An 60

For the theme of the kingdom of God in Targum of Isaiah see B. D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 77–81; idem, The Isaiah Targum, in index under “kingdom of God”. On the use of the term “to be revealed” (Ćĉÿėý) in the Palestinian Targums see A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966; second printing, with additions 1978 (AnBib 27A), 239–282.

276

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

end has come, the end has come. It has awakened against you; see, it comes! (7) Your doom (rsv; HT: āĕĆđē) has come to you, O inhabitant of the land.” This in the Targum becomes: “The end has come. The retribution of the end has come upon you, behold it comes. (7) The kingdom has been revealed to you, O inhabitant of the land! The time of misfortune has arrived.”

Likewise in the same Targum in v. 10: “Behold, the day of retribution! Behold it is coming. The kingdom has been revealed! The ruler’s rod has blossomed.” (MT: “See, the day! See, it comes! Your doom [āĕđē] has gone out. The rod has blossomed.”)

It could be of course, that in using the term kingdom these texts did not intend to refer to the kingdom of God, but to some other kingly rule, believed to be implied in the obscure Hebrew word āĕĆđē. The term āĕĆđē occurs again in Isa 28:5 where the Targum renders as “crown” but understands the passage messianically: “At that time the anointed one [or: ‘Messiah’] of the Lord of hosts will be a diadem of joy and for a crown (ĕąĔĉ) of praise for the remnant of his people …” (MT [nrsv]: “At that time the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory and a āĕĆđē of beauty for the remnant of his people.”)

Mention of the revelation of the kingdom of God is also made in the Targum of Second Isaiah, in contexts of rejoicing. “Get up to a high mountain, prophets who herald good tiding to Zion; lift up your voice with force you who herald good tidings to Jerusalem. Lift up, fear not. Say to the cities of the house of Judah: ‘The kingdom of God is revealed.’” (Tg. Isa 40:9) (For the final sentence the Masoretic Text has: “Behold your God”.)

Likewise in Tg. Isa 52:7: “How beautiful upon the mountains of the land of Israel are the feet of him who announces, who proclaims peace, who announces good tidings, who says to the congregation of Zion: ‘The kingdom of your God is revealed.’” (For the final words the Masoretic Text has: “Your God reigns.”)

In the vision of the restoration promised after the exile, in Mic 4:7 God says: “The lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off a strong nation; and the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion now and for evermore.” This in the Targum becomes: “I will make the exiled a remnant, and the scattered a mighty nation. The kingdom of the Lord shall the revealed upon them on Mount Zion for now and for ever.”

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

277

The biblical text goes on (4:8) to promise that the former dominion, the sovereignty of daughter Jerusalem, shall come to the tower of the flock. This is paraphrased in the Targum as follows: “And you, O anointed one of Israel, who have been hidden away because of the sins of the congregation of Zion, the kingdom shall come to you, the former dominion shall be restored to the kingdom of the congregation of Jerusalem.”

There are two texts in the Targum of the Prophets which speak of the kingdom of God being revealed to all humanity. One is at the end of the Book of Obadiah, where the biblical text says that “Those who have been saved shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s”. This in the Targum becomes: “Liberators shall go up to Mount Zion to judge the citadel of Esau, and the kingdom of the Lord shall be revealed over all the inhabitants of the earth.” There is a text similar to this in Tg. Zech 14:9. After the prophecy on the living waters to flow out of Jerusalem (14:8) the biblical text has: “And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one.” The Targum paraphrases as follows: “And the kingdom of the Lord shall be revealed upon all the inhabitants of the earth; at that time they shall serve before the Lord with one accord, for his name is established in the world; there is none apart from him.”

A question that arises from the above evidence is whether these references to the kingdom of the Lord are merely exegetical expansions, or are indicative of a particular theology, and if so what precise meaning is to be attributed to the expression “kingdom of the Lord”. In their treatment of “the concept of God” in the examination of the theological concepts of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (TJ) L. Smolar and M. Aberbach write:61 “TJ also maintains firmly the eternity of God and of the kingdom of God. Hence the divine declaration, ‘I am the first and I am the last,’ which implies a beginning and an end – an impossible theological proposition, – is subtly altered by TJ into, ‘I am from of old, yea, the everlasting ages are mine.’ Similarly, a prediction such as Micah 4:7b (‘… and the Lord will reign over them’), connoting a future reign of God and its absence in the past and present, was unacceptable in TJ’s orthodox theology. TJ, therefore, renders: ‘… and the kingdom of the Lord shall be revealed unto them.’ It follows that God always reigns, but His kingdom will be revealed to those who through ignorance are unaware of it.”

The two authors go on to comment on the expansion in Tg. Obad 1:21b in the same vein. The expansion “the kingdom of the Lord shall be revealed to all the inhabitants of the earth” is homiletic, because the Masoretic Text 61 See L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (n. 11 above), 132.

278

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

“and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” could be misinterpreted to mean that only in the future would the kingdom be the Lord’s, but not in the past or in the present.62 It is doubtful that we can reduce the presence of the references to the kingdom of the Lord in these texts merely to an interest in bringing out homiletically or exegetically the implications of the biblical doctrine on the reign of God. It seems better to take the expression as an indication of a belief in a future intervention of God in history, one in which his rule and what this indicated would be made manifest. It seems impossible to define precisely what the expression kingdom of God means in the Targums. What it denotes in a particular instance seems to depend in part on the underlying biblical text (punishment for Israel or its enemies; salvation; vindication of God’s glory). It is worthy of note that no theological development of the theme is found in Targum of the so-called Psalms of Divine Kingship (Psalms 47, 93, 96–99). For the greater part the Targum on these gives a rather literal translation of the biblical text. 5.8 Expectation of the Messiah The messianic expectations in the Targums have been so often examined that here they need to be treated only briefly.63 In Pal. Tg. Gen 49:1–2 we are are not told that the end secrets which Jacob had intended to reveal were specifically about the coming of the Messiah, although we can presume a reference to him would be included. In any event the mysteries of the end time which Jacob was expecting to be able to reveal to his children were withheld from him. Not so for Balaam. What was hidden from the prophets was revealed to him (Pal. Tg. Num 24:3, 15).64 The targumist does succeed in including a reference to King Messiah already in the Garden of Eden, as part of God’s word on the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. The paraphrase of Gen 3:15, already cited above (2.3.) with regard to the Law, ends: “For her sons, 62 The Smolar and Aberbach viewpoint has influenced K. J. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon in their notes to the translation of the Targum of the Minor Prophets; see their work, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Wilmington 1989, 102, 120 (in notes to Obad 21b and Mic 4:7, with references to Smolar & Aberbach, 132). 63 See S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targums (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 2), New York 1974; M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesianicas en el Targum Palestinense: Estudios exegéticos (Institución San Jerónimo 12), Valencia & Jerusalem 1981. See also Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 86–96 for Messiah in Targum of Isaiah; 112–117 for Messiah in Prophetic Targums other than Isaiah. For the “Messianic Night” of Pal. Tg. Exod 12:42 see R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome 1963, esp. 264–303. 64 See M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 242.

5. Covenants and Visions of the Future

279

however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement [or: ‘peace’, āėĂĆđó, used only here in the Palestinian Targum65] in the end, in the day of King Messiah.” Since in the paraphrase of the first part of the verse victory for the woman’s sons is through observance of the Law one may ask whether the peace promised for the end time, in the day of King Messiah, will also be through observance of the Law. Gen 49:10–12 receive a messianic interpretation in the Palestinian Targum, an understanding of the text that is apparently very old.66 It reads (in the translation of Neofiti): “(49:10) Kings shall not cease from among those of the house of Juda and neither (shall) scribes teaching the Law from among his sons until the time King Messiah shall come, to whom the kingship belongs; to him shall all the kingdoms be subject. (11) How beautiful is King Messiah who is to arise from among those of the house of Judah. He girds his loins and goes forth to battle against those that hate him; and he kills kings with rulers, and makes the mountains red with the blood of their slain and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors. His garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes. (12) How beautiful are the eyes of King Messiah: more than pure wine, lest he see with them the revealing of nakedness or the shedding of innocent blood. His teeth are purer than wine, lest he eat with them things that are stolen or robbed. The mountains will become red from his vines and the vats from wine; and the hills will become white from the abundance of grain and flocks of sheep.”

In the blessing of Dan Jacob says: “I wait for your redemption, O Lord.” In the paraphrase of this in the Palestinian Targum the targumist says that his soul does not wait for the redemption of Gideon, which is short-lived (“of an hour”), or of Samson, which is transient. The paraphrase then continues: “Rather, to the redemption of him does my soul look that you have promised [lit.: ‘said’] to bring your people, the house of Israel. To you, to your redemption, do I look, O Lord.” The Palestinian Targum understands Gen 49:10 as referring to a warlike Messiah to come. It gives a similar interpretation of Balaam’s oracle on the star to arise from Jacob (Num 24:17–24), a messianic interpretation which is probably very old and may be the prophecy of a liberator and ruler which helped fuel the 66–70 c.e. Jewish revolt against Rome.67 65 Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 563, understands (ýė)ĂĆđó as “peace”; the corresponding adjective Ćđó, “peaceful, pleasant”, occurs in Pal. Tg. Gen 22:8; 31:5; Num 23:3. 66 See P. Grelot, “L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe LXIII,1–13”, RB 70 (1963), 371–380; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 230–233. 67 On the messianic interpretation of Num 24:17–24, see M. McNamara, “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers Chapter 24”, PIBA 16 (1993), 57–79 (reproduced below, pp. 366–391); also in idem, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, 140–142 (notes on Neof. Num 24:17–24).

280

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

The messianic interpretation is carried through in the Targum of the Prophets. The topic has received detailed examination by various authors.68

6. Repentance Repentance is so much part of the message of the Aramaic Bible that no extensive treatment of it is called for here. In fact, as Smolar and Aberbach remind us, both the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud provide numerous examples testifying to the concept of repentance as a cardinal principle of Judaism.69 The Targums carry across in translation the biblical message of God’s call to repentance, together with the doctrine of God’s mercy and forgiveness to those who repent. They also constantly insert mention of obedience to the Law, but as well as this can expand on God’s mercy, and insert mention of it in places not required by the translation. In the Pentateuch there are fewer mentions of repentance (with verb þĂó) than in the Prophets, and this is also reflected in the Targums. In the Palestinian Targums the Hebrew verb can at times be rendered through the cognate Aramaic þĂė (or derived noun āþĂėė). Mention of repentance through the verb þĂė (in Neof. Num 10:36) or noun āþĂėė (Gen 6:3; 18:21; Deut 30:3; Neof. mg. Deut 4:30) in the Palestinian Targums is relatively rare, but there are also occurrences through the other verb ĕăĄ, “come back”. The texts with use of the verb þĂė remind us that both God and humans are involved in repentance, the Lord “repenting” of the evil he had purposed to bring on sinners and “turning” from his anger. Israel prays to the Lord to turn in mercy towards them. Thus in Neof. Num 10:36: “When it [the ark] came to rest, Moses used to pray saying: ‘Return (þĂė), now, O Lord, from the might of your anger and come back to us in your good mercies, and make the glory of your Shekinah dwell in the midst of the thousands and myriads; let the myriads be multiplied and bless the thousands of the children of Israel.’” (MT: “Whenever it came to rest he [Moses] would say: ‘Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of Israel.’”)

The divine call to all to repent goes hand in hand with belief in God’s patience, long-suffering and unbounded mercy, as well as in his truth and justice, and in his covenant with his people. Many examples could be given 68

See the works of Levey (The Messiah) and Chilton (The Glory of Israel) referred to in n. 63 above; also K. J. Cathcart & R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 6–7, and in the index under “Messiah”. 69 Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 210; 212–217 for their treatment of forgiveness in the Targum of the Prophets. For the theme in Targum Isaiah, see Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 37–46.

7. The Intimacy of God

281

on this point. From the Palestinian Targum we may instance Pal. Tg. Gen 6:3 where God is made to say of the generation of the Flood: “Behold I have put my spirit in the children of man because they are flesh and their deeds are evil. Behold I have given them the span of one hundred and twenty years (in the hope that) perhaps they might do repentance, but they have not done so” (text of Neofiti). Sin, repentance and divine acceptance of repentance are central themes in the Book of Deuteronomy, and the Aramaic translation is faithful to the biblical message, adding of course that the “return” is to the Law or the instruction of the Law.70 Thus in Pal. Tg. Deut 30:1–3 (text of Neofiti cited; expansions noted by italics): (30:1) “And when these things come upon you … (2) and you return (ČĂĕăĄė) to the instruction of the Law of the Lord your God … (3) then the Memra of the Lord your God will receive your repentance and take pity on you …”

In the Targum of the Prophets (as indeed elsewhere), repentance (ýþĂėė; literally “return”, that is, to God) is equated to a return to God’s service (for a literal return to God would have anthropomorphic connotations) as well as to the Torah. It involves an undertaking not to sin in the future.71 Texts from these Targums on repentance could be multiplied, especially from the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

7. The Intimacy of God 7.1 Anti-Anthropomorphisms and Divine Intimacy The existence of anthropomorphisms in the discourse concerning God in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the targumic efforts to avoid those by antianthropomorphisms, are facts accepted by all and need not detain us here. They are treated in most introductions to targumic texts.72 Such expressions as the eyes, hands, mouth, face of God tend to be rephrased. There is a tendency to avoid making God the subject or object of actions relating to humankind or creation; actions are often said to be done “before the Lord” rather than by him or to him. Partly in keeping with this mentality, when 70

On this see above 2.7.6 (p. 248–250). See Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 211. 72 See M. Klein, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]); published Jerusalem 1982; idem, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim”, in Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, ed. by J. A. Emerton (VTSup 32), Leiden 1981, 162–177; M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 33–35. 71

282

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

speaking of humankind’s relation to God rather frequent use is made of such terms and concepts as “glory”, “Shekinah” (Presence”) of the Lord, or even of “the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord”. The “Memra (‘Word’) of the Lord”, of course, is a well-known targumic expression, one which at least very often is used to avoid putting God or at least the name God as the subject of a sentence.73 These designations of God are not to be taken as indicating intermediaries between God and humankind, nor do they in any way imply that the God of the targumists was a God out of reach. They are designed to protect the invisibility, the incorporeality and the spirituality of God. The God of the targumists is in fact very much a personal being; the God who has revealed himself to the Fathers and to Moses; the God of the covenant; the God whose lasting presence with his people was seen inherent in the divine name itself, a point clearly made in the various versions of the Palestinian Targums. Neofiti paraphrases Exod 3:14 as follows: “And the Lord said to Moses: ‘I AM WHO I AM’ [left in Hebrew, untranslated]. And he said: ‘Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: The one who said and the world came into existence from the beginning; and is to say to it again: Be, and it will be, has sent me to you.’” A marginal variant in Neofiti and manuscript V of the Fragment Targums are practically identical with this. A further variant in Neofiti reads: “I have existed before the world was created and have existed after the world was created. I am he who has been at your aid in the Egyptian exile, and am he who will be (again) at your aid in every generation. And he said: ‘Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: I AM [Hebrew āĆāý] sent me to you.’” God’s presence in heaven, his dwelling with his people on earth, his omnipresence, is expressed through the term Shekinah, or, as in Neofiti through the terms “the glory of his Shekinah”. It dwells with them, is revealed to them, leads them, goes along with them, is among them.74 Direct contact and intimacy of the individual believer with God is evident in particular in the Targums when there is reference to prayer, or when examples of prayer are given. A notable feature of the Targums, of course, is the emphasis on prayer.75 73 On Glory, Shekinah, Memra, Dibbera, Holy Spirit, in the Palestinian Targums see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 35–39; also D. Muñoz León, Gloria de la Shekina en los targumím del Pentateuco, Madrid 1977; D. Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974; R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: Memra. 74 For literature on the usage of the terms “glory”, “Shekinah”, “glory of the Shekinah” see preceding note. 75 On this see M. Maher, “The Meturgemanim and Prayer” (1), JJS 41 (1990), 226–246; (2), JJS 44 (1993), 220–235; for the Targum of the Prophets, Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 164–169.

8. Palestinian Judaism, Covenantal Nomism and Targumic Evidence

283

A frequent expression in the Palestinian Targums is that a given person was “(praying and) beseeching mercy from before the Lord” (Neof. Deut 3:35; 9:18, 20; Neof. Gen 25:22 – to give a few references from among many). The presence of “from before” is a targumic and polite manner of saying “before” (in front of), “from”; its presence does not make the prayer any less direct. “I beseech by the mercies before you, O Lord” is a very frequent manner of introducing direct prayer to God (Neof. Gen 3:18; 15:2, etc.) 7.2 Loving Tenderness of God We have evidence of an intimate relationship with God in a beautiful targumic meditation on the significance of God’s revelation to Jacob at the death of Rachel (Gen 35:7–9). I cite the text from Targum Neofiti: “(38:7) And he built there an altar and called the place where the Lord was revealed to him Beth-El, because there the Lord had been revealed to him when he fled from before Esau, his brother. (8) And Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah, died and she was buried under the oak and he called the name of the oak ‘Weeping’. (9) O God of eternity – may his name be blessed for ever and forever and ever – your meekness and your rectitude and your justice and your strength and your glory will not pass for ever and ever. You have taught us to bless the bridegroom and the bride from Adam and his consort. And again you have taught us to visit those who are ill from our father Abraham, the righteous one, when you were revealed to him in the Valley of the Vision while he was still suffering from circumcision. And you taught us to console the mourners from our father Jacob, the righteous one. The way of the world overtook Deborah, the foster mother of Rebekah his mother. And Rachel died beside him on his journey and he sat down crying aloud and he wept and lamented and wailed and was dejected. But you in your good mercies were revealed to him and blessed him; (with) the blessing of the mourners you blessed him and consoled him. For thus the Scripture explains and says: And the Lord was revealed to Jacob a second time when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him.”

8. Palestinian Judaism, Covenantal Nomism and Targumic Evidence In this essay for the greater part I have kept to the evidence of Targums in those themes which I consider of importance as a background for issues discussed by E. P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. I have not entered into dialogue to any great extent with other writers on these topics. At the end of this study I can now give a summary of what has been said in the course of the essay on the main issues, briefly referring to Sanders’ position, and conclude with a brief reflection on what bearing the targumic evidence may have on the entire discussion in any appraisal of the situation.

284

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

8.1 Summary of Chief Points of Targumic Teaching It scarcely needs repeating that by the nature of the case it is nigh well impossible to arrive at a synthesis of practically any doctrine in the Targums. The Targums are primarily translations of the biblical text; later and nonbiblical concepts and doctrines are presented between the translation either as expansions of the translation or as inserted midrashim. By reason of the nature of the Targums as faithful translation of the biblical text and as containing expansive paraphrases, we may see in them a certain tension, with the central biblical message counterbalancing newer positions found in the expansive paraphrases or added midrashim. Going on the evidence of the Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets, it does not seem possible to associate the Aramaic paraphrases with one particular section within Judaism of the Second Temple period. The presence of the doctrine of resurrection indicates that they did not originate in Sadducean circles. This belief does not necessarily point towards Pharisaism, since in this matter the Pharisaic tradition was heir to apocalyptic teaching. In the matter of eschatological beliefs the Targums show a link with apocalyptic thought. From the point of view of literary genres the Targums present a certain variety. There are passages belonging or similar to apocalyptic (for instance Pal. Tg. Gen 49:1–2; Tg. Isa 24:16). In its teaching on the afterlife, on the joys of paradise and on Gehenna, on the shame attending the revelation in the other world of one’s personal sin, on rewards and punishment, on the revelation of the kingdom of God, the language of the Targums is similar to that of the Gospels. The Law (Torah) is central to targumic translation, paraphrase and added midrash. As noted already, the Torah appears almost everywhere. And yet the targumic position on the Law is principally a development of the position in Late Judaism, as seen in particular in the Book of Ben Sira. The Law is identified with wisdom, with the tree of life. Observance of the Law brings reward; it can be said to bring divine protection in times of trouble. Most of such statements on the Law may not go much beyond what the Bible says on rewards attendant on observance of the covenant and on keeping the commandments. What is new in the Targums (as in rabbinic literature) is the presence of the word Law – its centrality or even ubiquity. The Law, “instruction in the Law”, observance of the Law, can even almost become a surrogate for God, somewhat like the Memra, the fear of God, the Shekinah. The Targums remain faithful to the biblical teaching that election is of God’s grace and free will, not because of Israel’s righteousness. They also remain faithful to Isaiah’s presentation of the future revelation of God’s

8. Palestinian Judaism, Covenantal Nomism and Targumic Evidence

285

righteousness as a feature of his saving advent. God had promised to remember his covenant with the patriarchs, with the Fathers. The Targums (and in particular the Targums of the Pentateuch) often speak of God’s doing something or other to Abraham’s descendants ėĂĈăþ of Abraham, the patriarchs, Aaron or Miriam. The phrase ėĂĈăþ may be translated “for the merit(s) of”, or simply as “on account of”, “for the sake of”. Even if we translate as “for the merits of Abraham, etc.” it appears that we must consider this in conjunction with the covenant with the Fathers and promises made to them. It would seem unwarranted to see in this phrase a doctrine of merit on the patriarchs’ part at work independently of the covenant and promise, although there may be one or two instances in the Targums in which this is so (for instance Pal. Tg. Gen 15:11). Given the teaching on the covenant as free gift of God, unmerited by Israel, as well as the emphasis on the mercy of God, on prayer, and on repentance, we may say that the Targums have retained the biblical doctrine of grace. The constant intrusion of the Law, and the presentation of the Law as the yardstick (if not the source) of proper relationship with God does not disprove the presence of the doctrine of grace. The presence of both is simply an example of the tensions one may observe in the Targums by reason of the nature as translation and expansive paraphrase. The targumic position on good works, on evil works, and on the rewards or punishments for these either hereafter or here is in keeping with the language of the Gospels. The Targums are faithful to the biblical teaching on the covenants with the patriarchs and with Moses. They contain traditions of a vision of the end time which Jacob believed he was to receive, but did not, and which was granted to Balaam. Among those is a doctrine on the Messiah and on the future revelation of the kingdom of God. As in the Bible, a central targumic doctrine is human sinfulness, offences against the covenant, stress on divine mercy, on the call to turn from sin (repentance) and the assurance of divine mercy to those who do. But here again the Law takes a central place: repentance is return to the Law, to the observance of the Law. Despite the centrality of the Law, the use of surrogates (such as Memra, Shekinah, fear of the Lord) the God of Israel remained a living God. The surrogates though frequent, are not universal; they are on occasion dispensed with. The targumists and the people they served worshipped a living God. This is clearest in the doctrine on prayer. They prayed to a merciful God, one who listened and cared. His visitations of humanity, as recorded in the Bible, were taken as examples of how men and women should imitate him in his loving care for others in their trials and sorrows, and in their joys.

286

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

8.2 The Targums; Pattern of Religion; Covenantal Nomism Two very important elements, two key concepts in fact, in E. P. Sanders’ work Paul and Palestinian Judaism76 are patterns of religion and covenantal nomism. In the course of a lengthy “definition” of pattern of religion he writes:77 “1. By ‘pattern of religion’, I do not mean an entire historical religion – all of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and the like – but only a given, more or less homogeneous, entity. For our purposes, ‘Paulinism’ is a religion … 2. A pattern of religion does not include every theological proposition or every religious concept within a religion. The term ‘pattern’ points toward the question of how one moves from the logical starting point to the logical conclusion of the religion. Excluded from the pattern proper are such speculative questions as how the world was created; when the end will come; what will be the nature of the afterlife; the identity of the Messiah; and the like. A great deal of the research which has investigated the relationship of Paul and Judaism and the relationships among the various parties within Judaism has focused on just such questions. It is my hypothesis that the pattern of religion, the sequence from its starting point to its conclusion, does not necessarily vary according to the answers given to such speculative questions. … A pattern of religion, defined positively, is the description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function. ‘Perceived to function’ has the sense not of what an adherent does on a day-to-day basis, but of how getting in and staying in are understood: the way in which a religion is understood to admit and retain members is considered to be the way it ‘functions’ …”

“A pattern of religion”, Sanders writes a little later, “thus has largely to do with the items which a systematic theology classifies under ‘soteriology’.”78 However, he finds “pattern of religion” a more satisfactory term for what is described in this work, although he occasionally uses the other word. This he does when he describes what he regards the rabbinic view on the essence of Jewish religion. Sanders puts it thus:79 “There does appear to be in Rabbinic Judaism a coherent and all-pervasive view of what constitutes the essence of Jewish religion and how that religion ‘works’, and we shall, occasionally, for the sake of convenience, call this view ‘soteriology’. The all-pervasive view can be summarized in the phrase ‘covenantal nomism’. Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.”

76 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London 1977. 77 Ibid., 16–17. 78 Ibid., 17. 79 Ibid., 75.

8. Palestinian Judaism, Covenantal Nomism and Targumic Evidence

287

As noted at the outset of this study, in his work Sanders left out of consideration the Aramaic Targums, in part because he is not persuaded of the antiquity of the Targums as we have them. We are not at the stage, he says a little later, of being able to discuss the view of religion and the religious life in the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and especially not to date a coherent view of religion to the period which falls within our purview.80 Even if one accepts that the Targums we have considered fall within the period 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e., by the nature of the evidence it would still be difficult to reconstruct from them a coherent theology or a coherent view of religion. This, as just noted, is because of the close connection of the Targums with the Hebrew Text. Nevertheless, we may compare the evidence of the Targums with what Sanders has to say of Rabbinic and Palestinian Judaism. Most of the points made in the preceding section would hold true also for Rabbinic Judaism. Sanders says that we should pay special attention to the covenant conception in rabbinic literature. The covenant, especially on God’s side, is more presupposed than directly discussed, but the very existence of the halakah, which discusses man’s side, gives a first indication that God’s side was presupposed, not forgotten or ignored.81 The same holds true for the Targums. The Targums do not have their own idea of covenant, but transmit the biblical concept of both the covenants (with the Fathers and with Moses) and, in the main, of their implications. Since both the covenant and the Law are as central to the Targums as they are to the biblical text which they translate, it may be permissable to describe the religious approach of the Targums, in so far as this can be reconstructed, as “covenantal nomism”. To me, however, it is questionable whether “covenantal nomism” is an apt description of any form of Jewish religion. The term “nomism” tends to denote a static position, conformity to a defined set of rules. Covenant, on the other hand, has reference to a living God, who was and who is, and who will be, a God active in the past, the present and in the future. The covenant is not a term that describes a static religion. The covenant looks backward and forward: backward to the covenant with God and to God’s promises, to what God has done; forward to what God will do again, as God sees fit. The prophets were the living witnesses of this special nature of the covenant. Covenant cannot be defined by law, be that law as it was understood by Qumran, by early or later rabbinic tradition, or by any other grouping. The proper response to covenant is obedience – a point amply made by Sanders82 – obedience in response to covenant, obedience to commandments, but also obedience to the voice 80

Ibid., 25–26. Ibid., 236. 82 See ibid., index of subjects, 622, under “obedience”. 81

288

Chapter 11: Variegated Judaism: Some Targum Themes

of the living God. Before the covenant with Moses, and the giving of the commandments, God spoke to the people: “Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples” (Exod 19:5). The appeal continued through history: “O that today you would listen to his voice” (Ps 95:7). At given times in history, his voice may have been made known in laws or traditions, yet could again speak in a self-revelation as God himself would see fit to make. This brings an element of faith, enlightenment, true knowledge (in Paul’s words), into covenant obedience. In his letter to the Romans (Rom 10:2–4) Paul expresses his deepest convictions concerning his own people and their refusal to accept the Gospel message: “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God (Đǻĕęė ĒďęȘ ŕġęğĝēė), but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.” Paul declared himself “a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the Church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5–6) (ŘČěċȉęĜ őĘ ŘČěċưģė, ĔċĞƩ ėƲĖęė ĀċěēĝċȉęĜÞ ĔċĞƩ ĐǻĕęĜ ĎēƶĔģė Ğƭė őĔĔĕđĝưċėÞ ĔċĞƩ ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė Ğƭė őė ėƲĖȣ čďėƲĖďėęĜ ŅĖďĖĚĞęĜ). These advantages Paul regarded as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus as Lord (3:7).

Chapter 12

Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature* In this essay I intend to examine the biblical narrative on Melchizedek as translated and paraphrased in the Aramaic translations (Targums), and as interpreted in rabbinic tradition.1 The biblical text in question will be principally Gen 14:18–20. Since the biblical text would lead one to believe that Melchizedek’s encounter with Abram occurred in the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14:17), I shall begin by an examination of this verse. While the name of Melchizedek does not occur in Targum of Psalm 110, in view of the importance of this text I shall also examine the treatment of Melchizedek in this psalm. Reference will also be made to Targum of 1 Chr 1:24 where the person of Melchizedek is implicitly referred to (“Shem the high priest”). With regard to rabbinic tradition, rabbinic texts will be our principle source. However, since some patristic texts also present or comment on current Jewish beliefs, or have traditions very similar to those of some targumic texts, I shall draw in these Christian sources (Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Antiochene tradition) as occasion indicates.

1. Nature of the Targumic Evidence The Aramaic translation of Genesis 14 has been preserved complete in Targum Onqelos, in Codex Neofiti 1, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Fragments of it have been transmitted in the so-called Fragmentary Targums, which are contained in the manuscripts given the sigla PVNL. Shorter * First published, under the same title, in Bib 81 (2000), 1–31. 1 On this question see in particular, A. Rodríguez Carmona, “La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targúmica”, EstBíb 37 (1978), 79–102; J. J. Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, HUCA 28 (1957), 127–136; idem, “Melchisedech – Urgestalt der Ökumene”, in idem, Melchisedech: Urgestalt der Ökumene, Freiburg, Basle & Vienna 1979, 11–37; M. Simon, “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la légende”, RHPR 17 (1937), 58–93; idem, Recherches d’histoire judéo-chrétienne, Paris 1962, 101–126; F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cambridge 1976; C. Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C.–sec. III d.C.), Brescia 1984.

290

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

texts have also been preserved in the marginal glosses to Targum Neofiti, and in some citations from the Targums in targumic dictionaries, such as the Aruk of Rabbi Nathan ben Ye iel of Rome († 1106), the Meturgeman of Elias Levita (published in 1541), and in some medieval Jewish writers. Notable in this regard is Midrash Bereshit Zu a composed by Rabbi Shemuel ben Nissin Masnut (thirteenth century), who worked in Aleppo and may have been born there. Some of his citations from the Palestinian Targums are identical with, or close to, the text of Targum Neofiti.2 No fragments of Genesis 14 have been found among the Genizah fragments. With regard to the verses that interest us (Gen 14:17–20), only v. 18 has been preserved in Fragment Targums PVNL. There is a brief citation in the Aruk, and a longer one in Bereshit Zu a. Although the targumic texts to be examined here are very limited in extent, the evidence emerging from the analysis may well have significance for the larger question of the nature and origin of the Targums, in particular of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, an awareness of this larger question of nature and origins may help us understand better some of the texts we are now to study. For this reason I include here a few brief remarks on relevant questions on the individual Targums we are to examine. All the Targums we are to consider probably originated in Palestine. Some scholars would postulate a primitive Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, possibly of the first century c.e., which would stand behind both the Targum Onqelos and an original of our present Palestinian Targums. This original Palestinian Targum would have been a written and rather literal translation. Targum Onqelos may have originated in Palestine some time before 135 c.e.3 Linguistically, the text or form behind our present Palestinian Targums can hardly have been earlier than the third century c.e. Its original form, if it had one, is not easily reconstructed since it has been transmitted in a variety of texts, with the same essential paraphrase, and differences with regard to the positioning and formulation of the elements of the paraphrase. The growth which has given us our present texts may have been gradual and varied. It is possible that certain phrases were added in the process of transmission to an already established base text. It is recognised among scholars today that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a 2 See further M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 11–12 (with further references). These citations of the Palestinian Targums from different sources have been edited by R. Griño, “Anejo I”, in Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), ed. by A. Díez Macho, vol. 1: Genesis, Madrid 1988, 413–435. 3 See S. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 118–141, esp. 129–130.

2. Encounter at the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17)

291

later and scholarly composition, from a scholar’s study rather than from a liturgical or community setting. It was probably composed in the seventh to ninth centuries. Its author used Targum Onqelos, the Palestinian Targums, rabbinic texts and other sources known and unknown, and probably made additions of his own.

2. Encounter at the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17) For an easy and convenient comparative reading of the different Targums we offer here the English translation of Targums Onqelos, Neofiti, Neofiti margin, Fragmentary Targums PVNL and Pseudo-Jonathan which correspond to Gen 14:17–20. The Hebrew Text of Gen 14:18–20 and the Aramaic text of the Targums are given at the beginning of sections III and IV of this article. Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

17 Then the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after [Abram] had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him to the empty plain, which is the racecourse of the king.

17 When he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the levelled plain, which is the king’s racecourse.

17 And the king of Sodom came out to meet him, after he had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer a and the kings who were with him, in the Valley of the Gardensa, that is, the valley of the king.

18 Now Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine, for he was ministering before God Most High.

18 And the righteous king – he is Shem, the son of Noah – the king of Jerusalem, came out to meet Abram, and he

18 aAnd Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem – he is Shem the Great – brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest

Fragment Targums PVNL; Targum Neofiti margin

17a–a and the kings who were with him in the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit.: house] of the Valley of the King (Frg. Tgs. VNL); to the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit.: house] of the Valley of the King (Neof. mg.). 18a–a and Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the Great, was a priest to God Most High (Frg. Tgs. VNL);

292

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

Targum Onqelos

Targum PseudoJonathan

Targum Neofiti

brought out to him ministering in the high priesthood bread and wine; and at that time he bbefore God Most was ministering Highab. before God Most High.

19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram before God Most High whose possessions are heaven and earth.

19 He blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram from [before] God Most High, who for the sake of the righteous created heaven and earth.

19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed is Abram abefore God Most Higha who in his Memra made the heavens and the earth.

20 And blessed be God Most High who has delivered your enemy into your hands.” And he gave him one tenth of everything.

20 And blessed be God Most High who has made your enemies like a shield that receives a blow.” And he gave him a tenth of everything that he had brought back.

20 And blessed is God Most High who ashattered your enemiesa before you.” And he gave him one tenth of everything.

Fragment Targums PVNL; Targum Neofiti margin and Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem – who is Shem the Great – was a priest of the Most High; he brought out food and wine, and he was standing, ministering, in the high priesthood before God Most High (Frg. Tg. P). 18b–b= 19a–a to God Most High (Neof. mg.).

20a–a handed over your enemies (Neof. mg.).

The Hebrew Text says that on Abram’s return after victory the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley. Shaveh here is presumably different from the Shaveh-kiriathim of v. 5. There is a King’s Valley mentioned in 2 Sam 18:18, where Absalom erected a pillar for himself. The place name is rendered literally in Targum of 2 Samuel. Josephus (Ant. 7.10.3, § 243) says that this was two stadia from Jerusalem. 1QapGen XXII 13–14 identifies this “Valley of Shaveh – that is the Valley of the King (ýĈĉċĔċďýĂāĂýĂó Ĕċďþ)” as “the Valley of Beth-ha-cherem”

2. Encounter at the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17)

293

(ýċĕĈėĆþėýĔþ). The Valley of Beth-ha-cherem is mentioned in Jer 6:1 in parallelism with Tekoa (cf. Neh 3:14), and in Josh 15:39. Going on this evidence, as well as evidence from the Mishnah and the Copper Scroll, J. Fitzmyer4 believes that it is quite plausible to locate Beth-ha-cherem at the modern site of Ramat Rachel, which is situated some 400 yards to the east of the old route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on a summit which dominates the Valley of Rephaim. Targum Onqelos has “to the empty5 plain, which is the racecourse of the king” (ýĈĉċĀ ýĎĆĕ ėĆþ ýĂā ýčđċ ĕóĆċĉ), a translation followed by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Targum Onqelos’s rendering as “empty” (ýčđċ) is in keeping with the meaning of the āĂó of the Hebrew Text (in Hebrew and Aramaic) and also with the identification of “King’s Valley” that follows. Given the existence of royal hippodromes and amphitheatres (for those of Herod at Jerusalem see Josephus, Ant. 15.8.1, §§ 268–276), Targum Onqelos’s identification of “King’s Valley” is quite understandable. The Fragment Targums VNL (not Frg. Tg. P) here identify the Valley of Shaveh as “the Valley of Hazoza, āăĂăĄ, (that is the place of the Valley of the King)”, a text also found in the margin to Targum Neofiti, where it is obviously drawn from the Fragment Targums’ “Hazoza” is most probably an error for “Hazweh” (āĂăĄ), “[the Valley of] the Vision”, a phrase used to render “Oaks of Mamre” in Pal. Tg. Gen 12:6; 13:18; 18:1; Deut 11:30, and in a related manner in Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 14:13. (Gen 14:13 has not been preserved in any of the texts of the Fragmentary Targums.) Targum Neofiti identifies the Valley of Shaveh of v. 17 with the “Valley of the Gardens” (“in the Valley of the Gardens”, pardesaya – ýĆĎĀĕđĕóĆċþ ýĈĉċāĕóċý]Ă[ā). Targum Neofiti is alone in this identification. An inscription with the words “Of St Thomas of Phordesa” occurs in a processional cross, coming from the environs of Jerusalem, and the place name Phordêsa (from the Aramaic pordesaya / pardesaya, “gardens”), on 4 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, 2nd edition, Rome 1971, 173–174. 5 ýčđċĕóĆċĉ. I render as if from the root Ćčđ/ ýčđ, “to empty”, ýčđċ, “vacancy”; see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of Targumim the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York 1950, 821, ýčđċĊĂĔċ (Hebrew), “a vacant place”. Thus the Aramaic ýčđċĕóĆċ would mean “a vacant/empty plain”; Gianotto, Melchisedek, 105, renders as “pianura sgombra”; R. Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1: Genèse, Paris 1978, 163, translates Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as: “plaine dégagée”. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 68, 69, n. 13, renders as “levelled” (plain); so also M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 58, an understanding of the verb also given in J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, Leipzig 1867–1868 (repr. Cologne 1959), vol. 2, ö ĕĖĆċ ein geebneter Plan, d. h. auf dem sich kein Hinderniss findet”. 273: “Gen. 14,17 ýî Ýïđċ Jastrow also, we may note (A Dictionary, 1188), renders the Aramaic passive participle ýčđċ as “clear, levelled” (with reference to Tg. Gen 14:18).

294

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

the outskirts of Jerusalem is attested for the Byzantine and early Arab periods.6 There was a hospice for the poor and elderly there. This place name has been regarded to be the same as the Valley of Beth Carma (the Valley of Beth-ha-cherem), already noted, given in 1QapGen XXII 13–14 as the identification of the “Valley of Shaveh – that is the Valley of the King”. J. T. Milik has expressed the view that “the Valley of the Gardens” (ýĆĎĀĕđĕóĆċ) of Neof. Gen 14:17 makes direct reference to this place name near Jerusalem. He writes: “Since the word šaweh, whatever of its etymology, in no way presents itself spontaneously as a synonym of pardesaya, I would readily see in this last name a place name that really existed at the time of the composition of the Targum, and attached to a geographic entity in the vicinity of Jerusalem.”7 There are difficulties with this understanding of the evidence. One is that, given the instability of the reading (the Fragment Targums have “the Valley of Hazoza”) we do not know if the Targum Neofiti text here represents the original reading. It may be, of course, that irrespective of an “original” Palestinian Targum reading, the compiler of Targum Neofiti opted for the identification pardesaya, “Gardens”, of our present text because of his acquaintance with the Jerusalem place name. As against this, however, we must recall that the same Targum Neofiti has consistently identified or translated “the Valley of Siddim” (ĊĆĀô Ĕċď) of Gen 14:3, 8, 10 as “the Valley of the Gardens” (ā / ýĆĎĀĕđĕóĆċ), and the extant texts of the Fragment Targums (VNL) agree with regard to Gen 14:3 as does a citation from the Palestinian Targum in Masnut’s Bereshit Zu a.8 Likewise, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan agrees with the rendering pardesaya in all three texts (Gen 14:3, 8, 10). This understanding of Siddim (ĊĆĀô) in Gen 14:8 as “gardens, park”, may agree with Jerome’s understanding of the translation of the word by Aquila and Theodotion, which Jerome takes as “meaning ‘pleasant groves’” (amoena nemora significantes).9 It appears, then, that there 6 On this see J. T. Milik, “‘Saint-Thomas de Phordesa’ et Gen. 14,17”, Bib 42 (1961), 77–84. 7 Milik, “‘Saint-Thomas”, 81. In n. 4 Milik shows that he is aware of a problem; he remarks that this place is not ĊĆĀąĔċď, situated south of the Dead Sea, translated also in Targum Neofiti as ýĆĎĀĕđĕóĆċ. He has not, however, given attention to the question of the instability of the Palestinian Targum texts with regard to the translation of āĂó Ĕċď. 8 Ed. by R. Griño, “Anejo I”, 419. 9 On Gen 14:8, see S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, Pars I: Opera exegetica: Hebraicae quaestiones in Libro Geneseos […] (CCSL 72), Turnhout 1959, 18 (repr. of Hieronymi Quaestiones hebraicae in libro Geneseos, ed. by P. de Lagarde, Leipzig 1868). The actual Greek words of Aquila and Theodotion given by Jerome are not quite certain: the forms differ in the editions of D. Vallarsi (reproduced in J.-P. Migne, PL 23, Paris 1865) and de Lagarde. The difficulty regarding the Greek words does not affect the argument: Jerome understood them to mean “pleasant groves”. In the Vulgate Jerome translates the valley of Siddim as Vallis silvester, “the woodland valley”. For an English translation see C. T. R. Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis: Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1995, 46 (text translated that edited by Vallarsi; P. de Lagarde’s edi-

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

295

is a solid unity in the Palestinian Targum tradition with regard to the “Valley of the Gardens”, ýĆĎĀĕđ. It is the identification of the “Valley of Siddim” in the Masoretic Text. And this was not near Jerusalem but near the Sea of Salt, the Dead Sea: “the Valley of Siddim, that is the Sea of Salt” (Gen 14:3). Here, of course, the Palestinian Targum tradition may not be referring to a known place name, but rather understanding ĊĆĀô of the Masoretic Text as the plural of āĀô, “field, open place”. Whatever of this, it is unlikely that the author or compiler of Targum Neofiti would have used the same Aramaic term to identify two quite distinct place names of the Hebrew Text.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18 Hebrew Text:

Ċĉó ćĉċĔĀēĆĈĉċĂ (a) ČĆĆĂĊĄĉýĆēĂā (b) ČĂĆĉďĉýĉČāĈýĂāĂ (c)

Targum Onqelos:10

ĊĉóĕĆĀýĈĉċĔĀēĆĈĉċĂ (a) ĕċĄĂĊĆĄĉĔĆđý (b) āýĉĆďĉýĊĀĔ óĆċóċýĂāĂ (c) Targum Neofiti:

āþĂĕĊó ýĂāĊĉóĂĕĆĀýĈĉċĔĀēýĈĉċĂ (a) ĕċĄĂĊĄĉĔđý (b) āýĉďýāĉýĊĀĔāėþĕ [ā]ėčāĈþ óċóċČāĈāĂāýĂāĂ (c) Targum Neofiti margin:

ýĆĆĉĆďýāĉýĉ (as variant for āýĉďýāĉýĊĀĔāėþĕ [ā]ėčāĈþ) Fragment Targums VNL:

ýþĕĊó ýĂāĊĉóĂĕĆĀýĈĉċĔĀēĆĈĉċĂ (a) āýĉĆďĉýĉČĆāĈāĂā (c) Fragment Targums P:

ýþĕĊó ýĂāĀĊĉóĂĕĆĀýĈĉċĔĀēĆĈĉċ (a) āýĉĆďČāĈāĂā (c) tion, Hayward regards as inferior), 156 (with Hayward’s notes, with full targumic and rabbinic references for this Jewish tradition on the identification of Melchizedek with Shem). 10 Using the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, vol. 1: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos, Leiden 1959 (repr. 1992), 20.

296

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

ĕċĄĂČĂăċĔĆđý (b) āýĉĆďĉýĊĀĔýėþĕýėčĂāĈþ óċóċĂĊĆýĔýĂāĂ (c) Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

ĊĕþýėĂċĀĔĉĔđčĊĆĉóĂĕĆĀýĈĉċĄčĕþĊó ýĂāýĔĆĀēýĈĉċĂ (a) ĕċĄĂĊĆĄĉāĆĉĔĆđýĂ (b) āýĉĆďýĔĉýĊĀĔ óċóċāĂāýčċĆăýĆāāþĂ (c) 3.1 Observations on the Texts It will be noticed that for v. 18 Targums Onqelos, Neofiti and PseudoJonathan follow the order of the Hebrew Text (a, b, c). The texts of the Fragment Targums do not. Manuscripts VNL omit b, while manuscript P has the order a, c, b, c. I have no explanation of this phenomenon. The differences may have arisen within the Fragment Targums’ tradition, but may also conceivably represent an early Palestinian Targum tradition. 3.2 Melchizedek King of Salem (v. 18) 3.2.1 The Name “Melchizedek” The name in Hebrew is Melchizedek, written in the critical edition of the Masoretic Text as ĔĀē§ĆĈĉċ. The name ĔĀē§ĆĈĉċ is reproduced in Targum Onqelos and in Fragment Targums PVNL. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has ýĔĆĀēýĈĉċ, “the righteous king” – in full: “the righteous king, he is Shem son of Noah, king of Jerusalem”. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the change is probably intentional: the identification of Melchizedek with Shem has been so thoroughly made that he has lost his identity and name. Targum Neofiti has ĔĀēýĈĉċ (in full ĊĉóĂĕĆĀýĈĉċĔĀēýĈĉċ), where the final alef in ýĈĉċ is hard to explain. It may have arisen through a contamination between the forms in Targum Onqelos and the Fragment Targums, or may represent a confusion between Ć (yod) and ý (aleph).11 3.2.2 Identification of Salem with Jerusalem (v. 18) “Melchizedek king of Jerusalem … brought out bread and wine.” The Masoretic Text has “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine”, 11

See R. Le Déaut, “Le titre de summus sacerdos donné a Melchisédech est’il d’origine juive?”, RSR 50 (1962), 222–229, at 224, n. 11: Targum Neofiti’s mlk’ dq “compromis malheureux entre mlky sdq et mlk’ sdyq’?”); J. A. Fitzmyer, “‘Now this Melchizedek …’ (Heb 7,1)”, CBQ 23 (1963), 309–313, esp. 309, 312, n. 32 (= idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, London 1971, 227–230, esp. 227, 230, n. 32) renders ĔĀēýĈĉċ of Targum Neofiti as “the upright king”.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

297

ČĆĆĂĊĄĉýĆēĂāĊĉó ćĉċĔĀē§ĆĈĉċĂ. If by Salem a town or city was originally intended in the narrative, this may well have been the town of Sâlim, north east of Nablus.12 Whatever of the original meaning or intended identification in MT Gen 14:18,13 in Ps 76:3 Salem (in parallelism with Zion) means Jerusalem. This identification is also that of 1QapGen XXII 13 (“Salem, that is Jerusalem”), and probably in what is to be regarded as an original part of the text, not from a later copyist. It is also found in Josephus (Ant. 7.3.2, § 67; War 6.10.1, § 438; see also Against Apion 1.32, § 174). The identification of Salem as Jerusalem is also, naturally, that of rabbinic tradition. This rabbinic tradition seems to be faithfully reported by Jerome in his work Hebrew Questions on Genesis, completed between late 391 and early 393. He begins his comment on Gen 14:18–19 with the remark: “Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. … by ‘king of Salem’ is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.”14 Writing some years later (in 397), in Letter 73 (on Melchizedek) Jerome will defend quite a different view, namely that Salem of Gen 14:18 was in Samaria. To this we shall presently turn. Some scholars would regard the identification of Salem as Jerusalem in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon as an anti-Samaritan trait,15 a point not proven. There was also an ancient city named Salem (or Salim), in Samaria, near Nablus. It is apparently mentioned in Judith 4:4 (“Samaria … the valley of Salem”, ĞƱċƉĕȥėċýċĕđĖ). It occurs in the Septuagint of Gen 33:18 (LXX: “and Jacob came to Salem [ýċĕđĖ] a city of Secima”; HT: ĕĆďĊĉó þĔďĆýþĆĂ ĊĈó, generally rendered today as “and Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem”) and in the Septuagint of Jer 48:5 (LXX: “and there came men from Sychem, and from Salem [ýċĕđĖ], and from Samaria” = MT 42:4: “men arrived from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria”). It also occurs in Jub 30:1 (“In the first year of the sixth week he [Jacob] went up to Salem, which is east of Shechem, in peace in the fourth month”), which is parallel to Gen 12

For literature on this question see Gionotto, Melchisedek, 17, n. 28. W. F. Albright, “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation”, BASOR 163 (1961), 36–54, esp. 52, has proposed that Gen 14:18 should be read as “û-Malkî-sédeq mélek šelôm hôsî’ lé em wa-yáyin, ‘And Melchizedek, a king allied to him, brought out bread and wine’”. The expression melek šelomoh would mean “a king of his alliance” (lit.: “of his peace”, cf. Ps 41:10: ‘îš šelômî, lit.: “man of my peace”; nrsv: “my bosom friend”). Albright’s emendation has not been generally accepted; see Gianotto, Melchisedek, 15–16, n. 18. 14 S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, 18, on Gen 14:18–19; English translation, Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions, 47. 15 Thus P. Winter, “Note on Salem-Jerusalem”, NovT 2 (1957), 151–152. 13

298

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

33:18. It is probably the site mentioned in John 3:23: John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim (ýċĕďēĖ). A tradition attested to by Jerome (398 c.e.) and Aetheria (probably 390–395 c.e.) located the Salem of Gen 14:8 in Samaria, near Scythopolis. In fact the ruins of Melchizedek’s palace were believed to be still visible there and were visited by pilgrims.16 The tradition linking Salem and Abram’s encounter with Melchizedek with Samaria is an old one in Samaritan tradition. It is found in the anonymous Samaritan writer Pseudo-Eupolemus (second century b.c.e.), in his work ûďěƯ ŵęğĎċưģė, a writing cited by Eusebius from Polyhistor.17 In a section on Abraham Pseudo-Eupolemus follows Gen 14:18–20 rather faithfully but situates the encounter with Melchizedek not in the valley of Shaveh but in a city near Garizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. This tradition is probably older than Pseudo-Eupolemus. Curiously, this tradition is not reflected either in the Samaritan Pentateuch (which agrees with the Masoretic Text apart from writing Ċĉó as ĊĂĉó) or in the Samaritan Targum. 3.2.3 Melchizedek identified with Shem (the Great) (v. 18)18 In all texts of the Palestinian Targums and in Pseudo-Jonathan Melchizedek is explicitly identified with “Shem (the Great)”. Thus Fragment Targum 16 Thus Jerome in Epistula 73:7–8: “Salem autem non, ut Iosephus et nostrorum omnes arbitrantur, esse Hierusalem, nomen ex Graeco Hebraeoque conpositum, quod absurdum esse peregrinae linguae mixtura demonstrat, sed oppidum iuxta Scythopolim, quod usque hodie appellatur Salem, et ostentatur ibi palatium Melchisedech ex magnitudine ruinarum ueteris operis ostendens magnificentiam; de quo in posteriori quoque parte Geneseos scriptum est: uenit Iacob in Soccoth, id est, in tabernacula, et fecit sibi ibi domos atque tentoria, et transiuit in Salem, ciuitatem regionis Sichim, quae est in terra Chanaan. Considerandum quoque, quod Abrahae a caede hostium reuertenti, quos persecutus est usque Dan, quae hodie Paneas appellatur, non deuia Hierusalem, sed oppidum metropoleos Sichim in itinere fuerit, de quo in euangelio quoque legimus: erat autem Ioannes baptizans in Aenon iuxta Salim, quia aquae multae erant ibi. Nec refert, utrum Salem an Salim nominetur, cum uocalibus in medio litteris perraro utantur Hebraei et pro uoluntate lectorum ac uarietate regionum eadem uerba diuersis sonis atque accentibus proferantur.” Cf. Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, Pars II: Epistulae LXXI–CXX, ed. by I. Hilberg (CSEL 55), 2nd edition, Vienna 1996, 20–21; PL 22, 680. Likewise in Aetheria’s Ad Loca sancta peregrinatio in Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi III–IV, ed. by P. Geyer (CSEL 39), Vienna 1898, 55; also Eusebius, Onomastikon, in Eusebius Werke, vol. III.1: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, ed. by E. Klostermann (GCS), Leipzig 1904, 40 (Greek text), 153 (Jerome’s translation): “Salem … in octauo quoque lapide a Scythopoli in campo uicus Salumias appellatur.” 17 See further Gianotto, Melchisedek, 51–58, at 54–56, for Abraham, Melchizedek and Mount Garizim. 18 On Shem and Melchizedek see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge, England 1969, 196–199; R. Le Déaut, Genèse, 163–165 (notes on Tgs. Gen 14:14–24) and literature cited there.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

299

PVNL (ýþĕ / āþĕĊó), Targum Neofiti (āþĂĕĊó). The identification has gone further in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan where Melchizedek has practically ceased to be a proper name: “the righteous king (ýĔĆĀēýĈĉċ) – he is Shem son of Noah”. This identification is attested at an early date in rabbinic Judaism. It is presupposed in a saying of R. Ishmael, a contemporary of R. Aqiba (floruit ca. 110–135 c.e.), transmitted by R. Zechariah (probably fourth century) (b. Nedarim 32b), and can be taken as having been current in Judaism in the first century c.e. I cite the text of b. Nedarim 32b in full here, even though only the first section interests us at the moment. We shall return to a consideration of other elements of it later. The text reads: “R. Zechariah said in the name of R. Ishmael: The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to derive the priesthood from Shem, as it is said: And he was priest to El Elyon. Since he prefaced the blessing of Abram to the blessing of the Place [the Lord God], he derived it from Abram, as it is said: And he blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram by El Elyon who acquired (āčĔ) the heavens and the earth, and blessed be El Elyon’ (Gen 14:19b–20a). Abraham said to him, ‘Does one actually preface the blessing of the slave to the blessing of the one who owns him (ĂčĂĔ)’? Immediately he gave it [the priesthood] to Abraham, as it is said, The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit on my right hand until I shall set your enemies as a stool for your feet’ (Ps 110:1), and after this it is written, The Lord has sworn and will not repent. You are a priest forever ĆėĕþĀĉď [generally rendered: according to the order of] Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), that is, on account of what Melchizedek had said (ĔĀēĆĈĉċĉó ĂĕĂþĆĀĉď). This corresponds to what is written, And he was priest to El Elyon. He was a priest, but his descendants were not priests.”

There is a partly parallel passage in Lev. Rab. (Qedoshim) 25:6, in a discussion on the passing of the priesthood from Melchizedek to Abram, with a debate on the issue between R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba. There are other texts in rabbinical literature with the same tradition.19 This rabbinic view is also attested to in patristic texts. It is also found, without any explanation for it given, in the commentary on Gen 14:18–20 by Ephrem (ca. 306–373 c.e.).20 Epiphanius, 315–403 c.e. (Panarion haereseon 55.6.1; Adversus Haereses 2.1 [Contra Melchizedecianos]) knew of 19 The same identification is also assumed by Gen. Rab. 43:6; Lev. Rab. 4:8; Abot de-Rabbi Natan 2; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 8:2. The principal rabbinic texts have been collected and commented on in the articles on “Melchizedek” and “Shem” in JE 8 (1904), 450, and vol. 9, 261. 20 Critical edition: Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, ed. by R. M. Tonneau (CSCO 152), Louvain 1955, 68 (Syriac text); English translation by G. Mathews, Jr. & J. P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works. Commentary on Genesis […], ed. by K. McVey (Fathers of the Church 91), Washington 1994, 151, with a note saying that Ephrem makes the same identification of Melchizedek with Shem in Armenian Hymns 9.11–12. (Ephrem’s text is cited below in the section III, 2.4.)

300

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

the tradition.21 He uses the Septuagint of Genesis 11 to prove that Shem could not possibly have been Melchizedek, which belief he attributes to the Samaritans rather than to the Jews. In Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14:18–19 (a work completed, as just noted, between late 391 and early 393), Jerome succinctly states the Jewish tradition of his own day on the matter.22 “And Melchizedek king of Salem … Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. They declare that this man is Sem, the son of Noah, and by calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the first-born sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Next, by ‘king of Salem’ is meant king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.”

The computation of the years of Shem’s life mentioned here by Jerome is referred to again, and spelt out, in his Letter 73:5 to the presbyter Evangelus on Melchizedek (written in 398). Here Jerome says that the Hebrews have a tradition that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was the eldest son of Noah and that at the time of the birth of Abram he (Shem) was three hundred and ninety years old. He goes on to tell us the manner in which they calculate this, giving us from Genesis 11 a chart of the sort we find in modern scientific treatments of this question.23 The Hebrew computation chart as given by Jerome runs as follows: “Shem, on the second year after the Flood, when he was a hundred years old, begot Arpachsad. Shem, after the birth of Arpachshad, lived 500 years (in all 600 years). Arpachshad became the father of Shelah after 35 years. Shelah became the father of Eber after 30 years. Eber became the father of Peleg after 34 years. Peleg became the father of Reu after 30 years. Reu became the father of Serug after 32 years. Serug became the father of Nahor after 30 years. Nahor became the father of Terah after 29 years. Terah became the father of Abraham after 70 years.”

Jerome’s text continues: “Compute the number of years through each generation and you will find that from the birth of Shem to the begetting [generation] of Abram there are three hundred and ninety years. Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five years. Having 21 Text in PG 41, 981; Epiphanius, Panarion haereseon 34–64, ed. by K. Holl & J. Dummer, 2nd edition, Berlin 1980, vol. 2, 331. 22 In the translation of Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions, 47. 23 For instance Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 115–116; Gianotto, Melchisedek, 110.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

301

made the subtraction, it follows that Shem outlived Abraham – his descendant to the tenth degree – by thirty-five years.”

3.2.4 Shem the Great in Palestinian Targum Texts and Melchizedek-Shem in Ephrem the Syrian Here I may further note some other chronological details pertinent to the mention of Shem in the Palestinian Targums. The targumic midrash has arisen from the biblical data on the patriarchs, taken in conjunction with the chronological consequences of the age assigned to Shem in the Bible. The biblical evidence is as follows: Abraham was a 100 years old at the birth of Isaac (Gen 21:5). Isaac was thus 75 years old when Abraham died. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah (Gen 19:2) and was 60 years old at the birth of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:25). Jacob was thus born fifteen years before the death of Abraham, and consequently 50 years (15 + 35) before the death of Shem. Isaac died at the age of 180 years (Gen 35:28). Shem thus lived during 100 years of Isaac’s 180, and during fifty years of Jacob’s lifetime. Shem the Great is mentioned twice in the Palestinian Targums with regard to events in the lives of Isaac and Rebekah. As Rebekah was being taken in marriage to Isaac, Isaac “was coming from the schoolhouse (ýóĕĀċėĆþ) of Shem the Great, to the Well over which was revealed the One who sustains every age. And he was dwelling in the land of the south” (Pal. Tgs. Gen 24:62; Fragment Targums PVNL; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Targum Neofiti has “from the sanctuary of”, ýóĀĔċėĆþ, which is obviously an error. The New Revised Standard Version renders the Masoretic Text as: “Now Isaac had come from [Hebrew: ýĂþċýþ, ‘coming from to’] Beer-la-haï-roi, and was settled in the Negeb”). The Palestinian Targums of Gen 25:22 say that when the children pushed themselves together in her womb, Rebekah “went to the schoolhouse (óĕĀċėĆþ) of Shem the Great to beseech mercy from before the Lord” (Fragment Targums PVNL; Neofiti; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) (nrsv: “She went to inquire of the Lord”). Isaac’s association with the schoolhouse of Shem at his marriage (at the age of 40 years) is introduced abruptly. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan prepares his readers for the association of Isaac with Shem at Gen 22:19, immediately after the account of the Aqedah (which in the Palestinian Targum tradition [Neof. Exod 12:42; Frg. Tgs. VN; Frg. Tg. P Exod 15:18; Ps.-J. Gen 22:1] occurred when Isaac was 37 years). There the Masoretic Text simply says that Abraham returned to his young men, and went together to Beersheba. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan prefaces this with the words: “The angels on high took Isaac and brought him to the schoolhouse of Shem the Great, and he was there three years.” Since this is found in no other Targum text,

302

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

or known in any other Jewish tradition, it can be taken as a creation of the author of Pseudo-Jonathan. We may also note that Tamar of Genesis 38, to become an ancestor of David, is also without ancestry. The text gave rise to questions by reason of the relations of Judah (son of Jacob) with her. In a rabbinic tradition Tamar is regarded as the daughter of Shem (b. Megillah 10b; Gen. Rab. 85:10; 13:4). The tradition is also found in Ps.-J. Gen 38:6, but in none of the other Targums. This Palestinian Targum tradition is found in extenso in the Commentary on Genesis by Ephrem the Syrian,24 probably composed about 373  – although Ephrem makes no mention of any Jewish connection. The comment on Gen 14:18–20 in this commentary, in fact, consists almost entirely of material as found in the Palestinian Targums. Not only is Melchizedek identified with Shem, but Shem who is believed to have lived on into the time of Jacob is identified with Melchizedek. The relevant section of Ephrem’s commentary on Gen 14:18–20 (section 11, 2,4) merits reproduction in full. “Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine … (Gen 14:18–20). This Melchizedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, he was a priest. He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to [the time of] Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, “Two nations are in your womb and the older shall be a servant to the younger” (Gen 25:22–23). Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her fatherin-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham’s son. Because the length of Melchizedek’s life extended to the time of Jacob and Esau, it has been stated, with much probability, that he was Shem. His father Noah was dwelling in the east and Melchizedek was dwelling between two tribes, that is, between the sons of Ham and his own sons. Melchizedek was like a partition between the two, for he was afraid that the sons of Ham would turn his own sons to idolatry.”25 24 Critical edition and English translation as at n. 20 above; for arguments for Ephrem’s authorship of the work, see St. Ephrem the Syrian, 62–65. If genuine, Mathews and Amar would date the work towards the end of Ephrem’s life (373). On Jewish influence on Ephrem see P. Féghali, “Influence des Targums sur la pensée exégétique d’Ephrem?”, OCA 229 (1984), 71–82. See also D. Gerson, “Die Commentarien des Ephraem Syrus im Verhältnis zur jüdischen Exegese: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese”, MGWJ 17 (1868), 15–33, 64–72, 98–109, 141–149; S. Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca: Die Kommentare des hl. Ephräm des Syrers zu Genesis und Exodus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer auslegungsgeschichtlichen Stellung (ConB.OT 6), Lund 1974; see also R. Tonneau, “Moïse dans la tradition syrienne”, in H. Cazelles et al., Moïse, l’homme de l’alliance, Paris 1955, 242–254; S. P. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources”, JJS 30 (1979), 212–232. 25 In English translation of G. Mathews, Jr. & J. P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, 151 (italics as in English translation). See the discussion of the Shem tradition of the text in Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca, 116–118.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

303

3.2.5 Origin of Identification of Melchizedek with Shem It is natural to seek the origins of this identification of Melchizedek with Shem. M. Simon26 thinks that it was due to the embarrassment felt by Jews in view of Abraham’s paying homage to Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is identified with Shem, then Abraham was merely showing deference to an ancestor. It is doubtful if there was any polemical tendentious intention, anti-Christian or otherwise, in the identification. The identification of Melchizedek with Shem, in any event, may well pre-date Christianity. R. Ishmael takes the identification for granted, and the texts as found in Jewish or Christian sources do not indicate any embarrassment with it. The rabbinic, targumic and patristic texts (especially Jerome) would seem to indicate that the identification arose from chronological considerations on the biblical age attributed to Shem, and the overlap of his life span with that of Abraham, Isaac and even Jacob.27 Providing Melchizedek with a genealogy may have been a contributory factor of course. So too may have the Jewish belief or tradition that all the first-born sons of Noah, before the levitical priesthood began with Aaron, were priests. The identification of two named biblical characters is not proper to Shem-Melchizedek. We have other examples in the Targums, particularly in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Thus Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies Putiel of Exod 6:25 with Jethro (inverting the order: “… one of the daughters of Jethro – he is Putiel”) and Phinehas of Num 25:12 with Elijah (although here implicitly, without mention of Elijah’s name). 3.3 The Demotion of Melchizedek’s Priesthood in Rabbinical Sources (Ps 110:4) It has been noted above that in accepting the identification of Melchizedek with Shem R. Ishmael did not have any polemical point to make. The same cannot be said of his statement which follows immediately on this regarding Melchizedek’s priesthood. This, he says, was taken away by God from Shem (= Melchizedek) and given to Abram. Shem (= Melchizedek) was a priest but his descendants were not. God transfers the priesthood of Shem (= Melchizedek) to Abraham and addresses Ps 110:1 to him: “Sit on my right hand …”, as he also does Ps 110:4: “Your are a priest for ever according to the order of (ĆėĕþĀĉď) Melchizedek”, which is interpreted as meaning “on account of what (ĂĕĂþĆĀ ĉď) Melchizedek said”. The reason 26

Simon, “Melchisédech dans la polémique”, 61–62. See Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, 129. For the evidence in the Palestinian Targums see the preceding sub-section (3.2.4) immediately above (pp. 301–302). 27

304

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

for the demotion of Melchizedek’s priesthood is seen in Melchizedek having blessed Abram before he uttered his blessing to God Most High. As Petuchowski observes: there can be no doubt that R. Ishmael’s reference to Melchizedek is polemical.28 But against whom is R. Ishmael’s polemic directed? One possibility is that his target is the Christian understanding of Melchizedek’s priesthood, particularly as presented in the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially Hebrews 7, with the use of Gen 14:17–20 and Ps 110:4). L. Ginzberg believed that it was very likely directed against the Christians, such as the author of Heb 7:1–3 and especially Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 33 and 96) who took Melchizedek to be a type of Jesus,29 likewise R. T. Herford,30 P. Billerbeck,31 and M. Simon.32 Others do not consider such a conclusion necessary or warranted. The polemic may have originally been directed against a Jewish (or Samaritan) misuse of Ps 110:4, possibly Hasmoneans, such as Simon. In 1 Macc 14:35, 41 we read: “The people saw Simon’s faithfulness and the glory that he had resolved to win for his nation, and they made him their leader and high priest. … The Jews and their high priests resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.” Psalm 110, in particular Ps 110:4, would present legitimization for the Hasmonean union of royalty and kingship in the one person of Simon and his successors. The Hasidim strongly objected to Simon’s exercise of the high priesthood. The rift between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans is dwelt on at length by Josephus (Ant. 13; e.g. 13.10.5–6, §§ 288–296; 13.13.5, § 376; 13.16.2, § 408). An anti-Hasmonean interpretation of Psalm 110 may have originated already in the second century b.c.e., in an effort to undermine this particular use of the psalm. This interpretation of the psalm would have been transmitted in Pharisaic and later in early rabbinic tradition. In this case R. Ishmael’s interpretation would in origin have been pre-Christian, rather than anti-Christian, although he may have used it in an anti-Christian polemic. This view has been put forward by J. J. Petuchowski.33 28

Ibid., 129. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 5, Philadelphia 1925, 226, n. 104. 30 R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London 1903, 265 and 338–340. 31 P. Billerbeck, “Der 110. Psalm in der altrabbinischen Literatur: Zu Mt 22,43 ff. u. Hebr 5,6”, in H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 4, Munich 1928, 452–465, at 459–460. 32 M. Simon, “Melchisédech dans la polémique”, 58–93, who also considers that Church Fathers such as Justin are the intended target. 33 Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, 130–136; idem, “Melchisedech – Urgestalt der Ökumene”, 18 (noting that J. Heinemann had put forward compelling arguments that the polemic was directed against the Samaritans; with reference to J. Heinemann, ČāĆėĂĀĉĂėĂėĂĀÿý, Jerusalem 1974, 98–102). 29

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

305

3.4 Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to Antiochene and Early Irish Tradition According to R. Ishmael’s viewpoint, in Psalm 110 the Lord addresses Abraham, and the psalm is interpreted as referring to him. This view is also found in other rabbinic texts.34 In this interpretation Ps 110:1–3 would refer to Abraham’s campaign against the four kings (Genesis 14).35 We do not know how widely this particular view was held in Jewish circles in the fourth century. It does not appear to have left much trace in Christian sources. Jerome, living and writing in Palestine, makes no mention of it. However, matters appear to have been different in Antioch on the Orontes, at least among scholars of the exegetical school founded by Diodorus, later bishop of Tarsus († ca. 390). Diodorus himself seems to have written a commentary on the Psalms, and in the opinion of a number of patristic scholars the work has recently been identified in hitherto unpublished manuscripts. Only part of this newly identified commentary (on Psalms 1–50) has as yet been published.36 One of the best known scholars of the Antiochene school was Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428). He wrote a very well known commentary on the Psalms in Greek, which was translated into Latin by Julian of Eclanum. Portions of the Greek text and of Julian’s full translation have come down to us. For the greater part, however, the Latin is known only through an epitome of it. The Latin texts, whether full commentary or Epitome, have been transmitted mainly through Irish sources.37 In the most complete of the manuscripts (ms. Milan, Ambrosiana C. 301 inf.), from ca. 800, the Latin text is heavily glossed in Old Irish. As is well known, Theodore interpreted only four psalms (Psalms 2; 8; 44 [45]; 109 [110]) as direct prophecies of Christ. No copy of the Greek text of Theodore’s commentary on Psalm 109 (110) has come down to us, nor has any part of the full Latin translation. All we have is the Epitome of the Latin translation. The introductory words inform us that the Lord himself in the Gospel interpreted this psalm of himself to the Pharisees. The exposition, which is not extensive, interprets the entire psalm of Christ, and introduces a theological element on the relationship of the Son, or of Verbum, to the Father. In the comment on the opening words Dixit Dominus Domino up to meis in the Epitome two interpretations of the Jews are rejected: one taking 34

Texts in Billerbeck, “Der 110. Psalm”, 456. See ibid., 455–456. 36 Diodori Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos, vol. 1: Commentarii in Psalmos I–L, quorum editionem principem curavit J.-M. Olivier (CCSG 6), Turnhout 1980. 37 Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos Iuliano Aeclensi interprete in latinum versae quae supersunt, ed. by L. De Coninck & M. J. D’Hont (CCSL 88A), Turnhout 1977. 35

306

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

the speaker as Abraham’s servant, the other as David, describing what God had said to Abraham at the time he was prepared for war.38 The Irish glosses, as is usual, concentrate on bringing out the meaning of the Latin text.39 One (Ml 127d3) identifies Abraham’s servant as “a servant who went from Abraham to woo Rebekah for Isaac”. The next gloss (Ml 127d4) interprets v. 1, with Abraham’s servant as the intended speaker: Dixit .i. seruus (the speaker is Abraham’s servant); dominus .i. deus pater (that is, Abraham’s servant said that God the Father said); domino .i. abrachae (that is, the lord who is addressed is Abraham). The gloss goes on to note (as the Latin Epitome being glossed does) that such an interpretation is false. The next gloss (Ml 127d5) tells what the understanding would be if David were speaker (corresponding to the second Jewish interpretation of the Epitome): the subject of dixit is David; Dominus is Deus Pater; domino is Abraham, that is, David said (in this Psalm): God the Father said to Abraham, David’s master. With the Latin Epitome, the gloss adds: “such an understanding, indeed, is error”. 3.5 Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to Justin Martyr According to Justin Martyr (Dialogue 33) the Jews understood this psalm as speaking of King Hezekiah. No such interpretation is attested in our extant rabbinic sources.40 Possibly Justin was led to believe that Jews held this opinion on Psalm 110, since he knew that they interpreted as referring to Hezekiah other texts taken by Christians as messianic. Some rabbinic texts understand Psalm 110 of David, as a ruler in history.41 Then there were others who interpreted the Psalm of the end times: as referring to the Messiah himself or to David and his role in the new eschatological age, or of the eschatological age without mention of any Messiah.42 3.6 The Treatment of Melchizedek References in Targum of Psalm 110 The Targum of Psalms is known to exist in fourteen manuscripts. Linguistically scholars date the work as late, from the seventh to ninth centuries. The 38 “Cessant ergo falsae opiniones Iudaeorum, qui aut Abrahae serui personam de domino suo loquentem introduci putant, aut ipsum Dauid, quid Deus Abrahae in procinctu belli dixerit, describentem intelligi” (Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos, 351– 352). 39 Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus: A Collection of Old-Irish glosses, Scholia, Prose and Verse, ed. by W. Stokes & J. Strachan, vol. 1: Biblical Glosses and Scholia, Cambridge, England 1901 (repr. Dublin 1975), vol. 1: The glosses on Ps 109 (110), 434–437. 40 See Billerbeck, “Der 110. Psalm”, 456. 41 Ibid., 456–457. 42 Ibid., 457–458.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

307

text was published in the second Rabbinic Bible (1525), printed by Daniel Bomberg (given siglum B), and reproduced in later printed editions. The text of manuscript Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense 116Z-40 (siglum M) was edited by L. Díez Merino. There has been no critical edition of the entire work, although E. White has made a critical edition of the first two books of the Psalter (Psalms 1–41, 42–72).43 Dr David Stec, of the University of Sheffield, is preparing an English translation from the manuscripts, and also preparing a critical edition of the Aramaic text of the Targum.44 He uses four manuscripts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Library Ee. 5.9 = siglum C; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF), Hébr. 17 = siglum P17; Paris, BNF Hébr. 110 = siglum P110; Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3231 = siglum Pm) and the two printed texts. These six witnesses represent three distinct text types: 1) C P17 Pm; 2) M P110; 3) B. The base text used by D. Stec for his translation is P17. A feature of Targum of Psalms (like the related Targum of Job) is that within the text itself alternative renderings are given, under the heading “Another translation”. Despite variation among the text types, the central form of translation seems to be the same in all. The Targum carries the heading, as in the Hebrew Text: “By David. A psalm”. The speaker of the psalm is taken as David, who is being addressed by the Lord, and the contents of the translation of v. 1 indicates that the Lord is speaking to David. Tg. Ps 110:1 reads as follows: “By David. A psalm. The Lord said in his Memra that he would give me the lordship, because I had sat for the instruction of the Law: ‘Wait at my right hand, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.’ Another Translation: The Lord said in his Memra that he would make me lord over Israel. However, he said to me: ‘Return and wait for Saul, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, until he dies; for you are not associated with a kingdom that is near [ýþĕĔċýėĂĈĉċ; or: ‘the present kingdom’]; and afterwards I will make your enemies a stool for your feet.’”

As P. Billerbeck has noted, this interpretation of v. 1 is that of R. Juda ben Shallum the Levite († ca. 370), and is taken from the rabbinic Midrash on Psalms (Psalm 110, par. 5).45 43

E. White, “A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer Generated Text of Books I and II” (dissertation, McGill University), Montreal 1988. 44 I use his translation here with the kind permission of Dr. Stec. The information on the manuscript affiliations is also from him. (The translation has been published in: D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004, 202.) 45 See Billerbeck, “Der 110. Psalm”, 456–457. For the Hebrew Text see S. Buber, Midrasch Tehillim, Wilna 1891 (repr. Jerusalem 1966), 466–467; English translation, W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, New Haven 1959; 3rd edition 1976, vol. 2, 206–207. We may note that the central interpretation of the Midrash on Psalms understands Psalm 110 as referring to Abraham. R. Shallum’s interpretation is introduced as “a different explanation”.

308

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

It is not quite clear what the Lord’s words to David, telling him that he is not associated with a kingdom that is near, are intended to mean. There may possibly be an eschatological reference. In any event, the key text of v. 4 (MT: “a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek”) practically disappears in translation, and the Targum gives the non-historical, eschatological, understanding of the verse. It reads (without significant variation in the texts): “The LORD has sworn and will not relent: “You are appointed as chief for the world to come, on account of (ČĆÿþ; M P110 ĉĉÿþ) the merit that you have been a righteous king.” Targum Psalms: ĆýĈăćĆĉċėĆĂāĀýėĂĈă (ĉĉÿþ) ČĆÿþĆėýĀýċĉďĉýþĕĉĆčċėċýėýĀ Hebrew Text: ĔĀē§ĆĈĉċĆėĕþĀ§ĉďĊĉďĉČāĈāėý

The exact traditions behind this rendering remain to be identified. While all mention of Melchizedek appears to be lost, the rendering is modelled on the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew ČāĈ, “priest” (originally designating Melchizedek), is rendered as ýþĕ, “prince”, the term used in the Targums of the Pentateuch to render ČāĈ of the Hebrew Text when a respected, nonJewish, priest is in question, for instance Putiphar (Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20), priest of On, and Jethro (Exod 3:1; passim), priest of Midian. The following word, ĊĉĂďĉ, “for ever” is paraphrased as “the world to come”. The words ĆėĕþĀ§ĉď (“according to the order of”?), somewhat in the tradition of R. Ishmael, is taken as if it meant “because”, while ĔĀēĆĈĉċ is paraphrased (as in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) as “a just king”. 3.7 “… He (Melchizedek) Went Out to Meet Abram” (Ps.-J. v. 18) This observation is found only in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. It is not in the Hebrew Text, in the Septuagint or in the other Targums. In the translation of this verse Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has inserted what has been said with regard to the king of Sodom in v. 17. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s added detail is interesting in that it is also found in Heb 7:1. The author of Hebrews may have been influenced by targumic or Hebrew tradition, although this is not required by the evidence.46 3.8 The Offering of Bread and Wine (v. 18a) The targumic renderings seem to exclude any liturgical-sacrificial interpretation of Melchizedek’s action. All the Targums translate the Hebrew Text ýĆēĂā by Ĕ[Ć]đý, the aphel of Ĕđč. With regard to the objects brought out, 46 Gianotto, Melchisedek, 113, thinks that the Letter to the Hebrews is here dependent on targumic tradition.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

309

Targums Onqelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, with the Septuagint, and the Syro-Palestinian, with the Hebrew Text have “bread and wine”. The Fragment Targum P has “food and wine”; 1QapGen has “food and drink” (āėóċĂĉĈýċ), indications of the hospitality on Melchizedek’s part. 3.9 Melchizedek’s Priesthood; Melchizedek a High Priest? Melchizedek was a priest of El-Elyon (Gen 14:18), ČĂĆĉď ĉýĉ ČāĈ. That Melchizedek was a priest was not denied by R. Ishmael, whose point was that his priesthood (namely that of Shem) was transferred to Abraham. The biblical statement that Melchizedek was a priest is repeated in such texts as 1QapGen XXII 15; the Septuagint; Josephus, Ant. 1.10.2, § 180; War 6.10.1, § 438; Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.25(79), 26(82); De congressu eruditionis gratia 18(99). Likewise the Syro-Palestinian translation and Fragment Targum VNL (“He was priest of God Most High”). See also Targum Neofiti and Fragment Targum P both of which say Melchizedek was a priest, and add a reference to his having served in the high priesthood. We shall return presently to these texts. Some targumic texts speak of a high priesthood with regard to Melchizedek47 (= Shem). With regard to Shem (and by implication Melchizedek) we may note Tg. 1 Chr 1:24 where Shem of the Hebrew Text is paraphrased as “Shem the high priest” (ýþĕýčāĈĊó).48 The title “high priest” for Melchizedek may be an old one.49 However, Melchizedek is not so called in any of the Targums of Gen 14:18, although the designation “high priest” does occur in Palestinian Targum texts. In two texts, however (Fragment Targum P and Neofiti) Melchizedek is called “a priest … who served in the high priesthood”. The words “high priest” (ĉĂĀÿāČāĈā) are found only two or three times in the entire Pentateuch (Num 35:25, 28, and possibly 35:32, see the Greek and Samaritan Pentateuch). In the Palestinian Targum (Targum Neofiti) the title “high priest” occurs a limited number of times, sometimes in free para47 In the Roman Canon Melchizedek is called a High Priest, “summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech”. Some scholars believe that this title may be of Jewish origin. I believe that the targumic evidence, because of the problem of formulation (high priesthood rather than high priest) and date, does not help appreciably in the debate. For a thorough examination of the question see R. Le Déaut, “Le titre de Summus Sacerdos donné à Melchisédech est-il d’origine juive?”, RSR 50 (1962), 222–229. On the priesthood of the first-born R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963, 85, n. 43. 48 Text in R. Le Déaut & J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques (AnBib 51), Rome 1971, vol.  2, 10; French translation in ibid., vol.  1, 41 (with n.  71); English translation (with extensive note) J. S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles, Collegeville 1994, 41. 49 Le Déaut, “Le titre de Summus Sacerdos”, esp. 226–229.

310

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

phrase, but mostly as a slight expansion of a term in the biblical text. Thus in Neof. Exod 21:14: “[And if] a man [wilfully attacks] another to kill him treacherously, even if he is the high priest who stands and serves at my altar, you shall take him from there and you shall kill him” (an expansion of the Hebrew Text: “… kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar …”). It also occurs as an expansion in Neof. Lev 21:1, in a context speaking of the sons of Aaron: “The high priest shall not make himself unclean …” (Masoretic Text: “No one shall make himself unclean”). In Neof. Deut 26:3 “the priest who is in office at that time” is expanded in Targum Neofiti as “the high priest who is in office at that time”. In the Book of Numbers Targum Neofiti introduces the designation on a number of occasions. Aaron is called “the high priest” at Num 4:16, 28, 33; there is mention of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, “the high priest” (17:2, 4; 26:1); Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the “high priest” (25:11); an unnamed “high priest” (4:20; 35:32).50 In the paraphrase of Gen 14:18 Targum Neofiti and also in Fragment Targum P Melchizedek is not directly called a high priest, but is said to have served in the high priesthood. Thus in Fragment Targum P: “… he was priest of the Most High … and stood and ministered in the high priesthood (ýėþĕýėĂčāĈþ óċóċĂĊĆýĔ) before God Most High”. Likewise in Targum Neofiti: “he was a priest ministering in the high priesthood before God Most High (ýāĉďýāĉýĊĀĔāėþĕ [ā]ėčāĈþ óċóċČāĈāĂā)”. A priest ministering in the high priesthood is equivalently called high priest. With regard to the term “priest” and this expression “high priesthood” in Targum Neofiti we may note that Neofiti reserves the terms for Aaron and his sons, and for Melchizedek.51 The respected non-Jewish Putiphar, priest of On, and Jethro, priest of Midian, each is called a “prince” (āþĕ); see Neof. Gen 41:45, 50 (also in Tg. Cairo Genizah ms. E and 41:45 in Fragment Targum P); 46:20; Exod 3:1, etc. The Egyptian priests are called ýĆĕċĂĈ, a term reserved for non-Jewish priests (see Neof. Gen 47:22, 26). The expression “high priesthood” occurs only once in Targum Onqelos, that is at Num 16:10, where it is found in all the Targums of the Pentateuch, namely Targums Onqelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan where God’s words to the sons of Korah “… you yet seek the priesthood as well, óĔþĂ āčāĈ§ĊÿĊė”, are rendered as “you wish to assume (Neofiti; Onqelos: “you seek”) the high priesthood also”. It may be that this phrase once occurred more widely in Targum Onqelos, and was later deleted. The term “priesthood”, āčāĈ, occurs eight times in the Hebrew Pentateuch, twice in Exodus (29:9; 40:15) and six times in Numbers (Num 3:10; 50 See also Exod 38:21 (Neof. mg.); Lev 14:26 (Neof. mg.); 21:4 (Neof. mg.); Num 31:1 (Neof. mg.); 31:6 (Neof. mg.). 51 See for example Neof. Exod 31:10; 35:19; 38:21; 39:41.

3. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14:18

311

16:10; 18:1, 7, 7; 25:13), and only in two of those (Exod 40:15; Num 16:10) does Targum Neofiti expand with the addition of “high”. In Targum Neofiti there are 32 occurrences of the term “priesthood” (āčĂāĈ), and in 22 of these the term is qualified as “high”.52 Of these texts only two are extant in the Fragment Targums, namely Gen 14:8 (P) and Exod 1:21 (PVN) and here, too, we have the addition “high”. A free Palestinian Targum midrash on Gen 49:3 says that the high priesthood was originally destined for Reuben, Jacob’s first-born but, because of his sin, the high priesthood was given to Levi (Neof. Gen 49:3; also Fragment Targums PVN, and possibly a Cairo Genizah Palestinian Targum text, M. Klein’s ms. Z).53 The text corresponding to “high priesthood” of Pal. Tg. Gen 49:3 in Gen. Rab. 98:4 speaks simply of “priesthood”.54 It must be noted that the frequent use of the phrase “high priesthood” in Targum Neofiti (and the Palestinian Targums) is regarded by some as an indication of late origin for these texts.55 The matter requires more detailed study before a firm conclusion 52 For occurrences other than Gen 49:3 see Neof. Gen 14:18; Exod 1:21; 28:1, 3, 4, 41; 29:1, 44; 30:30; 40:13, 15; Lev 7:35; 16:32; Num 3:3, 4; 16:10; Deut 10:6. We may also add Neof. mg. Exod 1:21; 31:10; 35:19; Lev 21:4. 53 In a fragment in the Cambridge University Library, ms. T.S NS 182.69; edited with English translation, M. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1, Cincinnati 1986, 164–165. The word “high” (āėþĕ) is part of lost text, but is apparently required by the length of the line. In his notes and comments on the text in Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 2, Cincinnati 1986, 51, Klein remarks that the exegetic connection between high-priesthood and kingship is spelled out in Midrash Tan uma, ed. by S. Buber, Wilna 1885 (repr. Jerusalem 1964), 218, where the comment is made on the words of HT Gen 49,3 ăďĕėĆĂėýó ĕėĆ (nrsv: “excelling in rank and excelling in power”), “there is no rank other than high priesthood (āĉĂĀÿāčĂāĈ) and there is no power other than kingship”. The date to be assigned to the Tan uma is uncertain. Zunz dated it to the first half of the ninth century, and so do many modern scholars; others assign an earlier date, for instance around 400 at the latest. See H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991, 332–333. 54 Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, ed. by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Jerusalem 1965 (repr. of Berlin 1912–1936 edition, with corrections), vol. 3, 1253; English translation: Midrash Rabbah. Translated into English, with notes, glossary and indices, ed. by H. Freedman & M. Simon, vol. 2: Genesis, London 1939, 3rd edition 1983, 949 (par. 98:4); also J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation, vol. 3 (BJS 106), Atlanta 1985, 349 (for par. 98:4.1G). 55 Thus M. Kasher, “āėþĕ ýėčĂāĈ”, in Torah Shelemah, vol. 35 (= Aramaic Versions of the Bible, vol. 2), Jerusalem 1983, 170–185 (a detailed examination of the individual occurrences of the phrase in Palestinian Targum texts in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). So also A. O. H. Okamoto, in his doctoral dissertation (Oxford, with G. Vermes as Director): “Codex Neofiti I on the Book of Exodus: Its place in the history of Targumic literature” – summarized in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Madrid & Barcelona 1968–1978, vol. 2, 74*–76*. In his second letter to Díez Macho, ibid., 76*, Okamoto expresses his conviction that the grounds for his statement that “N[eof]’s present form appears to reflect layers of revision into geonic times, are the following: … a strong redactionary tendency evident in N[eof.] can

312

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

can be reached. An argument favouring a later date for the designation in Targum Neofiti and the few texts of the Fragment Targum might be drawn from the Cairo Genizah text of Tg. Gen 40:13, 15 in Klein’s manuscript E, parchment (considered “early”, that is, ninth / tenth to mid-eleventh centuries), where the text is the same as Targum Neofiti but in both instances lacks the adjective “high”.56 Manuscript Z, with the added term “high”, in paper, is dated as “middle”, that is mid-eleventh to late fourteenth centuries. Onq. Gen 14:18 does not render the Hebrew Text word “priest” at all. It translates: “Now Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine, and he was ministering (óĆċóċ; mešammeš, pael participle) before God Most High.” It may be that Targum Onqelos’s translation is intentional, possibly occasioned by a view such as that of R. Ishmael. Elsewhere Targum Onqelos gives a careful rendering of the Hebrew word ČāĈ in keeping with the context. In Gen 41:45, 50; 46:21 Putiphar, priest (ČāĈ) of On (of the Masoretic Text) is called ýþĕ, “prince”. The other pagan priests (HT: ĊĆčāĈ) of Egypt are called ýĆĕċĈ. In Exod 2:16; 3:1; 18:1 Jethro, the priest (ČāĈ) of Midian is translated as ýþĕ, “prince”. In Exod 19:6 ĊĆčāĈ is rendered in Targum Onqelos as ýĆčāĈ. In all references to Aaron the priest (ČāĈ) and to the sons of Aaron, the priests (ĊĆčāĈ), Targum Onqelos renders by the cognate Aramaic terms ČāĈ, ýĆčāĈ. The failure to make explicit reference of Melchizedek’s priesthood in Gen 14:18 may be due to the rabbinic discussions on the matter. While óċó (šammeš) is a regular term for the exercise of the priesthood, its occurrence here is not a sufficient explanation for the omission of a translation of ČāĈ of the Hebrew Text. On the other hand, it must be noted that in Gen 14:18 Targum Onqelos uses the verbal form (óĆċóċ; mešammeš, participle from verb óċó) which he regularly uses elsewhere to translate the verb ČāĈ (k h n) of the Hebrew Text, “to act as priest” (in the Levitical priesthood; in the priesthood of Aaron). Thus in Exod 28:1, 3, 4, 41; 29:1, 44; 30:30; 31:10; 35:19, 41; 40:13, 15; Lev 7:35; 16:32; Num 3:3, 4; Deut 10:6. It appears that in Gen 14:18 Targum Onqelos has read k h n, “priest”, of the Hebrew Text as the verb k h n, “to act as priest”, “to exercise the priesthood”, and translates this verb as not have emerged much earlier than 426 a.d. (d. of Rav Ashi), postulating that there had existed the basic Targum”. For Okamoto no. 2 of these redactionary elements is: “The recurring phrase bkhwnth rbth (in the high priesthood) has an overtone towards abstraction, which is characteristic of post-Talmudic exegesis; so also are the frequent phrases in N[eof.] such as l-šmy, byt ‘amaleq, byt qwdš’.” See also H. Okamoto’s later essay, “A Geonic Phrase in MS. Targum Yerushalmi, Codex Neofiti 1”, JQR 66 (1976), 160–167. For the dissertation see H. Okamoto, “The Historical Significance of the Codex Neofiti, with Special Reference to Exodus” (dissertation, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion; Cincinnati 1974). 56 Text and translation in Klein, Genizah Fragments, 104–105. For the dating (by Prof. Malachi Beit Arié) see Klein, ibid., xxxvii.

313

4. The Blessing and the Tithes (Tgs. Gen 14:19–20)

he does elsewhere. While it is possible that Targum Onqelos’s translation is due only to exegetical considerations, it is hard to avoid the impression that it is tendentious, and that he has rendered as he did on ideological grounds.57 In Gen 14:18, in the rendering of the Hebrew Text ČāĈ we may note, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan follows Targum Onqelos (óċóċ).

4. The Blessing and the Tithes (Tgs. Gen 14:19–20) Hebrew Text:

ĕċýĆĂĂāĈĕþĆĂ (19) ĊĕþýćĂĕþ ĒĕýĂĊĆċó āčĔČĂĆĉďĉýĉ ČĂĆĉďĉýćĂĕþĂ (20) ćĀĆþćĆĕēČÿċ§ĕóý ĉĈċĕóďċĂĉ§ČėĆĂ

Targum Onqelos58

ĕċýĂāĆĈĕþĂ (19) ĊĕþýćĆĕþ ýďĕýĂýĆċó āĆčĆčĔĀāýĉĆďĉýĉ āýĉĆďĉýćĆĕþĂ (20) ćĀĆþćýčĎĕĎċĆĀ ýĉĂĈċýĕĎďČċĀĄāĆĉþāĆĂ Targum Neofiti

ĕċýĂāĆėĆćĆĕþĂ (19) ĊĕþýýĂāćĆĕþ ýďĕýĂĆĆċó āčĔāĆĕċĆċþĀāýĉĆďýāĉýĊĀĔ ćċĀĔćþþĀĆĉďþĕþėĆĀýĆĉďýāĉýýĂāćĂĕþĂ (20) āĉĈČċāĕąďČċĀĄāĉþāĆĂ Targum Neofiti margin For āýĉĆďýāĉýĊĀĔ it has the reading: Fragment Targums

ýĆĉďýāĉýĉ None extant

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 19) ]ĕ[ċýĂāĆĈĕþĂ) āýĉĆďýĔĉý [space for one letter in text] ČċĊĕþýćĆĕþ 57

See Gianotto, Melchisedek, 114. Using the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, 20. A variant reading in Sperber’s edition has ĉýĊĀĔ (“before God”) for ĉýĉ (“by God”). 58

314

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

ýďĕýĂýĆċó ýčĔýĆĔĆĀēČĆÿþĀ ýėĄċĉþĔċĀýĎĆĕėĈćýčĎĀþďĀýāĉĆďýĔĉýćĆĕþĂ (20) þĆėýĀāċĉĈċýĕóďČċĀĄāĆĉþāĆĂ 4.1 The Blessings (Tgs. Gen 14:19–20a) For the first part of v. 19 (nrsv: “Blessed be Abram by God [ĉýĉ] Most High”), Targum Onqelos follows the Hebrew Text faithfully (ĉýĉ), which we may (with R. Grossfeld) render “before God Most High”. We have the same variant reading in Targum Neofiti margin ýĆĉĆďýāĉýĉ, “to God Most High”, which we may possibly render “before God Most High”. Targum Neofiti renders in its usual fashion “before, ĊĀĔ (God Most High)”. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has Čċ, literally “from”, followed by a space, “God Most High”, where we can presume that the original reading was ĊĀĔČċ, “from before”, or simply “before”. The second part of v. 19, Hebrew Text ĒĕýĂĊĆċó āčĔ is differently understood in the various Targums, especially with regard to the understanding of āčĔ. Targum Onqelos understands as “possess” and renders “(God Most High) whose possessions are heaven and earth”. The Palestinian Targums understand āčĔ as “create”, but differ in their paraphrases. Targum Neofiti renders (both here and in v. 22) as: “(God Most High) who by his Memra created the heavens and the earth”. This is quite in keeping with Targum Neofiti’s frequent references to the Memra of the Lord, and to the creation of the world through God’s Memra.59 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, both here and in v. 22, considers another aspect of God’s work of creation, paraphrasing as: “God Most High, who created the heavens and the earth for the sake of the righteous”. Creation of the world for the sake of the righteous is a theme found in intertestamental literature, and in targumic and rabbinical theology as well.60

59 Thus Neof. Gen 1:1; Neof. mg. Gen 2:3; 5:1; 6:7. See further, D. Muñoz (León), “Apéndice sobre el Memra de Yahweh en el MS Neophyti I”, in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 3, Madrid & Barcelona 1973, 70**–83**; D. Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974; R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, Totowa 1981. 60 The world created for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all those who were like them (2 Bar 21:14); for the sake of the righteous (4 Ezra 9:13; 2 Bar 14:19; 15:7); on behalf of God’s people (Testament of Moses 1:12); for the sake of the many, for all mankind (4 Ezra 8:1, 44). For the Targums see all Palestinian Targums on Num 22:39 (Neofiti, Fragment Targum PVN, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan): the world created on account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; see also A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, London 1920, 108–128.

4. The Blessing and the Tithes (Tgs. Gen 14:19–20)

315

In v. 20a Targum Onqelos follows the Hebrew Text faithfully, rendering Čÿċ (migg n; nrsv: “delivered”) as “delivered”.61 Targum Neofiti remains relatively faithful to the Hebrew Text, “who has crushed (ĕþė) your enemies before you”. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems to have seen a connection between Čÿċ and m g n, “shield”, and renders rather freely as: “who has made those who hate you like a shield that receives a blow”. A similar connection seems to be made in a comment on the verse in Gen. Rab. 43:8: “R. Huna interpreted: Who hath turned thy weapons (magnun) against thine enemies.”62 4.2 The Tithes (Tgs. Gen 14:20b) The Hebrew Text is quite ambiguous with regard to which of the pair (Melchizedek or Abram) paid the tithes to the other: “And he gave him a tithe of everything.” The ambiguity is left intact in the Septuagint, the SyroPalestinian, Targums Onqelos63 and Neofiti. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is quite clear that it was Abram who paid the tithe: “And he gave him a tithe of all that he had brought back”. 1QapGen (XXII 17) is clearly along the same lines: “And he gave him a tithe of all the flocks of the king of Elam and his confederates.” In the context of the reading of the Bible in the Hellenistic and Roman periods we have examined the manner in which the biblical Melchizedek tradition is presented in the Targums and in related rabbinical and early Christian tradition. Targums, Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, were in the process of formation from the Hellenistic period onwards, and continued to develop during the Roman period and later. While the Targums containing the Melchizedek material (Tg. Gen 14:18–20; Tg. Psalm 110) are known only from manuscripts later than the Roman period, the tradition 61 Migg n is taken by F. Brown, S. R. Driver & C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1906, as a denominative verb (from magen, “shield”, etc.). The verb is of rare occurrence: in the sense of “deliver up to an adversary”, only in Gen 14:20; Hos 11:8; Isa 64:6; in the sense of “deliver”, Prov 4:9. The noun magen occurs 33 times, one of these in Gen 15:1. 62 English translation in Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1, 357. J. Neusner renders: “[Since the word for ‘deliver’ yields the same letters that serve for the word for ‘plans or schemes’,] R. Huna said: ‘It is that he turned your plans against your enemies’”, cf. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah, vol. 2, 121 (par. 35–67, through Gen 8:15–28:9). 63 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 68, without note, renders the Targum Onqelos as: “And blessed be God most High who has delivered your enemy into your hand and has given him [āĉþāĆĂ] a tenth of everything.” This translation can hardly be accepted; it does not flow. Grossfeld’s earlier rendering, with M. Aberbach, was at pains to make the meaning of the text clear by inserting the intended subject of þāĆ within brackets: “And he (viz. Abram) gave him a tenth of everything”; see M. Aberbach & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text, New York 1982, 90.

316

Chapter 12: Melchizedek: Gen 14:17–20 in the Targums

they represent is older, and must be considered not as a single unified whole but possibly varying from one item to another. A Jewish tradition, first attested as words of R. Ishmael (ca. 130 c.e.), interpreting Psalm 110 of Abraham and regarding the priesthood of Melchizedek as having been transferred to Abraham, may not have originated in an anti-Christian polemic, but may possibly be much older, and as exegesis may have been directed against the Hasmoneans in the second century b.c.e., although it would also have been used later in an anti-Christian polemic. The Palestinian Targum’s identification (Gen 14:18) of Melchizedek with Shem, the son of Noah, accepted without question by R. Ishmael, appears to be an old tradition, probably originating before the Christian era. Its origins do not appear to have been polemic. Rather are they to be found in the biblical data on Shem’s life span, that would have stretched into the lifetime of Jacob. The identification was facilitated by another Jewish tradition that all firstborn sons before the priesthood of Aaron were priests. Providing Melchizedek with a genealogy may also have been a factor, even though this factor is not presented prominently in rabbinic or related Christian tradition. The Targums have no clear evidence of the identification of the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14:17). The Palestinian Targum tradition is here unstable. Targum Neofiti identifies it as the Valley of the Gardens (or of pardesaya), which may not be original, since all Palestinian Targum texts have so identified the Valley of Siddim earlier in the chapter (Gen 14:3, 8, 10). In the Roman Canon of the Mass Melchizedek is called a high priest. This may be an old tradition, possibly even of Jewish origin. In Tg. 1 Chr 1:24 Shem is called a high priest, and the identification of Melchizedek with Shem may form a basis for a similar early Jewish title for Melchizedek. In Palestinian Targum texts (Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum P) of Gen 14:18, while Melchizedek is not so designated he is said to be “a priest who served in the high priesthood”. It is a matter of debate, however, whether these words “high priesthood” belong to the original, or to an early stratum, of the Targums of the Pentateuch or were introduced only later, even as late as the fifth century if not later still. The manner in which Melchizedek’s priesthood is treated in the Targums is also interesting. All trace of it appears to have disappeared in the Tg. Psalm 110 (from the seventh to eighth centuries?), where Melchizedek even has ceased to be a personal name, but is rendered as “the righteous king”. In Gen 14:18 Targum Onqelos treats ČāĈ (k h n) of the Hebrew Text as if it were a verb (k h n), and translates simply as “he ministered”. This rendering may have arisen from a desire to omit all reference to Melchizedek’s priestly status. The Bible was read in the Roman world by Christians and Jews alike. With regard to Melchizedek it is interesting to see the influence of targumic-

4. The Blessing and the Tithes (Tgs. Gen 14:19–20)

317

type exegesis on patristic writers. Jerome, writing in Palestine ca. 391–397, draws on Jewish traditions regarding Melchizedek. In the east, in Edessa, Ephrem the Syrian (writing ca. 373) has traditions on Melchizedek extremely similar to those attested in the Palestinian Targums and rabbinic writings, although he makes no reference to any Jewish source. The Jewish tradition was apparently part of his cultural ambiance. Further Jewish interpretations on Psalm 110 (not attested in Jerome) seem to have been known in the school of Antioch. Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428) refers to them, and Theodore’s views have been transmitted in early Irish Psalm exegesis. The Melchizedek tradition we have considered spread from Palestine to influence the reading and understanding of Gen 14:18 and Psalm 110 in Edessa in the east and Antioch to the north, and through the writings of Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia in central and marginal places in the west. The tradition or traditions or sources enshrined in the Targums probably originated and developed over a number of centuries, possibly from the second century b.c.e. to the sixth or seventh century of our era. Some recent writers speak of the tell-like structure of the Targums, to which we are asked to have sensitivity. The Targums, or sections of them, may well be, as it were, mounds of information, with layers of interpretation from different ages and centuries.64 This is an approach to targumic tradition that deserves further research, and may have light to throw on the formation and understanding of certain biblical books or blocks of tradition, for instance the Fourth Gospel.

64 See R. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden 1994, 152–153; similarly B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study (Studies in Judaism), Lanham 1986–1987, vol. 1, 52–76, 131–135 (for Gen 15:1). For a position against such an approach see D. M. Golomb, “Methodological Considerations in Pentateuchal Targumic Research”, JSP 18 (1998), 3–25.

Chapter 13

Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums* 1. Introduction The present volume on the composition and reception of the Book of Leviticus in which this essay appears will treat extensively and in depth of the composition of the Book of Leviticus, of its chief themes and of the manner in which its text has been and still is understood and presented in various communities of believers, whether Jewish or Christian. This present essay is concerned with the manner in which the book was understood and presented in one section of Jewish literature, namely in the Targums or Aramaic translations. The oldest Aramaic translation of part of this work known to us is the rendering of portions of Leviticus 16 (Lev 16:12–15, 18–21) in the fragments in 4Q156 (probably from the second century b.c.e.). The best known Targums of Leviticus are those transmitted by rabbinic Judaism, namely: (1) Targum Onqelos. (2) The Palestinian Targums, for Leviticus represented by Targum Neofiti 1; the Fragment Targums, extant for a number of verses in the manuscripts given the sigla P (fifteenth century), V (thirteenth century), N (thirteenth century), and for Lev 1:2 only in the Leipzig manuscript with the siglum L (thirteenth to fourteenth century). Fragments have also been preserved in the Cairo Genizah manuscript with the siglum F, of uncertain date, between ninth and fourteenth century (with Lev 22:26–23:44), and three Toseftas in the Cairo Genizah manuscript FF (from mid-eleventh to fourteenth century; with Toseftas for Lev 1:1; 10:19–20; 22:27). (3) Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is related both to Targum Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums. We shall treat of it in some detail later. (4)  The Samaritan Targum. There is also a Samaritan Targum, being a translation of the Hebrew Text of the Samaritan Pentateuch into Pales* First published, under the same title, in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93, in the series “Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature” 3), ed. by R. Rendtorff & R. A. Kugler, Leiden & Boston 2003, 269–298.

1. Introduction

319

tinian Samaritan Aramaic. Abraham Tal has made a detailed study of the Samaritan renderings and given us a new critical edition of the Samaritan Targum, based on all the extant material.1 There is a great diversity among the manuscripts, the cause of which lies in the evolution of the Aramaic language down through the ages. Three types of recensions are distinctly recognisable. The oldest type, represented by ms. Or. 7562 of the British Library, reflects the Aramaic of the Samaritans at the beginning of their independent literary activity. In Tal’s opinion this is a stage of development from the pre-Talmudic period, when the so-called Palestinian Targum was composed, and even older, for it presents some affinities with the linguistic stratum to which Onqelos and the Aramaic documents of the Dead Sea caves belong. The second type, represented by ms. 6 of the Shechem Synagogue, reflects a stage contemporary with Talmudic Aramaic, evolved from the fourth century onwards. The third type, represented by ms. 3 of the Shechem Synagogue, is the result of the intervention of ignorant scribes. It was copied and its text thoroughly revised when no Samaritan properly understood the contents of the Targum. The Samaritan Targum texts reflects the evolving linguistic history of the Samaritan language, and likewise the changing manner of presenting the biblical text in the vernacular rendering. This is best illustrated by the difference in approach towards anthropomorphic descriptions of God in his deeds in the Hebrew Text of the Pentateuch. While targum manuscripts of the first type make no attempt to remove personifications of God, in the younger manuscripts efforts are made to avoid such personifications.2 The influence of Onqelos is also noticeable in the later manuscripts.3 No use of the Samaritan Targum of Leviticus will be made in the present essay. Jacob Milgrom does draw occasionally on it in his commentary on the Book of Leviticus.4 The translation into the Syriac dialect of Aramaic (the Peshitta) might also be regarded as a Targum. Consideration of this translation, however, falls outside the remit of this present essay.

1 A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Torah: A Critical Edition, 3 vols., Tel Aviv 1980–1983 (in Hebrew); idem, “Samaritan Literature”, in The Samaritans, ed. by A. D. Crown, Tübingen 1989, 444–449. 2 Tal, “Samaritan Literature”, 447–449. 3 Ibid., 445–447. 4 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3), New York & London 1991 (see Index under “Versions. Samaritan [targum], 1150); idem, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B), New York & London 2001, 2693. Most of the references are, however, to the Samaritan Pentateuch.

320

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

2. Origin and Nature of Extant Targums In recent years there has been intense study of the Targums of the Pentateuch, especially of the Palestinian Targums. This holds true in a special manner with regard to the nature and date of the form of Aramaic in which they are composed, but has often passed beyond this to the nature and date of the contents of the translation, be this haggadic or halakic. Any study bearing on the Targums as interpretation of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus must take cognizance of these current discussions. The traditional rabbinic view of the Pentateuch Targums was that they originated in the time and activity of Ezra the scribe, with special reference to the reading of the Law in Neh 8:1–3, 8 and the summary of this activity in Neh 8:8, “And they read from the book, from the law of God meporaš [nrsv: ‘with interpretation’], and gave the sense so that the people understood the reading”, a text interpreted as follows in the Talmuds of Palestine and Babylon (y. Megillah 74d; b. Megillah 3a);5 “And they read in the book of the Law of God: this indicates the Hebrew Text; Ėĕđċ (meporaš), this indicates Targum.” While there are some scholars who believe that Ėĕđċ (meporaš) both here and in Ezra 4:18a denotes some kind of extempore translation, in Neh 8:8 a Targum, such an understanding is generally rejected in favour of a meaning such as “paragraph by paragraph”, “distinctly” (Neh 8:8), “verbatim, word for word” (Ezra 4:18).6 The origin of Targums in the time of Ezra is still defended by Menahem Kasher. In his view, all three Targums  – Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Neofiti – trace their origin to the time of Ezra, and the Tannaim and Amoraim used these three Targums in their rabbinic texts, both halakic and haggadic, found in the Talmud and midrash.7 We shall return to the role of Ezra and the reading of the Law of Moses a little later. For the moment we may note that Kasher’s view is shared by very few, if any, scholars today. A major difficulty with regard to the Targums of the Pentateuch (which include the Targum of Leviticus which concerns 5 Not however in the Septuagint which renders Neh 8:8 as: ĔċƯŁėƬčėģĝċėőėČēČĕưȣ ėƲĖęğĞęȘĒďęȘĔċƯőĎưĎċĝĔďėðĝĎěċĜĔċƯĎēƬĝĞďĕĕďėőėőĚēĝĞƮĖǹĔğěưęğĔċƯĝğėǻĔďė ž ĕċƱĜ őė Ğǻ Łėċčėƶĝďē, “And they read in the Book of the Law of God, and Esdras taught, and instructed them distinctly in the knowledge of the Lord, and the people understood the law in the reading”. 6 See the discussion of the usage in H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Waco 1985, 56, 278. 7 M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 24: Aramaic Versions of the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of Onkelos, Jonathan, Jerusalem Targums and the Full Jerusalem Targum of the Vatican Manuscript Neofiti 1, Jerusalem 1974. The relevant texts of Kasher are given by B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis. Including Full Rabbinic Parallels, New York 2000, xxiii–xxv, with his own translation of Kasher’s original Hebrew. Grossfeld (p. xxviii) believes that Kasher has not proven his contention.

2. Origin and Nature of Extant Targums

321

is here) is the time lag between the available manuscripts and any presumed early date of composition. Judged from the point of view of language rather than content Onqelos may represent a state of the Aramaic language pre132 c.e., that is later than that of the Qumran texts. The language of the Palestinian Targums must be later than this, say third century c.e. at the earliest.8 The age to be attributed to the contents of these Targums (their haggadah and halakah) is another matter. The contents may be much older than the language in which these are expressed. With regard to this opinions differ. A good amount of the content of the Palestinian Targums has been studied by reason of its supposed relationship with the New Testament. There has been a strong reaction to this use of the Targums by a number of scholars, some of whom would maintain that not just the targumic language but even the material used in these comparisons is demonstrably late.9 R. Grossfeld has made a detailed analysis of the text of the Targum of Neofiti 1 of Genesis in its relationship to the Jewish midrash. He finds that it is most closely related to the midrash of Genesis Rabbah, representing the views of fourth- and fifth-century Palestinian rabbis. He is of the opinion that the targumic rendering found in Neofiti is roughly contemporaneous with these, both rabbis and Targum Neofiti probably depending on a common interpretative tradition.10 Dr Grossfeld has also made a special study of the halakah of Targum Onqelos, and finds that it follows the halakah of R. Aqiba (early second century).11 Pseudo-Jonathan is a Targum with a difference. It is a curious combination of what appears to be passages with the text of Targum Onqelos with others carrying the Palestinian Targum. It has sections closely related to Jewish midrashim, the pseudepigrapha and also seems to have texts from hitherto unidentified sources. Some of its grammatical forms appear very old, while it has also some demonstrably late references, such as mention 8 See S. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 118–141, at 122. 9 See J. A. Fitzmyer, review of M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966, in TS 29 (1968), 322–326; review of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967, CBQ 30 (1968), 417–428, esp. 420–422. For rejection of the view that in Rom 10:6–7 Paul knew or used the paraphrase of Neof. Deut 30:12–13, see J. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33), New York & London 1993, 590–591. There is a different appreciation of the text of Neofiti in J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Dallas 1988, 603–606, and in B. Byrne, Romans, Collegeville 1996, 321. 10 See B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis, xxix. 11 B. Grossfeld, “Targum Onqelos, Halakha and the Halakhic Midrashim”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, 228–246, esp. 243–244.

322

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

of Adisha and Fatima (Gen 21:21), the wife and daughter of Mohammed. A study of its contents seems to indicate that Pseudo-Jonathan was not a work intended for public worship. Rather is it a learned, literary, composition, intended for the compiler’s own circles, and rather than a Targum proper may be a rewritten Bible or a work on the way to this. The Aramaic language, or languages, of the text have been studied by S. A. Kaufman and E. M. Cook. Kaufman states that in these passages wherein Pseudo-Jonathan is not simply copying Onqelos and its language, or the Palestinian Targum and its language, or lifting a phrase straight out of one of its midrashic sources, Pseudo-Jonathan does have its own distinctive language. This language, he says, must be considered an authentic Aramaic dialect  – undoubtedly exclusively a literary one – but a real dialect none the less. Thus considered, the work is variously dated between the seventh and tenth centuries.12 It must be recalled, however, that other scholars consider Pseudo-Jonathan a much older work.13 A noteworthy feature of the Targums of the Pentateuch is that each group contains both indications of an internal unity and signs of a multiformity or composite history of composition. The unity appears in special terminology and phraseology proper to particular Targums as well as specific translational techniques. The diversity is detected especially in the manner in which additional paraphrase is attached to the fundamental translation. The translational techniques of individual targums will be pointed out in due course. In a special study of Targum Neofiti 1 B. Barry Levy makes much of this lack of unity between translation proper and the added or prefaced paraphrase of haggadah.14 In B. Barry Levy’s view, while much of the text of Neofiti 1 remains literal, it seems obvious to him that many passages were added to it in the course of development and were not part of the original rendering, which, in his view, undoubtedly differs from the present document, that is Neofiti 1 as we now know it. His arguments for this claim come from the literary layering in the text (seams in many cases being still evident) and the linguistic differences evident in the text. The passages in question, he asserts, vary in size from a word or phrase to a column of text. G. Boccaccini advocates a systemic approach to Targum study. He notes that in rabbinic studies scholars have been tempted to study traditions instead of studying documents, and to compare parallels instead of comparing 12

Kaufman, “Dating the Language”, 124–125. See for instance, B. Mortensen, “Pseudo-Jonathan and Economics for Priests”, JSP 20 (1999), 39–71; P. V. M. Flesher, “Is Targum Onkelos a Palestinian Targum? The Evidence of Genesis 28–50”, JSP 19 (1999), 35–79; R. Hayward, “The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”, JSP 19 (1999), 81–101. 14 B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study (Studies in Judaism), Lanham, New York & London, vol. 1: Introduction, Genesis, Exodus, 1986; vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1987. 13

3. The Law of Moses in the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah

323

ideological systems. But rabbinic documents, he continues, are not chaotic collections of ancient material and parallels; they are consistent ideological documents.15 Similarly with regard to the Targums. An examination of the system of Neofiti as a whole, he believes – not as a container of synoptic traditions and parallels – leads one to consider the second half of the second century (c.e.) as the period when its ideological system took shape around the idea of the eternal Torah. Neofiti, he believes, is a reliable source of formative rabbinic Judaism.16 D. M. Golomb,17 again with special reference to Neofiti, advocates greater respect for a close connection between the longer and shorter added targumic haggadah (or halakah) and the immediate biblical text, and intertextual connections. A view that may accommodate both positions is one that sees evidence in our present Targums of growth and accumulation over the centuries. This view is advanced in particular with relation to the Targum of the Prophets. Targums have been compared to a tel, with various strata. Robert Gordon18 makes the point that a sensitivity to the tel-like character of Targum is required in our investigation since the extant text probably includes stratified elements representing as much as several centuries of targumic development. We shall bear this approach in mind in our study of the reception of Leviticus in the Targums.

3. The Law of Moses in the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah: Neh 8:15 and Lev 23:40 Ezra 7–8 and Nehemiah 8 tell of the activity of Ezra the scribe in making known to Israel the book of the Law of Moses which the Lord had commanded for Israel. Ezra saw to it that the book of the Law was read to the people and that they were helped to understand what was written in it. Neh 7:22b–8:18 is all about the public reading and explanation of this Law. Ezra is presented as having left Babylonia for Jerusalem on the first day of the first month of the seventh year of the Persian king Artaxerxes, and as having reached Jerusalem in the fifth month of that same year (Ezra 7:7–8). The solemn reading and explanation of the book of the Law of Moses took place on the seventh month of that same year (Neh 7:72). It is com15 G. Boccaccini, “Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic Analysis”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, 254–263, at 255. 16 Ibid., 261. 17 D. M. Golomb, “Methodological Considerations in Pentateuchal Targumic Research”, JSP 18 (1998), 3–25. 18 R. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden, New York & Cologne 1994, 152–153.

324

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

monly accepted that the Persian king in question was Artaxerxes I, whose seventh year would have been 458 b.c.e. If Artaxerxes II was intended the date would be 398 b.c.e. For our purpose here it matters little whether the account of Ezra-Nehemiah is strictly historical, whether it is a lightly or heavily embellished narrative of a historical event, or merely a literary presentation of the role of the book of the Law of Moses in the later post-exilic Jewish community. This last-mentioned position it clearly is. Most of the narrative in question throws little light on the interpretation of the Book of Moses in the age of Ezra or later. There is at least one question where reference seems to be made to specific texts in the Pentateuch. This is Neh 8:15, in the context of Ezra’s command to celebrate the feast of booths in accordance with command of the Law. “(Neh 8:13) On the second day [of the seven-day festal celebration] the heads of the ancestral houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to the scribe Ezra in order to study the words of the law. (14) And they found it written in the law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the people of Israel should live in booths during the festival of the seventh month, (15) and that they should publish and proclaim in their towns and in Jerusalem as follows, “Go out to the hills and bring branches of olives, branches of wild olive, branches of myrtle, branches of palm, and branches of other leafy trees to make booths, as it is written”. (Neh 8:13–15 [nrsv]; v. 15: ĆĉďĂĊĆĕċėĆĉďĂĎĀāĆĉďĂČċĖĒď§ĆĉďĂėĆă§ĆĉďĂýĆþāĂĕāāĂýē þĂėĈĈėĈĎėĖďĉėþďĒď).

Use of the phrase “as it is written” would seem to indicate reference to a specific text to the work known to the author as the Book of the Law of Moses. Of the Pentateuchal passages dealing with the feast of booths (Exod 23:16; Lev 23:39–43; Num 29:12–38; Deut 16:13–15) the only possible reference is to Lev 23:40, which says that in the first of the seven-day festival the people shall take the fruit of majestic (?) trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook (and rejoice before the Lord for seven days) (nrsv; ĉĄčĆþĕďĂėþďĒďĐčďĂĊĆĕċėėđĈĕĀāĒďĆĕđČĂĖýĕāĊĂĆþĊĈĉĊėĄĔĉĂ). The trees indicated in the texts of Leviticus and Nehemiah are not the same. Nor is the stated purpose for the trees identical in both passages. In the text of Nehemiah they are intended for making the booths. No such purpose is indicated in the text of Leviticus. No full explanation for the difference between the two texts has been found. It may be that the author of the text of Nehemiah is influenced by what may already have become current practice with regard to the tree branches and fruits carried during the feast of booths, and that this has influenced his use of the Leviticus text. In later Judaism this feast was coming into ever greater prominence. This feast is thus described in 2 Macc 10:6–8: “(6) They celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of the festival of booths, remembering how not long before, during the festival of booths, they had

3. The Law of Moses in the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah

325

been wandering in the mountains and caves like wild animals. (7) Therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm (ĎēƱĒƴěĝęğĜĔċƯ ĔĕƪĎęğĜƚěċưęğĜŕĞēĎƫĔċƯĠęưėēĔċĜŕġęėĞďĜ), they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place. (8) They decreed by public edict, ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year.” (nrsv)

Josephus twice describes the procession during this festival, first in Ant. 3.10.4, § 245 in his account of the Mosaic legislation on this feast. Moses, he says, “… bids each family to fix up tents, apprehensive of the cold and as a protection against the year’s inclemency. Moreover, when they should have won their fatherland, they were to repair to that city which they would in honour of the temple regard as their metropolis, and there for eight days keep festival: they were to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices and thanksgiving to God in those days, bearing in their hands a bouquet composed of myrtle and willow and a branch of palm, along with fruit of the perse (ĠƬěęėĞċĜőėĞċȉĜġďěĝƯėďŭěďĝēƶėđėĖğěĝưėđĜĔċƯŭĞƬċĜĝƳė ĔěƪĎǹĠęưėēĔęĜĚďĚęēđĖƬėđėĞęȘĖǻĕęğĞęȘĞǻĜĚďěĝƬċĜĚěęĝƲėĞęĜ).”

In this text Josephus is recalling the Mosaic legislation. In the second text (in Ant. 13.13.5, § 372) Josephus mentions the same feast in connection with an incident involving Alexander (Jannaeus; 103–76 b.c.e.), making explicit mention of the use of palm branches (the Jewish lulabim) and citrons (etrogs). Josephus writes: “As for Alexander, his own people revolted against him – for the nation was aroused against him – at the celebration of the festival, and as he stood beside the altar and was about to sacrifice, they pelted him with citrons (ĔēĞěưęēĜ), it being the custom among the Jews that at the festival of Tabernacles everyone holds wands made of palm branches and citrons (ĒğěĝưęğĜőĔĠęēėưĔģėĔċƯĔēĞěưģė) – as we have described elsewhere.”

The explicit mention of the citrons (etrogs; Neofiti: trogin) and the lulabim in the targumic renderings of Lev 23:40 must be due to this liturgical practice, not the underlying Hebrew Text. The Hebrew Text, we may recall has:ĕĀāĒďĆĕđČĂĖýĕāĊĂĆþĊĈĉĊėĄĔĉĂ ĉĄč§ĆĕþďĂėþďĒďĐčďĂĊĆĕċėėđĈ. Onqelos renders as: ČĆþĉĂĉČĆÿĂĕėýýčĉĆýĆĕĆđ (ĉĄčĀČĆĕþďĂ) ČĆĎĀāĂ, “fruits of the trees, citrons (etrogs), palm branches (lulabim) and myrtle branches”.19 The Palestinian Targum of Lev 23:40 may equally be dependent on liturgical practice. Neofiti renders as: ĄþĖċČĉĆý (āĉĄčĀāþĕďĂĎĀāĂ) ČĆþĉĂĉĂČĆÿĕė, “(fruit of) an excellent tree: citrons [etrogs; in Neofiti written as terogin], and palm branches (lulabim) and myrtle branches”. 19 See also the note on the rendering in B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington 1988, 53, n. 11.

326

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

4. Shared Interpretations in the Palestinian Targums of Leviticus and the Greek Versions It is usual to look for the origins of the Targums of the Pentateuch within rabbinic Judaism, even when these origins are believed to have been relatively early, for instance Targum Onqelos within the traditions of the schools of Rabbis Aqiba and Ishmael from the second to the middle of the third century c.e.,20 and the Palestinian Targum as represented by Neofiti 1 within rabbinic Judaism of the fourth and fifth centuries.21 More recent scholarship invites us to look at another dimension of the Pentateuchal Targums, and to compare their rendering with that of the ancient Greek versions, especially the Septuagint and the others referred to in the Hexapla as Allos. Robert Hayward has done this for Leviticus in Neofiti 1 in his notes to the English translation of this Targum,22 and Jacob Milgrom is doing likewise in his commentary on Leviticus.23 Restricting ourselves to some examples from Leviticus we may note that the Hebrew āĖý, “fire offerings (to the Lord)” in Neofiti regularly becomes ČþĕĔ (qrbn), “sacrifice(s) (to the name of the Lord)” (thus Lev 1:9, 13, 17, etc.).24 The Septuagint also frequently explains the expression as meaning ĔƪěĚģĖċ, “burnt offerings”, or Ēğĝưċ, “sacrifice”. Similarly with regard to ĕĆąĔā, the Hiphil of ĕąĔ, “to burn, offer (on the altar)”. In Targum Neofiti this is regularly rendered as “set in order (ĕĀĎ) on top of the altar”. Thus in Neof. Lev 1:9, 13, 15, 17 etc. The Septuagint also very often uses the verb őĚưĒđĖē, “set forth”, to translate this same Hiphil. The instances are noted by R. Hayward.25 This new approach to the Pentateuchal Targum tradition is a very welcome one and is deserving of further research. It may be capable of shedding much light on the development of the exegetical tradition that became fixed in different ways in the Palestinian Targums and in Onqelos.

20 See, for instance B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 16–17. 21 See, for instance, B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis, xxix. 22 R. Hayward in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus. Translated, with Apparatus by M. McNamara; Introduction and Notes by R. Hayward, Collegeville 1994. For occurrences see the Index under “Allos” and “Septuagint”, 230–232. 23 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16; see Index under “Versions. Septuagint”, 1148–1149; “Targums” (General; Onqelos; Pseudo-Jonathan; Neofiti; Samaritan), 1149–1150; idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2693. See n. 4 above. 24 For a full list see McNamara & Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus, 7. 25 For the Greek rendering of both Hebrew words see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 582.

5. Leviticus 16 in Targum 4Q156 (4QtgLev) and in the Other Targums

327

5. Leviticus 16 in Targum 4Q156 (4QtgLev) and in the Other Targums (Onqelos, Palestinian Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan) Chapter 16 of the Book of Leviticus, with the Jewish ritual for the Day of Atonement was one of the most important chapters for Jewish religion. It is given detailed introductions, textual comments and annotations in modern commentaries.26 Given this, one may be somewhat surprised at the lack of paraphrase or expansive comment in the chief targums. This may be because, being halakah and ritual, there was agreement on the meaning of the text, and its sacred nature did not invite undue expansion in the Aramaic rendering. The lack of expansion is clearest in Targum Onqelos. B. Grossfeld’s annotated translation has little in italics (the usual way of indicating expansion in the Aramaic Bible series).27 He has only ten notes for this entire chapter, only four of which are extensive. In a manner usual in Onqelos (and the Palestinian Targums), at 16:1 the Hebrew proposition ĉý (“to”) is rendered as Ċď (“with”). This occurs only after the verb ĕþĀ (dibber), “to speak”, “and the Lord spoke with”, not after the verb ĕċý, “and the Lord said”. A theological reason for this particular usage has been put forward.28 Lev 16:1 speaks of the death of the two sons of Aaron “when they drew near (nrsv)” (ĊėþĕĔþ) (the root þĕĔ can also mean “offer [in sacrifice]”). Onqelos paraphrases “when they offered an alien fire”, this in keeping with the Midrash Sifra (‘Ahare Môt 1, p. 79b) which recounts a difference of opinion on the matter among the Rabbis: “R. Jose, the Galilean says: ‘They died on account of their approaching too close, but not on account of what they offered.’ R. Aqiba says: ‘One verse says: “For approaching too close before the Lord they died” (Lev 16:1), while another verse states: “And they offered an alien fire before the Lord” (Lev 10:1); (the verse) “upon offering a strange fire before the Lord” (Num 3:4) is decisive. Thus they died on account of what they offered, not on account of approaching too close.’”

This text indicates the reflection that can stand behind a targumic rendering, and the attempts to understand Scripture by Scripture. In this verse the Targums follow the understanding of R. Aqiba: thus Neofiti, the Fragment Targums, Neofiti margins (which in good part reproduce Fragment Targums texts), Pseudo-Jonathan; likewise the Septuagint and Vulgate.

26 See J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, Dallas 1992, 216–246; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1009– 1084. 27 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, 32–35, for Leviticus 16 text and notes. 28 On this see Grossfeld, ibid., 3, referring to the view of Z. W. Chayoth (1864).

328

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

Neofiti is slightly more expansive than Onqelos; it reads: “… when they offered before the Lord a superfluous sacrifice, out of time, concerning which they had received no order”. At 16:2 the main text of Onqelos reads the plural “atonements”, for “atonement”, but without significance. At 16:8–9 Onqelos inserts “(for) the Name of” before “the Lord” (“for the Name of the Lord” instead of “for the Lord”), a buffer word in Targum Onqelos fashion. Lev 16:21 says that the live goat is to be sent into the wilderness by means of “a man”, ĆėďĖĆýĀĆþ. The Hebrew word Ćėď occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. While declared of uncertain meaning (as in note to nrsv rendering), it is generally taken to mean “timely, ready, waiting in readiness”.29 The Targums render in like manner, Čċăċ, rendered differently in modern translations: “the designated man” (Onqelos), “who is in readiness” (Neofiti); “the man who has been designated previously” (Pseudo-Jonathan). Little extra is said on the two goats (16:6–10). Targum Onqelos has a slight paraphrase on the place where the goat is to be sent. The Hebrew Text speaks of it being sent to “a separated, cut off region”, which in Onqelos is rendered as “an uninhabited area”, in keeping with the understanding found in the Talmud, b. Yoma 67b: “Our rabbis taught: Azazel – it should be hard and rough. One might have assumed that it is to be an inhabited land, therefore the text reads: ‘In the wilderness’” (Lev 16:22). Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan in the translation proper do no go beyond the Hebrew Text. In this chapter Pseudo-Jonathan goes its own way and adds brief and longer expansive paraphrases throughout. In Neof. Lev 16:1 Aaron is called the high Priest, in keeping with a translational technique of Neofiti to which we shall return later. In Ps.-J. Lev 16:1 the two sons of Aaron who have died are called high priests. They are said to have died in glowing fire as they offered profane fire before the Lord. In Pseudo-Jonathan (as indeed in Neofiti) at 16:2 mention is made of the Shekinah of the Lord being revealed in the clouds above the propitiatory. At 16:3 Pseudo-Jonathan is quite explicit that the bull to be offered is not to be a hybrid, a text to be compared with a text in Sifra,30 although there is no mention in rabbinic writings of a hybrid bull. Lev 16:4 mentions the vestments that Aaron is to wear, noting that these are his sacred vestments. Pseudo-Jonathan adds: “But he shall not enter in garments of gold, lest the sin of the golden calf be remembered”, a text which 29 It is accepted as occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSd 87 = 4Q258) in the sense of “ready” (of a person); see D. J. A. Clines (ed.), The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Sheffield 2009, 351 (word vocalized as ‘ittô). 30 As noted by M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, Collegeville 1994, 168.

5. Leviticus 16 in Targum 4Q156 (4QtgLev) and in the Other Targums

329

again can be compared with one in Sifra.31 At Lev 16:5 Pseudo-Jonathan notes that the two male goats are not to be hybrids, and at 16:6 that Aaron shall buy the bull of the sin offering from his own money. Equal lots are to be placed on the two goats (16:8). The goat which has the lot for Azazel shall be set alive before the Lord to make atonement for the sinfulness of the people of the house of Israel and shall be sent to die in a rough and stony place which is in the desert of Soq, that is Beth Haduri. The Hebrew word ĔĂĎ means “peak, precipice”, but also designates the mountain from which the scapegoat was to be hurled according to the Jewish tradition registered here by Pseudo-Jonathan, also found in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 67b (316), which is also mentioned in the Mishna, m. Yoma 6:8. This same tradition, with mention of Soq and Bet Haduri, is recalled again in Ps.-J. Lev 16:22: “The man shall let the goat go into the desert of Soq, and the goat shall go up on the mountain of Beth Haduri, and a blast of wind from before the Lord will thrust him down and he will die.” All this is in keeping with Pseudo-Jonathan’s interest in miracles and wonders.32 Here he goes beyond his usual sources, since m. Yoma 6:6 says that it was the man (designated) who was to push the goat over. After consideration of the rendering of the Hebrew Text in these traditionally-known Targums, we can pass to the two fragments of Targum Leviticus 16 from Qumran. The text 4Q156 is fragmentary, with only some word of the Aramaic version of Lev 16:12–15 and 16:18–21. The text is probably from the second century b.c.e., hence by far the oldest version extant of any Targum of the Pentateuch. We cannot say whether the fragments are from an original full Aramaic version of the Pentateuch, of the Book of Leviticus or just from a rendering of Leviticus 16, translated separately possibly by reason of the role of the Hebrew Text in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement. The text was published by J. T. Milik, together with a commentary.33 The edition is accompanied by notes from the pen of M. M. Kasher on the edited Targum fragment and the commentary. The Hebrew Text in question has the divine name āĂāĆ twice. The corresponding space for the Aramaic translation is lost, but is restored with the Hebrew letters. The occurrence or translation is not significant, since the 31

See note by Maher, ibid., 166. On this see M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 6 (5–8 for the “Haggadah of Ps.-J.”). 33 In Qumrân Grotte 4. II. 1. Archéologie, par R. De Vaux (†); 2. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), par J. T. Milik, Oxford 1977, 86–89; Appendix. Notes by Menahem M. Kasher on the Fragment of Targum to Leviticus and the Commentary by J. T. Milik, 92–94. There is a translation in F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated from the Spanish by W. G. E. Watson, 2nd edition, Leiden, New York, Cologne & Grand Rapids 1994, 143. 32

330

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

other Targums (Onqelos, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan) reproduce the divine Name (with series of yods) here, without use of any buffer word, such as Memra. At 16:12 the Hebrew ėĕąĔ is translated by a word beginning with ĖĈ, which Milik says may be completed either as ėĖĈ or ėĕĖĈ, the name of a species of perfume, costum, mentioned in Jub 16:24. He considers this term (ėĖĈ?) too specific with regard to the meaning of the Hebrew word. The Hebrew term ėĕąĔ, Kasher notes, contains many ingredients. Kasher notes that this Hebrew word is simply transcribed in all its occurrences in the traditional Targums (Onqelos, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan). The Samaritan has ėĂĀďĂýĉĂ for ėĕĂąĔĉĂ (of the other Targums) and so throughout Scripture; the Syriac has ýĕąďĉĂ and so throughout. In Kasher’s view, this (Qumran) Targum had a third Aramaic word, beginning with the letters ĖĈ, which to his mind is ýėĕĖĈ, found once in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Berakoth 43a), apparently in the sense of “(twigs of) fragrance. Fragment 1, line 6 renders the key word ėĕđĈā of the Hebrew Text of Lev 16:14 as ýĆĎĈ, “the covering”. The traditional Targums (Onqelos, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan) simply retain the Hebrew word (ý/āėĕ[Ă]đĈ). The term used in the Qumran text has significance with regard to the nature and function of the kapporet, and whether it was a covering of the ark or not. Despite the Qumran reading, the kapporet is not regarded as a covering by scholars.34 Kasher notes the rabbinic views denying that the kapporet was a mere cover to the ark, but also notes the opinion of Rashi, on Exod 25:17 explaining the word as “a cover on the work” (i.e. the ark). At Lev 16:2b both Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render ėĕđĈ of the Hebrew as ýėĕĂđĈėĆþ, “house (place) of the kapporet”, Neofiti, however, simply as āėĕđĈ (ĉď). This leads Kasher to think that this may perhaps indicate some convergence with the view found in the Qumran fragment and the grammarians and Rashi, that kapporet does mean a cover, i.e. for the ark. Kasher concludes with a note that in general, these two fragments lend some weight to the view that he has set forth in his work on the Targums (Torah Shelemah, vol. 24) that more than three extant Aramaic translations existed, and that in each of them elements of the Oral Law (which might not be written down but had to be transmitted orally) were blended or merged in the course of the translation.35

34 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1014 (on the occurrence of the term in Lev 16:2); Hartley, Leviticus, 234–235. 35 Kasher, “Appendix” (see n. 33 above), 93.

6. Reception of the Hebrew Book of Leviticus in the Traditional Targums

331

6. Reception of the Hebrew Book of Leviticus in the Traditional Targums Whatever of a prehistory in such works as the Greek translation and a Qumran Targum, our present Targums of Leviticus are Onqelos, the Palestinian Targums and Pseudo-Jonathan. While these differ among themselves, they have traits in common which can be described as the typically targumic manner of translation and interpretation. Each of the three groups mentioned above have traits and translational techniques proper to themselves, and varying somewhat from book to book of the Pentateuch. Leviticus, being mainly legal and ritual, with little narrative, is likely to have less of these than other books, while Onqelos in general is less rich in these traits than the other Pentateuch Targums. It follows that the targumic traits of Targum Onqelos of Leviticus is one of the least representative in targumic characteristics. They are present there, none the less. We shall return to a special consideration of Onqelos later. A feature of the Targums is a reverential manner of speaking about God. God tends not to be made the direct subject or object of actions. Whether the reason is reverential approach or the avoidance of anthropomorphisms is not always clear, and for our purpose matters little. Actions are said to be done before God (or the Lord). This usage is very frequent in Onqelos, as in the other Targums. Sacrificial offerings are made before the Lord (Onq. Lev 1:1, etc.), and received (or: received with favour) before the Lord (Onq. Lev 1:17). One of the best known features of these Targum renderings is the use of the phrase “Memra of the Lord”. Much has been written on this term Memra and its significance.36 While less frequent in Onqelos than in the other Targums, it does occur there, and also in Onqelos of Leviticus on a number of occasions (22 instances in all).37 In Onqelos it occurs in verses where it is also present in other Targums on ten occasions, particularly in conjunction with observing the service of the Memra of the Lord (8:35; 10:30; 22:9; 26:23); of God’s Memra rejecting sinners (20:23; 26:30; see also 26:11b). In Neofiti it is not of frequent occurrence, about fourteen times in all: five times in chapter 26 (“my Memra”, “in my Memra”); three times in chapter 36 Among the more recent works we may note: D. Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974; R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, Totowa 1981. 37 For occurrences in Onqelos, see Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra, 712–717; for occurrences in Targum Onqelos of Leviticus in conjunction with other Targums, 687 (10 occurrences, mainly [7 times] in conjunction with Pseudo-Jonathan). For Targum Onqelos of Leviticus see also Hayward, Divine Name, 181 in Index (7 references). See also I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary, New York 1994, 13–14, and 22, n. 15.

332

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

16 (“my Memra”, twice, “in my Memra”), and six times elsewhere. It occurs rather frequently in chapter 26, where there is mention of the covenant. Another term frequent in the Targums is the Shekinah, the Presence of God with his people. This is also true of Targum Onqelos. As Israel Drazin has noted, it occurs once in Targum Onqelos of Leviticus. Thus in Onq. Lev 26:11: “I will place my sanctuary in your midst, and my Memra will not reject you. (12) And I will rest my Presence (Shekinah) in your midst and be your God … (14) But if you do not listen to my Memra and will not perform these commandments … (15) … but alter my covenant, (16) then I, too, will … punish you.” We may note here that in v. 15 the Hebrew Text speaks of breaking (ĕĕđ) the covenant, the root meaning of which is preserved in all the other Targums except Onqelos. Onqelos, here as elsewhere, ĆčĖ, “to change”. This is but one little indication of how Targum Onqelos of Leviticus carries the peculiarities of the overall Onqelos rendering. The Shekinah and the Glory of the Lord are central concepts in the Targums, in particular in the Targum of the Pentateuch. Targum Neofiti tends to bind the two together as “The Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord”.38 (The term ĕĔĆ, “glory”, as we shall note again, occurs only twice in Onqelos Leviticus, at Lev 9:6, 23.) In Neofiti, as for the other books of the Pentateuch, the two terms are used conjointly: “Glory of the Shekinah”. However, in the text of Neofiti proper the occurrences are few: three in all (Lev 9:23; 15:31; 26:11). The expression is somewhat more frequent in the marginal annotations – five times in all: Lev 9:2, 6; 15:31; 26:1, 12. Usage is generally in the context of revelation (“the Shekinah of the Lord was revealed”), or of God’s dwelling with Israel. Another term employed in the Targums in relation to God’s relationship with his people is Dibbera (a term also used in rabbinic theology). It is of much rarer use than the others, and is a technical term for God revealing his will to his people, or humankind.39 The term does not occur in Onqelos but is found in a midrash on Lev 1:1 in all texts of the Palestinian Targums. References to prayer are very frequent in the Targums,40 including the Targum of Onqelos. As Drazin has noted41 there is no instance in Leviticus in which Targum Onqelos has the opportunity to translate words as Ćĉē, “prayer”. In Leviticus Neofiti does succeed in introducing mention of praying (ĆĉĖ) on three occasions: at 19:30, 26:2, and in the lengthy haggadah in 38 See D. Muñoz León, Gloria de la Shekina en los targumím del Pentateuco, Madrid 1977; for Glory and Shekinah in Onqelos, 199–210, for the extent and significance of Glory and Shekinah in Onqelos as compared with the use in the Palestinian Targums, 465–485. 39 On the Dibbera of the Lord, see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 38. 40 See M. Maher, “The Meturgemanim and Prayer”, JJS 41 (1990), 226–246; 44 (1993), 220–235. 41 Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus, 14.

6. Reception of the Hebrew Book of Leviticus in the Traditional Targums

333

22:27. At 19:30 Neofiti renders “you shall fear my sanctuary” of the Hebrew Text as “You shall pray with reverence in my sanctuary”. Similarly at 26:2. We shall meet the third text below, in which the substantive “prayer” (Ćĉē) also occurs, as it does in a marginal annotation at 9:24. Leviticus has much to say on the priest, the priests, the sons of Aaron the priest, and the sons of Aaron the priests. Together with the noun ČāĈ the Hebrew Text also has the verb ČāĈ, “to officiate as priest”, twice (at 7:35; 16:32). Onqelos throughout the Pentateuch generally retains the noun ČāĈ in its Aramaic rendering but paraphrases the verb as ĖċĖ, “to serve (before the Lord)”. This holds true also for the occurrences in Leviticus. In both instances Neofiti renders the verb as “to serve in the high priesthood (before the Lord)”. In reference to the priests, Lev 21:4 says that none of them shall defile himself as a husband among his people and so defile himself. The ending is rendered in Neofiti as “lest he profane his priesthood”. The marginal text to Neofiti has: “The high priest shall not make himself impure even for his own, to profane the high priesthood because of them.” Aaron is called the high priest in Neof. Lev 16:1 and in 21:1 Neofiti makes mention of a high priest, where in the Hebrew Text there is mention only of priests. Similarly in Neof. mg. Lev 14:26 mention is made of a high priest where the Hebrew Text and Neofiti have only “priest”. There is no mention of high priesthood, or high priest in Onqelos of Leviticus, and the question has been raised as to whether such mention throughout Neofiti, and other texts of the Palestinian Targum, represents later additions, or serves as indication of the late nature of the text of Neofiti. The view has been put forward that the presence of the designation “high priesthood” indicates a later stage of evolution.42 However, we may note that the designation “high priesthood” occurs once in Onqelos, at Num 16:10. Here in the Hebrew Text God says to the sons of Korah: “… you yet seek the priesthood as well (āčāĈĊÿĊėĖĔþĂ).”. In all the Targums, in Onqelos and in the Palestinian Targums, “high” is here added to priesthood, and the text rendered as: “you wish to assume [Neofiti; Onqelos: ‘you seek’] the high priesthood also”. Nowhere else in Onqelos is “high” added to the terms “priest” of “priesthood”, unless it is already in the Hebrew Text (as it is in Num 35:25, 28, and possibly 35:32). The presence of the title “high priesthood” in Onq. Num 16:10 is to be borne in mind in any discussion as to whether the use of the same expression in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch is due to later insertions, or even an indication of the late dates of the texts that carry them. 42 On this question see M. McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000), 1–31, esp. 22–26. The Targumic texts with the designation “high priesthood” are given by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 35 (= Aramaic Versions of the Bible, vol. 2), Jerusalem 1983, 170–185.

334

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

It may be that the designation was once more frequently used in Onqelos and later erased from most texts. In the Targums, particularly the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, some Aramaic paraphrases are introduced by the words, “My people, children of Israel”, ĉýĕôĆ Ćčþ Ćċď.43 The phrase is not found in Onqelos, but occurs seven times in Targum of Leviticus in Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti: Lev 19:11; 19:12 (Pseudo-Jonathan only); 19:26 (Neofiti only); 22:28; 25:15 (Pseudo-Jonathan only); 25:36 (Pseudo-Jonathan only); 25:37 (PseudoJonathan only). In other books the phrase can introduce a long paraphrase; generally in the Targum of Leviticus the paraphrases so introduced are brief. The expression seems to be liturgical in character.44 In Neof. and Ps.-J. Exodus 20 the phrase is prefaced to the translation of each of the Ten Commandments. In the Targum of Leviticus also, the instances in question tend to be of the same kind. Thus Neof. and Ps.-J. Lev 19:11: “My people, children of Israel, you shall not steal …”; Neof. Lev 22:28: “My people, children of Israel, you shall not sacrifice a cow or a ewe together with its young on the same day”. Pseudo-Jonathan on this verse has a fuller development: “My people, children of Israel, just as I am [thus the London manuscript; the editio princeps has: ‘just as our Father is’] merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth. You shall not slaughter a cow or ewe and its young on the same day.”45

7. Israel Drazin’s Presentation of the Reception of the Hebrew Text in Targum Onqelos of Leviticus After this examination of aspects of the manner in which the biblical Book of Leviticus has been presented in the Targums in general it is well to pay attention to Onqelos in particular. This has been done in a special manner by Israel Drazin.46 In his introduction Drazin notes that his study of the translation of Onqelos reveals that, in addition to replacing anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms and deviating from the original Hebrew Text for the honour of God and Israelite ancestors, Targum Onqelos renders the Masoretic Text’s peshat, its plain meaning, even when this meaning is contrary to rabbinic tradition and halakah.47 Drazin’s study shows, he believes, 43

The targumic texts are given by Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 35, 154–169. See I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 3rd edition, Frankfurt 1931, 188–192. 45 See M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966 (repr., with additions, 1978 [AnBib 27A]), 134–138. 46 I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (see n. 37 above). 47 Ibid., 1. 44

7. Israel Drazin’s Presentation of the Reception of the Hebrew Text

335

that since Targum Onqelos focuses on the plain, simple meaning, it does not follow the view of any particular school. In an introductory section on statistics, Drazin notes that while Targum Onqelos is the most exact of all the Aramaic Bible translations, its rendering of Leviticus deviates 2,432 times from the literal biblical text, which is about three changes in each of Leviticus’s 859 verses. However, about 92 percent of the differences, 2,247 instances, simply clarify the text, including 465 times when the Targumist only inserts Ā and 552 occasions when the Aramaic letter for “the” (ý) is added. These two insertions total 41.9 percent of all alterations. Targum Onqelos’s differences clarify some, but not all, ambiguities; they render figurative languages concretely; avoid questions, negative statements, and exaggerations which could be misunderstood; replace ambiguous, indirect, and passive language with clear, forceful, and vivid words. Because of its attempt to clarify the text’s simple meaning, and because of the general context of the verse, the Targum may be the opposite of the Masoretic Text.48 About seven percent of Targum Onqelos’s deviations, 167 in all, were made to enhance respect for God. The Targumist replaces many, but not all, anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, and otherwise deviates for God’s honour in Leviticus only twenty times. In twenty-two instances Memra is used. The term ýĕĔĆ (“glory”) is inserted once (at Lev 9:4); Shekinah is included once (Lev 26:12). In addition ĊĀĔ is added 115 times, and ĉĄĀ is included once as a disparaging substitute for an idol (Lev 19:4). There are many instances where Targum Onqelos does not avoid anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms (it renders “face, Ćčđ [of God])”, as God’s “anger” in 20:3, 5, 6 and 26:7), nor add Memra, Shekinah, ĊĀĔ, ĉĄĀ, or render Elohim by the Tetragrammaton, even though the other, more prolix Targums (Palestinian, Pseudo-Jonathan) do so.49 Eighteen deviations from the Hebrew Text were intended to preserve the honour of Israel’s ancestors. Many derogatory statements are deleted, changed or softened. Israel’s ancestors’ attitudes and reactions are depicted with delicacy, and sometimes even the remotest suggestion of any wrongdoing on their part is avoided.50 Drazin has given us an important summary of the manner in which the Hebrew Text has been received in the Targum of Onqelos. The author also notes the remarkable relationship between Targum Onqelos and Sifra’s peshat exegeses in the rendering of Leviticus as in the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are 129 instances where Onqelos parallels Sifra, including 82 where the former uses the latter’s words. Targum Onqelos never explains Leviticus contrary to Sifra’s peshat. Onqelos incorporates all, or 48

Ibid., 13, and 20, n. 9. There are only two instances of this at Lev 13:2. Ibid., 14, with references. 50 Ibid., 14, with the evidence in n. 28. 49

336

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

virtually all, of Sifra’s interpretations that are peshat and neglects its derash. From this Drazin concludes that Onqelos reflects the midrashic traditions of Palestine rather than those of Babylonia, and that it depends on Sifra and is to be dated after Sifra and the other tannaitic midrashim, that is, after the fourth century c.e., and not about 135 c.e. as is commonly supposed.51 These positions on the dependence on Sifra and the late dating are highly questionable, but need not detain us here.

8. Some Thoughts on Halakah of the Targums of Leviticus and its Affiliations Leviticus is chiefly concerned with the practical issues of cult and ritual. It is only to be expected that in its reception within the Jewish communities there would be concern to link the understanding of its text with Jewish law as understood and expounded by the Jewish sages, and possibly private individuals, of different ages. An examination of the halakic interpretation of these Targums will need to pay attention to the tradition represented by each of the individual texts: Onqelos, Neofiti, the margins of Neofiti, the Fragment Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan. This is not the place to enter into these questions in any details, as there is a variety of views among scholars on the issues involved., in particular the presence and significance of anti-halakic interpretations in the Targums, in particular the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch, and whether such presence there is due to the private views of the Targumist rather than to the synagogue. We have seen that I. Drazin maintains that Targum Onqelos of Leviticus renders the peshat, the plain sense of the Hebrew Text, even when this meaning is contrary to rabbinic tradition and halakah, and since it focuses on the text’s simple meaning, it does not follow the view of any particular school.52 The tradition represented by Targum Onqelos has also been examined by B. Grossfeld. In his view, the exegetical tradition of Onqelos is related to the halakic midrashim which are attributed to the school of Aqiba.53 With regard to Targum Onqelos of Leviticus (as for the other books) he sees abundant parallels with both the haggadic as well as halakic midrashim, as well as with the Talmuds, although to a much greater extent with the Babylonian than with the Jerusalem one: for Leviticus in the ratio of Babylonian Talmud 17; Jerusalem Talmud 1; midrashim 42 (Sifra 36; Leviticus Rabbah 2, 51

Ibid., 10–11, 14. Ibid., 1. 53 See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 15–18. 52

8. Some Thoughts on Halakah of the Targums of Leviticus and its Affiliations 337

others 4). This evidence is consonant with a Palestinian origin for Onqelos, together with a later redaction in Babylonia.54 The halakah of the Palestinian Targum, particularly of Neofiti, and of the Book of Leviticus in particular, still awaits a full treatment. B. J. Bamberger has given a preliminary statement on halakic elements in Neofiti, for Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, although most of his examples are from the Targums of Leviticus.55 While his chief concern is Targum Neofiti, he also notes the renderings in the other Targums (Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Fragment Targums, in the form then known in the Rabbinic Bible and in M. Ginsburger’s edition). He is of the opinion that in Neofiti distinctive halakic views are expressed chiefly through exceptional renderings of the biblical text, rarely through additional comments. He examines the material under three headings: ancient halakot, tannaitic halakot, anomalous readings. Under the heading “Ancient Halakot” Bamberger examines Tg. Lev 23:11, 15 (“the day after the sabbath” of the biblical text rendered as “the day after the first festal day of Passover”) and Lev 23:20 (with the rendering etrog and lulabin examined above). Under the heading “Tannaitic Halakot” he examines six texts from the Targum of Leviticus. In Lev 19:9 and 23:22 he believes that Neofiti has the view of R. Simeon. In Lev 19:26 Neofiti could reflect the view either of R. Dosa or Aqiba. In its rendering of Lev 20:14 Neofiti is said to adopt R. Aqiba’s view explicitly. The final text he considers under this subheading is Lev 21:20, where the text of Neofiti is particularly difficult.56 Under the heading “Anomalous Renderings” Bamberger examines five texts from Leviticus (Lev 1:8; 5:21; 10:6 [translation of the Hebrew ďĕđ, unbind the hair, or let it grow loose, as “cover”; also in Neof. Lev 10:13, 45 and 21:10], 20:9 and 21:13. These instances show peculiarities of Neofiti’s rendering and differences within it from the closely related tradition of the Fragment Targums. This “preliminary” examination indicates the value of a fuller study. M. J. Bernstein has written on the halakah in the marginal annotations of Codex Neofiti 1,57 a study I did not have the opportunity to see. Whereas the additional halakah in the Targum of Onqelos and in the Palestinian Targums of Leviticus seems to be minimal, Pseudo-Jonathan has a few notable additions, two of which I note here. 54

Ibid., 15. See B. J. Bamberger, “Halakic Elements in the Neofiti Targum: A Preliminary Statement”, JQR 66 (1975), 27–38. His examples from Leviticus have been noted by R. Hayward, in M. McNamara & R. Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus, 83. 56 See R. Hayward’s note on the text in ibid., 83. 57 See M. Bernstein, “The Halakhah in the Marginalia of Targum Neofiti”, in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, managing editor David Assaf, 9 vols., Jerusalem 1994, Division A, 223–230. 55

338

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

The first is on the First Commandment and the use of synagogue decorations. The First Commandment is restated thus in Lev 26:1: “You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or pillars, and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them; for I am the Lord your God” (nrsv). The text is retained practically unchanged, without addition, in Neofiti (“to bow down before it”). The same might be said of Onqelos: “… you shall not place any stone for worship in your land to worship upon it”. The biblical text and Aramaic paraphrases, however, had to take account of the growing Jewish practice of decorating synagogue floors with mosaics. The matter was discussed (and resolved) by the rabbis, and PseudoJonathan going on rabbinic texts paraphrases: “You shall not make idols for yourselves; you shall not erect for yourselves images or pillars to bow down (to them), and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it. However, you may put a pavement with figures and images in the floors of your sanctuaries, but not bow down to it. For I am the Lord your God.”58 The next example concerns a development of a prohibition in Lev 19:17. The Hebrew Text of Lev 19:17 says: “You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself” (nrsv). Onqelos renders literally. So, too, does Neofiti. Not so Pseudo-Jonathan which paraphrases as follows: “You shall not speak flattering words with your mouth while hating your brother in your heart. You shall reprove your neighbour; but if he is put to shame you shall not incur guilt because of him.” Pseudo-Jonathan is here in the rabbinic tradition of some of his favourite sources (Sifra, Qedoshim, Pereq 4:8; b. Arakin 16b; b. Baba Mezia 31a), which are but part of the history of the exegesis of this verse, the earlier stages of which have been researched by J. L. Kugel.59

9. Haggadic Additions in the Palestinian Targums of Leviticus While there is little extended paraphrase and no additional haggadah in the Targum Onqelos of Leviticus, the Palestinian Targums and Pseudo-Jonathan do include three rather extended midrashim which merit consideration here. 58 For the rabbinic texts in question see the note to Pseudo-Jonathan by M. Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, Collegeville 1994, 204. See also M. Klein, “Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics”, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45; also G. Vermes, “Bible and Midrash”, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd & V. F. Evans, Cambridge, vol. 1, 199–231, at 217–218. 59 See J. L. Kugel, “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17”, HTR 80 (1987), 43–61 (with treatment of the texts of Sifra and Pseudo-Jonathan, 55–57).

9. Haggadic Additions in the Palestinian Targums of Leviticus

339

1.1 Targums Lev 1:1. Moses’ Reflection at the Setting of the Tent of Meeting The Book of Leviticus opens abruptly with the words: “The Lord (YHWH) called Moses and spoke (ĕþĀĆĂ) to him from the tent of meeting, saying (ĕċýĉ) …”. Modern commentators note this, and link this opening with earlier narratives on the newly erected tent at Sinai (Exod 24:15–18; 25:1; 40:34–38; Lev 1:1)60 or some other passage. In Exod. Rab. 19:3 and 46:3 Lev 1:1 is linked with Exod 19:3 in a midrash on the three things that Moses did (on his own initiative) and which the Almighty retrospectively approved.61 The second of these instances was in the case of the tent of meeting, when Moses argued thus: “If I might not ascend Sinai, hallowed only during Revelation, with first obtaining divine permission, as it says: ‘And the Lord called to him out of the mountain saying’ (Exod 19:3), how can I enter, without divine permission, the tent of meeting, which is consecrated for all generations? God agreed, for it says: ‘And the Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting’ (Lev 1:1).” This midrash is found to Lev 1:1 in Neofiti, the Fragment Targums PVN, and in Pseudo-Jonathan. Its insertion at the beginning of the otherwise rather non-haggadic Targum of Leviticus may have been facilitated by the fact that Lev 1:1 was the opening of a synagogue liturgical reading (seder), and some of the longer Palestinian Targum paraphrases correspond to the beginning of such sedarim, including Lev 22:27 to be considered below. Neofiti opens its paraphrase with a text which is identical almost verbatim with its rendering of Num 7:1. The text of Neof. Lev 1:1–2 reads: “And when Moses had finished erecting the tent and had anointed and consecrated it, and all its accessories, and the altar and all its accessories, Moses thought in his heart and said: ‘Mount Sinai, whose consecration is but the consecration of a moment [i.e. temporary], and whose anointing is but the anointing of a moment, I did not ascend it until the time it was spoken with me from before the Lord; the tent of meeting, whose consecration is an eternal consecration and whose anointing is an eternal anointing, it is but just that I should not enter within it until the time it is spoken with me from before the Lord.’ Then the Dibbera called to Moses, and the Lord spoke with him from the tent of meeting, saying: ‘Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them: If anyone of you brings an offering before the Lord – from the herd, from the oxen or from the sheep you shall bring your offerings.’”

60 Thus Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 134–139, on Lev 1:1, with reference to R. Rendtorff, Leviticus, vol. 3.1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, 22. 61 See R. Le Déaut, with J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions Palestiniennes complètes, vol. 1: Genèse (SC 245), Paris 1978, 167; M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 93, n. 1 to Gen 15:1.

340

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

1.2 Palestinian Targums Leviticus 22:27. The Merits of the Patriarchs and the Abolition of Sacrifice The Hebrew Text (as in nrsv) stipulates that: “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as the Lord’s offering by fire” (āĂāĆĉāĖýČþĕĔĉ). Onqelos consistently renders āĖý as “offerings” (ČþĕĔ), and so also here, with a certain tautology: “to be offered as an offering before the Lord”, as does also Pseudo-Jonathan. Neofiti in its translation proper simply ignores the Hebrew ČþĕĔ, rendering “it is ritually permitted to offer it before the Lord”. For Jews after the cessation of sacrifice on destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. the verse recalled that the law applied to longer. None of the animals mentioned could now be sacrificed. The midrash recalls how these three animals were connected with the Patriarchs, and asks that the prayers of the Fathers be now accepted in their stead. The well-constructed midrash has been preserved in Neofiti, manuscripts PVN of the Fragment Targums, and in a lengthy gloss to Neofiti, which coincides with the text CTgF from the Cairo Genizah. It also has been preserved in Pseudo-Jonathan. I reproduce here the translation of Neofiti.62 The biblical references in the midrash are to incidents recalled in Genesis 18, 22 and 27. Neof. Lev 22:26–27: “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: ‘(This is) a time that you recall in our favour our offerings which we used to offer, and atonement was made for our sins. But now that we have nothing to offer of our flocks of sheep, atonement can be made for our sins; the ox has been chosen first, to recall before me the merit of the man of the east who in his old age was blessed in everything; he ran to his cattle-yard and brought a calf, fat and good, and gave it to the boy-servant who hurried to prepare it. And he baked unleavened bread and gave to eat to the angels; and immediately it was announced to Sarah that Sarah would give birth to Isaac. And after that the lamb was chosen to recall the merit of a man, the unique one, who was bound on one of the mountains like a lamb for a burnt offering upon the altar. But (God) delivered him in his good mercies; and when his sons pray they will say in their hours of tribulation: “Answer us in this hour and listen to the voice of our prayer and remember in our favour the Binding of Isaac our father.” And after this kid-goat was chosen in order to recall the merit of the perfect man who clothed his hands with goat-skins and prepared dishes and gave them to eat to his righteous fa62 For studies of the midrash see R. Le Déaut, “Lévitique XXII 26–XXIII 44 dans le Targum palestinien: De l’importance des gloses du codex Neofiti 1”, VT 18 (1968), 458– 471; idem, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963, 170–174; G. Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis 22”, in idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), 2nd rev. edition, Leiden 1973, 193–227, at 211; J. Heinemann, “Ancient Exegetical Traditions in the Aggadah and the Targums” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 35 (1965–1966), 84–89; C. T. R. Hayward, “The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments”, JJS 40 (1989), 7–30, at 20–21.

9. Haggadic Additions in the Palestinian Targums of Leviticus

341

ther, to receive the order of blessings.’ These are the three sacrifices, the sacrifices of the three fathers of the World, that is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; therefore it is written in the book of the law of the Lord: ‘A bull, a lamb or a goat, when it is born shall be brought up for seven days behind its mother and from the eighth day onwards it is ritually permitted to offer it before the Lord.’”

1.3 Palestinian Targum Lev 24:12. Midrash on Moses as Model for Judges This is a long haggadah around four texts in the Pentateuch in which Moses said “I have not heard” (a similar case to be judged). The texts are Lev 24:12; Num 9:8; 15:34 and 25:7 and the midrash is inserted in the Palestinian Targums in almost identical form at each of those four places. In it Moses is presented as a model for rabbinic judges. The haggadah has been preserved in Neofiti, in manuscripts PVN of the Fragment Targums, and in a gloss to Neofiti, which reproduces the text of P. It is also in Pseudo-Jonathan.63 I give the translation of the text of Neofiti here. There is no real parallel in rabbinic literature to this midrash.64 Neof. Lev 24:11–12: “And the son of the Israelite woman expressed ‘the Holy Name’ with blasphemies and he reviled (it). And they brought him to Moses. And the name of the woman was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, from the tribe of the sons of Dan. This was one of the four legal cases that rose up 4before Moses, and he decided them in the understanding from above. In two of them Moses was quick, and in two of them Moses was slow. In the former and in the latter he said: ‘I did not hear.’ In (the judgement of) impure persons who were not able to do the Passover, and in the judgement of the daughters of Zelophehad Moses was quick, because their cases were civil cases. (In the judgement) of him who gathering wood desecrated the sabbath wilfully, and (in the judgement) of the blasphemer who expressed his Holy Name with blasphemies, Moses was slow, because their cases were capital cases, and in order to teach the judges who would rise up after Moses to be quick in civil cases and slow in capital cases, so that those would not kill quickly (even) one deserving according to the law to be killed, lest acquittal be found for him from another angle in the trial; lest they be ashamed to say ‘We have not heard’. And they guarded him in prison until it is declared to them from before the Lord by which judgement they should put him to death.”

63 On this midrash see B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, vol.  2, 44–47. See also the annotations by R. Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 2: Exode et Lévitique, Paris 1979, 488–491, and of R. Hayward, in M. McNamara & R. Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus, 96–97. 64 See A. Shinan, “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, 203–217, at 213–214. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6: Notes on vols. 3 and 6: From Moses in the Wilderness to Esther, Philadelphia 1968, 85, n. 455.

342

Chapter 13: Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums

10. Translation Techniques in Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan Translation of the Aramaic text of Targum Neofiti into English soon led the present writer to a realisation that the original translator or redactor was following certain translational techniques, evident in the translation of the words or phrases of the original Hebrew almost always in the same manner in the Aramaic version. In this the Aramaic text looked somewhat similar to the principles found in the Revised Standard Version. The introduction to the English translation of Neofiti of Leviticus lists eighteen of these, for instance Hebrew Text “peace offerings” becomes “sacrifices of holy things”; “Torah” (law) becomes “decree / instruction of the Torah”; the adjective “precious/good” is added to “crimson”, “to pardon / forgive” is rendered “remit and forgive”. What is seen in Neofiti of Leviticus holds good for the other books of the Pentateuch in Neofiti’s rendering. A similar examination has found that by and large the same holds for Pseudo-Jonathan. Most probably similar principles are valid for Onqelos. What this evidence indicates is that there is a certain unity running throughout the Palestinian Targum as found in Neofiti (and probably in the other texts of the Palestinian Targum as well). We are in the presence not of haphazard ad hoc translations of individual passages but of well-thought through renderings of the Pentateuch, presumably the work of scholars, active within an exegetical tradition.

11. Purpose of Targumic Renderings: To give the Sense of the Hebrew and Help the People Understand the Reading At the end of its description on the work of Ezra and his helpers with regard to the reading of the Law of Moses, Neh 8:8 tells us that “they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation [nrsv; or: ‘section by section’?]. They gave the sense (of the Book of the Law), so that the people understood the reading”; ýĕĔċþĂčĆþĆĂĉĈĖĊĂĖĂĖĕđċĊĆāĉýāėĕĂėþĕđĎþĂýĕĔĆĂ. Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums, true to their name, are primarily translations, intended to give the sense of the Hebrew Text. In the attempt to do so the presence of translational techniques indicates that they are evidence to an intensive exegetical activity. In the effort to have generations down through the ages understand the message of the Hebrew Text there is also evidence from their texts of interpretation with this in view, varying from Targum to Targum. If we were to answer the question as to how the Hebrew Text of Leviticus was received and transmitted in the Targums, I think it would be fair to say that by and large Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums faithfully render the

11. Purpose of Targumic Renderings

343

Hebrew Text, in accord with certain translational techniques, but also show the influence of an exegetical activity in many of their paraphrases. Most translations can be presumed to originate within an exegetical activity, and we can presume that the same holds good for the Targums. How old this exegetical tradition was is more difficult to say. Much of it is also clearly witnessed to by related rabbinic writings on the books in question. But the exegetical tradition to which part at least of the Targum exegetical tradition bears witness seems older than the age of the Tannaim, bearing witness to a tradition also attested to by the Septuagint and other old Greek translations. The older exegetical tradition would have been further developed by the rabbis, in the ages of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, in the halakic midrashim, and in the two Talmuds, and the later midrashim. Some scholars today are trying to reconstruct the history of a Palestinian Targum which in due time gave raise to a Proto-Onqelos, and the various extant forms of the Palestinian Targum. An awareness of the likelihood of an old and lengthy exegetical history for the interpretation and translation of the Book of Leviticus may help in this.

Chapter 14

Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti): Numbers Chapter 21* 1. The Palestinian Targums in Recent Exegesis The use of the Targums (i.e. Jewish Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures) for a knowledge of the environment (Umwelt) of the New Testament, and for New Testament study, has vacillated through the centuries, since they were first used for this purpose in the sixteenth century, if not earlier. Already in the seventeenth century, in the twelfth prolegomenon to the London Polyglot (1657), Brian Walton expressed serious reservations on any such use. He grants that there are numerous places in which the Targums speak of the Word of God (i.e. the Memra) as a distinct person; they bear clear and numerous testimonies to Christ, to the person, advent and mission of the Messiah. None the less, not everything in the Targums can be accepted as old, and some passages (in particular in Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums) which can be used for New Testament study are to be reckoned rather as remnants of old traditions, going back even to the Prophets, preserved in writings which must be regarded as later compositions.1 In those centuries, and for long after, the only Targums of the Pentateuch known to scholars were Onqelos and that known as Pseudo-Jonathan on the entire Pentateuch, and the fragments of Targums for all five books, commonly known as the Fragment Targum. During the Golden Age of Jewish literature both Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums were regarded as later compositions, the former not earlier than the seventh century of our era, the Targum represented by the fragments possibly from the third or fourth. It was granted that these, however, may contain traditions older than the compositions themselves. From such a critical position it was obvious that the works could be used for New Testament studies only with the greatest of caution. * First published under the same title, in SNTU 16 (1991), 127–149. 1 See further M. McNamara, “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19, esp. 2–3 (see above, pp. 27–47); idem, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966 (repr., with supplement, 1978), 5–7.

1. The Palestinian Targums in Recent Exegesis

345

The early thirties saw a certain change of attitude regarding the Targums, with regard to the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch in particular. For one thing a new approach towards tradition developed, which led to greater respect for the antiquity of the Palestinian Targum tradition, even if the manuscripts in which this is now enshrined are more recent. Even with regard to the manuscripts the situation changed with the publication by Paul Kahle of large sections of Palestinian Targum manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, the oldest of which he dated to the seventh century. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and later our picture of Palestinian Judaism of the New Testament era and earlier was radically changed. We now had contemporary evidence for another Jewish tradition. It is worth recalling that about this same time a new era also began for the study of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch with the finding in 1949 of Codex Neofiti 1 in the Vatican Library (falsely catalogued as Onqelos) and the discovery by Alejandro Díez Macho in 1956 that it contained the full text (a few verses apart) of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, and this in a form of Aramaic that appeared to be quite ancient. Renewed interest in the relevance of the Palestinian Targum tradition for New Testament studies was increasing before the discovery of Neofiti 1. As was to be expected, new impetus was added to this interest by this discovery. The study of the language, traditions and exegetical technique of Neofiti 1 went hand in hand with research on the relevance of the targumic tradition for New Testament studies, with special emphasis on the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. This position was particularly strong in the mid-sixties. A reaction was soon to set in, especially from specialists in the history of Aramaic and in Qumran studies. The form of Aramaic found in the Palestinian Targums was reckoned to be the same as that of the Palestinian Talmud and the midrashim, and to be assigned a date more recent than New Testament times, after 200 c.e. at the earliest. While the traditions which these Targums contain may be earlier, of course, even this was called into doubt with regard to some key concepts, e.g. the title Memra when used of God (“The Memra of the Lord”).2 At times even well-founded targumic traditions, of no particular interest for New Testament studies, have come to be regarded on examination to be attestably later developments within Jewish tradition, even though their origins can be traced to early rabbinic 2 See, for instance, A. D. York, “The Dating of Targumic Literature”, JSJ 5 (1974), 49–62; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 94–95, and 111, n. 48 (on Memra, Shekinah); summary of views in M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland 1972, 14–15; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 146–166; idem, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983, 214–217.

346 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 times. A case in question would be the targumic paraphrase of Gen 4:26 on the time of Enosh, son of Sheth. The Masoretic Text reads: ĊĖþýĕĔĉĉĄĂāăý āĂāĆ, “At that time people began [lit.: ‘it was begun’] to invoke the name of the Lord”.3 In earlier Jewish, as in Christian tradition, this invocation of the divine name by those of Enosh’s time was looked at in a positive sense: they called on the name of the true God. It is quite the opposite in the Palestinian Targum texts, which understand the passage to refer to the beginning of idolatry: “Then, men began to make idols for themselves, calling them by the name of Memra of the Lord” (Neofiti 1); “In his days, then, men began worshipping foreign cults and calling them by the name of the Memra of the Lord” (Fragment Targums); “That was the generation in whose days they began to go astray, making idols for themselves, and calling their idols by the name of the Memra of the Lord” (Pseudo-Jonathan). This tradition is also that found in early rabbinic texts (from the second century c.e. and later), and represents a very specific viewpoint on the relationship of the early (pre-Abraham) ante-diluvian and post-diluvian patriarchal tradition to the cult of God. The targumic interpretation of Gen 4:26 fits into this rabbinic tradition. A question that arises is whether this particular understanding of the biblical text originated after the first century c.e. or earlier. The reservations regarding the date to be assigned to Palestinian Targum Aramaic, indeed to part at least of this Targum’s interpretative tradition, have led many scholars to neglect the Palestinian Targums in the study of New Testament exegesis.4 This neglect of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum tradition as a representative of Judaism of the New Testament period is to be regretted. The question at issue is not principally what light these texts might throw on the New Testament itself. Our principal concern should rather be the Palestinian Jewish approach to the sacred text in so far as this can be reconstructed from the sources at our disposal. Sometimes this Jewish exegesis is plain from documents from the period, as in the case of the texts from the monks of Qumran. At other times we can reconstruct a system of exegesis, or at least certain exegetical traditions, from similar con3 On this text see the monograph of S. D. Fraade, Enosh and his Generation: PreIsraelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation (SBLMS 30), Chico 1984. 4 As an example I may instance C. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30 (JSNTSup 18), Sheffield 1987, 20: “Targumic materials do not appear in this thesis. The Palestinian Targums, in particular, contain traditions which bear striking resemblance to certain New Testament materials, and there is external evidence for the use of targumic techniques in the Second Temple era. However, a conservative estimate places the earliest redaction, even of Neofiti, in the third century of the Common Era, and ‘no effective method has as yet been devised to distinguish between the recension of a particular targumic text and the tradition that underlies that text’” (citing York, “The Dating”, 49, with reference also to E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Philadelphia 1977, 25–26).

2. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran

347

temporary documents, such as Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum). By a judicious use of such contemporary texts, and others besides, it may be possible to pass beyond this limited information to larger and more extended exegetical traditions, such as those in the rabbinic tradition and in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. It is on this last-mentioned tradition I intend to concentrate in this essay. I shall first of all, however, treat briefly of some different forms of Palestinian Jewish biblical exegesis during the New Testament period and earlier.

2. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran It could probably be accepted as a principle of the history of biblical interpretation that the Bible text has rarely if ever existed in isolation. In the mind of the faithful, the text has always been accompanied by some or other interpretation. Thus it is that from isolated interpretations of texts we may be able to reconstruct various exegetical traditions. The principle I have just given could be abundantly illustrated from the rich collection of patristic and early medieval interpretations collected by the patient researches of the members of the Vetus Latina Institute, Beuron, in the systematic reconstruction of the Vetus Latina translation of the Bible. I believe it can be applied to early Jewish texts as well, and I hope to illustrate the point with regard to the Qumran texts, but particularly with regard to the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. The biblical exegesis of the Qumran monks need not detain us here. It has already been the subject of much study.5 In the pesher method of interpretation a text is taken and interpreted of the life and history of the Qumran community. This is a constant in the method. Another feature of the texts known to us is that certain key words are understood as denoting certain important realities or functionaries in Israel. Thus Num 21:18 in the Damascus Rule (CD 6:6–8): “But God remembered his Covenant with the forefathers, and he raised up from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel men of wisdom, and he caused them to hear. And they dug the Well; the well which the princes dug which the nobles of the people delved with the stave (Num 21:18). The Well is the Law, and those who dug it were the converts of Israel who went out of the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus. … The Stave is the Interpreter of the Law …; and the nobles of the people are those who come to dig the Well with the staves with which the Stave ordained that they should walk in all the age of wickedness …” 5 See the standard studies on the Qumran Scrolls. The Qumran texts on biblical interpretation are listed in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, rev. edition, London 1981, 66–83.

348 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 The tradition of interpretation on the meaning to be ascribed to the key words (Well, Stave etc.), which in this text are applied to the Qumran covenanters’ history, must be older and more widespread than the Qumran community itself.6 We find it equally deeply established in rabbinic and targumic tradition. The same holds true for another equivalent in the Qumran texts, that of ĕþÿ (geber) of the Hebrew Text. The older English translations would render this term as “a man”; later literal translations with an eye to inclusive language, as “a person”. An early Jewish understanding regarded the Hebrew term as denoting more than an ordinary man or person. Thus already in the Qumran pesher on Psalm 37 (4QpPsª; also known as 4Q171) where ĕþÿ of v. 23 is interpreted of the Teacher of Righteousness: “The (steps of a man [or: ‘of the Man’]) are confirmed by the Lord … Interpreted, this concerns the Priest, the Teacher of (Righteousness … whom) he established to build for himself the congregation of …” (text broken). A similar understanding of this Hebrew word is also found in rabbinic Judaism. Similarly, the paraphrase of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch works on the principle that óĆý (generally understood as “man”) of the Hebrew Text means more than an ordinary man.7

3. Biblical Interpretation among the Zealots8 In the religious mentality evidenced in the Qumran pesher or rabbinic midrash type of exegesis, the biblical text can be applied to the contemporary situation in a variety of ways. Behind all such exegesis, however, lies the belief that the Bible contains the mind and the will of God for his people. The task of the expositor is to bring the divine message to the attention of the believing faithful. An obvious danger in any such approach to the Bible is that the interpreter takes his or her own desires as those of God and makes the Bible serve the interpreter’s desires or ambitions.

6

Some of them have been studied by G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), Leiden 1961 (2nd rev. edition 1973), 11–66 (“The Symbolism of Words”). 7 See G. Vermes, Scripture, 56–63 (“man”; ĕþÿ, ĕĈă, ĒďĂĆýĉđ, óĆý). The “four hundred men” (Hebrew ĊĆóčý) of Gen 32:7 are understood in the Palestinian Targum as “400 war generals” (ĚęĕƬĖċěġęē); in Gen. Rab. 75:12 as “kings bearing crowns”, “prefects” or “generals”; likewise Neof. Gen 12:20 where ĊĆóčý (“men”) of the Hebrew Text is rendered as “leading men”. 8 For a study of the Zealots, see M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A. D., Edinburgh 1989 (repr. 1997); for their charismatic and eschatological interpretation of Scripture esp. 62–64.

3. Biblical Interpretation among the Zealots

349

Looking on the Bible, in particular on the Torah, as divine oracles must have been well established in Israel already in Maccabean times. It probably explains 1 Macc 3:42 where we read that at Mizpah Judas Maccabee and his brothers “opened the Book of the Law to inquire into the matters about which the Gentiles were consulting their idols”.9 The Zealots of the first century c.e. had what we may call an oracular approach to the Scriptures. They believed that the sacred text contained certain prophecies to which effect should be given by the members of the Zealot movement. We cannot say whether this approach to the Scriptures formed part of this “Fourth Philosophy” since its foundation by Judas the Galilean in 6 c.e. We know from Josephus that among the main causes of the final rebellion against Rome in 66 c.e. stood “an ambiguous oracular pronouncement which had also been found in Holy Scripture, that one from their country would at that time be given command over the world. This they applied to a member of their people and many wise men erred in their interpretation” (War 6.5.4, §§ 312–313).

The Jewish belief in the existence of this oracle, and the fact that it was to be realised at that particular point of time, must have been widespread since it is also attested by the Roman historians Tacitus (Histories 5.13) and Suetonius (Vespasian 4:5) who cannot be presumed to have got it from Josephus. Tacitus writes of the Jews at the revolt: “Most people held the belief that, according to the ancient priestly writings, this was the moment at which the east was fated to prevail: they would now start forth from Judea and conquer the world. This enigmatic prophecy really applied to Vespasian and Titus. But men are blinded by their hopes. The Jews took to themselves the promised destiny, and even defeat could not convince them of the truth.”10

Likewise Suetonius: “An ancient superstition was current in the east, that out of Judea at this time would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves, murdered their Governor, routed the Governor of Syria when he came down to restore order, and captured an Eagle.”11 9 On the Bible itself regarded as predictive prophecy during the late Second Temple period, see also M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983, esp. 62–64. 10 Tacitus, Histories 5.13: “pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur, quae ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerat, sed vulgus more humanae cupidinis sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati ne adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur.” 11 Suetonius, Vespasian 4:5: “percrebruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatore Romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt.”

350 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 The biblical text on which this expectation was based is a matter of debate.12 Some scholars believe that the messianic prophecy in question is Dan 7:13 ff. on the Son of Man and the kingdom, or kingship, he is to receive. Others think that the text intended is Num 24:17 ff., i.e. Balaam’s oracle on the star to arise out of Jacob, who is first to subjugate the nations surrounding Israel and finally, apparently (24:24) destroy entirely all world powers. Other oracles besides this were used by Zealot prophets during the final siege encouraging the defenders to believe that a miraculous divine intervention on their behalf was to take place. The past intervention against Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:36 = Isaiah 37) was recalled and the prophecies of Zech 12:2–6 and 14:2–5.13

4. Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (often referred to under its Latin title Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, LAB) is almost universally believed by scholars to have been composed in the first century of the common era.14 The latest possible date for the composition would be 100 c.e. While some believe it was composed after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. there are strong arguments for an earlier dating. In D. J. Harrington’s words: “A date around the time of Jesus seems most likely.”15 Palestine is also the most probable place of composition. The writing does not appear to have originated within any of the specific groups or sects in Palestine (Pharisees, Essenes, Qumran Covenanters, Samaritans, anti-Samaritans, Hellenists, Gnostics, etc.). As D. J. Harrington notes,16 Pseudo-Philo seems to reflect the milieu of the Palestinian synagogues at the turn of the common era. It is the earliest witness for motifs frequently repeated in the Jewish tradition: Abraham’s escape from Ur (6), Israel’s being spared from the water of the Flood (7:4), Dinah’s husband as Job (8:8), Moses’ being born circumcised (9:13), the writing on the tablets of the Law fleeing away (12:5), Balaam as an interpreter of dreams (18:2), the sacrifice of Isaac (18:5; 32:2–4; 40:2), Isaac’s birth in the seventh month (23:8), the concealment of the precious stones until the last day (26:13), the 12

See Hengel, Zealots, 237–240. Ibid., 240–244. 14 For this work see the translation, with introduction and notes, by D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP 2, 297–377 (with further bibliographical references, at 303). 15 Ibid., 299; for Palestine as likely place of origin, ibid., 300. 16 Ibid., 300. 13

4. Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

351

equation of Phinehas and Elijah (48:1), the identification of Saul with the fleeing Benjaminite of 1 Sam 4:12 (54:4), and Saul’s death as an atonement for his sins (64:9). What I have said earlier about the biblical text generally being accompanied with an interpretation can be amply illustrated from Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. The most obvious example is probably the midrash on the Binding of Isaac which goes far beyond the biblical text itself. This midrash is deeply rooted in rabbinic and targumic tradition. In his brief summary of the patriarchal history from Abraham to Jacob, from Canaan to Egypt, in chapter 8, Pseudo-Philo makes passing mention of the conception and birth of Isaac. In this passage, however, he omits any mention of the sacrifice of Isaac. Elsewhere, outside of its proper context, he mentions this sacrifice three times, and on each occasion he passes beyond the biblical text to the midrash deriving from it. The first occurrence is in 18:5, in a context dealing at length with Balaam. Here in the midrash on Balaam we have a midrashic elaboration of Gen 22:17. God is made to say to Balaam:17 “Is it not regarding this people that I spoke to Abraham in a vision, saying, ‘Your seed will be like the stars of the heaven’ (Gen 22:17), when I lifted him above the firmament and showed him the arrangements of all the stars? And I demanded his son as a holocaust (Gen 22:1 ff.). And he brought him and he placed him on the altar, but I gave him back to his father and, because he did not refuse, his offering was acceptable before me, and on account of his blood I chose them.”

We find a much more developed form of the midrash in 32:2–4, this time woven, with other midrashim on Abraham, into a text on the hymn of Deborah (Judg 5:1).18 “Behold the Lord has shown us his glory from on high. … And he chose our nation and took Abraham our father out of the fire and freed him from the bricks destined for building the tower. … And he gave him a son at the end of his old age and took him out of a sterile womb. And all the angels were jealous of him, and the worshipping hosts envied him. And since they were jealous of him, God said to him, ‘Kill the fruit of your body for me, and offer for me as a sacrifice what has been given to you by me’. And Abraham did not argue, but set out immediately. And as he was setting out, he said to his son, ‘Behold now, my son, I am offering you as a holocaust and am delivering you into the hands that gave you to me’. But the son said to the father, ‘Hear me, father. If a lamb of the flock is accepted as sacrifice to the Lord with an odour of sweetness and if for the wicked deeds of men animals are appointed to be killed, but man is designed to inherit the world, how then do you say to me, “Come and inherit life without limit and time without measure”? Yet have I not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice to him who made me? Now my blessedness 17 18

Ibid., 325. Ibid., 345–346.

352 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 will be above that of all men, because there will be nothing like this; and about me future generations will be instructed and through me peoples will understand that the Lord has made the soul of a man worthy to be a sacrifice.’ And when he had offered his son upon the altar and had bound his feet so as to kill him, the Most Powerful hastened and sent forth his voice from on high saying, ‘You shall not slay your son. … Now your memory will be before me always, and your name and his will remain from one generation to another’.”

There is a reference to the sacrifice again in 40:2, in a passage on the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah, with sections of a midrashic paraphrase extremely similar to that of Pal. Tg. Gen 22:10, 14. The text of LAB 40:2 reads:19 “And Seila his [i.e. Jephthah’s] daughter said to him, ‘And who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people freed? Or do you not remember what happened in the days of our fathers when the father placed the son as a holocaust, and he did not refuse but gladly gave consent to him, the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing?’”

We move far closer to targumic tradition and paraphrase in LAB 20:8, in a section dealing with Joshua and the division of the land:20 “And after Moses died, the manna stopped descending upon the sons of Israel [cf. Josh 5:12], and then they began to eat from the fruits of the land. And these are the three things that God gave to his people on account of the three persons: that is, the well of the water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. And when these came to their end, these three things were taken away from them.”

This is a midrash that has arisen from what appears to be sustained reflection on the biblical text. The death of Miriam, narrated in Num 20:1, is immediately followed by the remark that there was no water for the congregation. The death of Aaron is narrated in Num 20:29, and the cessation of the manna, narrated in Josh 5:12, follows in a certain sense, though not immediately, on the death of Moses. What is very significant is that this midrash of the Biblical Antiquities is found in almost identical fashion in the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, e.g. Neof. Num 21:1 (additional paraphrase indicated by italics): “When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the south, heard that Aaron, the pious man for whose merits the clouds of the glory surrounded Israel, had been removed, and that Miriam the prophetess, for whose merits the well used to come up for them had been removed, that Israel had reached the route through which the spies had come up, they waged war on Israel and took captives.”

19 20

Ibid., 353. Ibid., 329.

4. Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

353

Or again Neof. Num 12:12, 16 on Miriam’s merits: because she stood at the bank of the river to see the fate of Moses, Israel became sixty myriads (Neof. Num 12:16); while she was leprous the clouds of glory and the well did not move. We have a much closer relationship between the Palestinian Targum and the Biblical Antiquities in the tradition concerning the well which was believed to have accompanied Israel during the desert wanderings, called Miriam’s well in both texts. Thus in LAB 10:7:21 “Now he led his people out into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail to them from the sea and brought forth a well of water to follow them. Now with a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a pillar of fire he gave them light by night.”

Here we have brought together the main gifts given by God to Israel in the wilderness, based on Exod 16:13–17:6; Ps 76:24, 27; Num 21:16–20; Exod 13:21; Neh 9:12. They are also brought together in Pal. Tg. Num 21:6,22 as an introduction to the punishment by the brazen serpents: “The divine voice came forth from the earth and its voice was heard on high: Come and see, all you creatures; and come, give ear, all you sons of the flesh; the serpent was cursed from the beginning and I said to it: ‘Dust shall be your food.’ I brought my people up from the land of Egypt and I had manna come down from the abyss, and I carried quail from the sea for them; and my people has turned to murmur before me concerning the manna, that its nourishment is little. Let the serpent which does not murmur concerning its food come and rule over the people which has murmured concerning their food.”

In LAB 11:15, at the end of a section on the gift of the Law and on the Decalogue we have a further occurrence of the midrash on the well:23 “Then God told him his statutes and his judgements, and he detained him forty days and forty nights. And there he commanded him many things and showed him the tree of life, from which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet. And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down with them into the plains. And he commanded him about the tabernacle …”

The end of this text on the well going up to the mountain and down to the plains represents a paraphrase of Num 21:19 in which words of the Hebrew Text, now generally taken as place names (rsv: “and from Mattanah to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to Bamoth”), are interpreted as common 21

Ibid., 317. For a study of this text see H. Maneschg, Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange (Num 21,4–9) in der Auslegung der frühen jüdischen Literatur: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie, Frankfurt on Main 1981, esp. 253–272 for a text analysis of Num 21:4–9. 23 In Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo”, 319. 22

354 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 nouns. The original text has almost been lost sight of in this paraphrase, which interprets the passage of the well. This way of regarding this particular section of the Hebrew Text must have been general in New Testament Judaism. We find it also in the Tosefta (t. Sukka 3:11). It is found almost verbatim as in the Biblical Antiquities in the Palestinian Targum of Num 21:19, which reads: “And after the well had been given them as a gift, it went on to become for them swelling torrents; and after it had become swelling torrents, it went on to go up with them to the tops of the mountains and to go down with them to the deep valleys.”

5. Continuity in Rabbinical Biblical Interpretation Rabbinical literature was once a favourite source for scholars in their interpretation of New Testament texts. In this regard one thinks automatically of the classic work by H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. The current thought was that these rabbinical sources represented one section, even the central section, of Jewish thought during the New Testament period. Present-day scholars are much more cautious in their use of rabbinical sources in New Testament studies – again because of the uncertainty of the date to be assigned to rabbinical texts. While caution must be exercised in the use of rabbinic literature, it would be unwise to ignore it simply because of the uncertainty about the date to be assigned to any particular element of it. It is a priori unlikely that the bulk of this literature was created ab ovo by the rabbis of the tannaitic or talmudic periods. What we know of this literature stresses the respect given to tradition, to what has been handed down. While we must be open to the existence of exegetical creativity among the rabbis, it seems unlikely that the bulk of the tradition was created after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. A combination of studies on the continuity of tradition and of creativity seems to be called for: on the one hand the elements in rabbinic tradition that can be traced back even to the time of Sirach,24 and on the other the new syntheses on some points at least (for instance the generation of Enosh) that point towards rabbinic exegetical creativity.

24 In this regard see what M. Hengel has to say on Wisdom in Ben Sirach and Rabbinic Judaism in Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, vol. 1, Philadelphia 1974, 157–162, 169–175.

6. Antiquity of Interpretation Tradition in the Palestinian Targum of Numbers 21 355

6. Antiquity of Interpretation Tradition in the Palestinian Targum of Numbers 21 As I noted at the outset of this essay, many scholars today are loathe to use the Palestinian Targum tradition for New Testament studies because of the difficulties in assigning a date to both the texts themselves and the traditions they enshrine. I believe that a study of the Palestinian Targum of Numbers 21 argues against too hastily dismissing this exegetical tradition. In this particular chapter we have a text that linguistically does not seem to differ significantly from the remainder of the Targum. And yet almost the entire paraphrase can be shown by the parallels in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo to be extremely old, and well established in Palestinian Judaism at least in the first century of our era. It is not that the exegetical paraphrases seem imported into the translation. Rather do they grow out of it, flow from it, so to speak.25 In this particular section of the Targum we have a good instance of R. Bloch’s contention that the Palestinian Targum was the articulation point of midrash, the way in which midrash grew from the biblical text.26 The text of the paraphrase of this chapter which I give here will show the close relationship with the biblical interpretation we find in the Biblical Antiquities. From this it would seem to follow that in the Palestinian Targum of Numbers 21 we have evidence of Jewish reflection on the Scriptures from the age of Christ and the Apostles. It is a form of scriptural interpretation as real as that of Qumran, the Zealots or any other Jewish group. It does not follow from the evidence of this single chapter that all the paraphrase of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch is equally ancient. The evidence of this chapter, however, might indicate that the current scepticism on the relevance of these Targums as witnesses to Jewish interpretation of Jesus’ day may not be all that well founded. 25 B. B. Levy has made a detailed study of the text of Neofiti 1 in Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, vol. 1: Introduction, Genesis, Exodus, vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Studies in Judaism), New York & London 1986–1987. One of his contentions in this study is that together with the basic translation of the Hebrew Text, we have in Neofiti a number of midrashic developments which are to be regarded as later interpolations into this basic text. While it may be granted that from the textual point of view we may have to distinguish between the basic translation and added midrash, the fact remains that this midrash in quite a number of cases (if not in most) flows from a definite understanding of the Hebrew Text, even if not immediately from the translation of Neofiti. In few places is this clearer than in the paraphrase of Pal. Tg. Numbers 21. 26 See R. Bloch, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280, at 1278–1279; translated into English by Mary Howard Callaway (with the assistance of James A. Sanders), “Midrash”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green (BJS 1), Missoula 1978, 29–50.

356 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21 (Paraphrase which adds to the Hebrew Text is indicated by italics)

(1) And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the south heard that Aaron, the pious man for whose merits the clouds of the glory used to lead Israel forth, had been removed; and that Miriam the prophetess, for whose merits the well used to come up for them had been removed; that Israel had reached the route through which the spies had come up. And they waged war on Israel and took captives from among them. (2) And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said: “If you will indeed deliver this people into our hands, I will blot out their cities.” (3) And the Lord heard the voice of Israel’s prayer and delivered the Canaanites into their hands, and they blotted out them and their cities; and they called the name of the place Hormah. (4) And they journeyed from Hor the Mountain by the way of the Red Sea to go around the land of the Edomites: and the soul of the people was distressed on the way. (5) And the people spoke against the Memra of the Lord and murmured against Moses: “Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt to kill us in the wilderness? For we have neither bread to eat nor water to drink, and our soul is distressed by this bread, the nourishment of which is little.” (6) The Bath Qol came forth from the earth and its voice was heard on high: “Come, see, all you creatures; and come, give ear, all you sons of the flesh; the serpent was cursed from the beginning and I said to it: ‘Dust shall be your food.’ I brought my people up from the lands of Egypt and I had manna come down from heaven, and I made a well come up for them from the abyss, and I carried quail from the sea for them; and my people has turned to murmur before me concerning the manna, that its nourishment is little. The serpent which does not murmur concerning its food will come and rule over the people which has murmured concerning their food.” Wherefore the Lord let loose burning serpents among the people: and they bit the people and many people of Israel died. (7) And the people came to Moses and said: “We have sinned, for we have murmured against you. Pray before the Lord that he make the serpents pass from us.” And Moses prayed for the people. (8) And the Lord said to Moses: “Make a bronze serpent and set it on an elevated place; ; and if the serpent bit anyone, he used to look on the bronze serpent and live. (10) And the children of Israel (set out) and encamped in Oboth. (11) And they set out from Oboth and encamped in the Passes of the Hebrews, in the wilderness which is opposite the Moabites towards the sunrise. (12) They set out from there and encamped in the wadi of Zered. (13) They set out from there and encamped

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21

357

beyond the Arnon which is in the wilderness, which goes forth from the boundaries of the Amorites; for the Arnon is the boundary of the Moabites, between the Moabites and the Amorites. (14) For this reason written and explained in the Book of the Law of the Lord – which is compared to the Book of the Wars – are the wonders which the Lord wrought with Israel when they stood by the Red Sea, and the mighty deeds he worked with them when they crossed the wadis of the Arnon. (15) When Israel was crossing the wadis of the Arnon the Amorites hid themselves within the caves of the wadis of the Arnon, saying: “When the children of Israel are crossing we will go out against them and kill them.” But the master of all worlds, the Lord, who knows what is in the hearts, and before whom what is in the kidneys is manifest, made a signal; he signalled to the mountains and their summits were joined one to the other and crushed the heads of their heroes; and the torrents overflowed with their blood; but they did not know the wonders and mighty deeds that the Lord had wrought with them in the wadis (of the Arnon); and after that they were explained (to them), and they went to their places. Lahavath, the city that was not in their counsel, was spared; and behold it is near the boundaries of the Moabites. (16) And from there the well was given to them. This is the well of which the Lord said to Moses: “Gather the people together and I will give them water.” (17) Then Israel sung this song of praise: “Spring up, O well”, they sang to it; and it sprung up. (18) It is the well which the princes of the world, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, dug from the beginning; the intelligent ones of the people perfected it, the seventy sages who were distinguished; the scribes of Israel, Moses and Aaron measured it with their rods; and from the wilderness it was given to them (as) a gift. (19) And after the well had been given to them as a gift it went on to become for them swelling torrents; and after it had become swelling torrents, it went on to go up with them to the tops of the mountains and to go down with them to the deep valleys; (20) and after it had gone up with them to the tops of the high mountains and had gone down with them to the deep valleys, it was hidden from them in the valley which is at the boundaries of the Moabites, the top of the height which looks out opposite Beth Jeshimon. (21) And Israel sent messengers to Sihon, the king of the Amorites, saying: (22) “I would now pass through your land; we will not turn aside into fields or vineyards, nor will we drink water of the cisterns. We will walk on the King’s Highway until such time as we have passed through your territory.” (23) But Sihon did not permit Israel to pass through his territory and Sihon gathered together all his people and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and he came to Jahza and they waged war with Israel. (24) And Israel blotted him out at the edge of the sword and took possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, to the boundaries of the children of Ammon; for the boundaries of the sons of the Ammonites were strong.

358 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 (25) And Israel took all these cities and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon and in all its villages. (26) For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, and he had waged war with the first king of the Moabites and had taken the land from him as far as the Arnon. (27) For this reason the poets say: “Go into Heshbon; the city of Sihon has been constructed and perfected. (28) For a people of heroes burning like the fire have gone forth from Heshbon; fighting men have gone forth like the flame from the city of Sihon; they have blotted out Lehawwath of the Moabites (and slain the priests) who sacrificed before the bamoth of the Arnon. (29) Woe to you, Moabites!; the people that has sacrificed before the idol Kemosh has come to an end, has been blotted out; he has handed over their sons chained in neck-irons and their daughters in captivity to the king of the Amorites, Sihon. (30) And the kingdom has ceased for Heshbon and the dominion for Dibon, and its highways are desolated as far as the Fortress of Nephahayya which is near Madeba.” (31) And Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. (32) And Moses sent to spy out Jazer and they conquered its villages and blotted out the Amorites who were dwelling there. (33) And they went up towards Butnim; and Og, the king of Butnim, came out against them, he and all his people, to wage war at Edrei. (34) And it came to pass that when Moses saw Og the king of Butnim, he feared and trembled before him, and said: “Is not this Og who jeered at Abraham and Sarah, saying to them: Abraham and Sarah are like beautiful trees standing beside springs of water, but producing no fruit.” Because of this the Lord has preserved him alive until he saw their children and their children’s children; and he came and fell into their hands. And after this the Lord said to Moses: “Do not fear before him, for I have delivered him and all his people into your hand; and you shall do to him as you have done to Sihon, the king of the Amorites who dwelt in Heshbon.” (35) And they blotted out him and his sons and all his people until there was not a survivor left to him, and they possessed his land. 7.1 Notes on Translation of Neofiti Numbers 21 21:1

“(heard) that Aaron … had been removed”; the midrash is artificially inserted into the translation and breaks the syntax; the end of the translation (“that Israel …”) takes up naturally after the insertion. The inserted midrash is on the connection of the clouds of glory with Aaron and of the well with Miriam. The tradition linking the well with Miriam and the cloud with Aaron (and the manna with Moses), and the cessation of each with the death of the person in question, is very old, already clearly stated in LAB 20:8 (first century c.e.). See text in introduction (p. 352 above).

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21

359

21:1

“for whose merits”; ėĂĈăþĀ …; the Aramaic term can be understood as “for whose sake”, or “for whose merit”. Sometimes the Aramaic is to be rendered simply as “because of”. However, when there is reference to the patriarchs, or the mothers of Israel, it is probably to be rendered as “for whose merits”.

21:1

“had been removed”; (ė)ĔĉėĎý; lit.: “had been taken up”. Here it means “had departed”, “had died”.

21:1

“through which the spies had come up”; Hebrew Text: “(the way of) Atharim” (ĊĆĕėýāćĕĀ); a place name of unknown meaning. All the Targums (Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan; Neofiti, Fragment Targums VN, Neofiti margin) understand the Hebrew as derived from ĕĂė, “to seek out, spy out, explore”; likewise the Syriac and Vulgate (per exploratorum viam).

21:3

“(voice) of Israel’s prayer”. The explicit mention of divine response is in keeping with Neofiti’s style of translation.

21:5

“against the Memra of the Lord … Moses”; Hebrew Text: “against God and against Moses”.

21:5

“(our soul) is distressed”; Hebrew Text: “loathes” (āēĔ). Neofiti here, as in the other occurrences (Gen 27:46; Exod 1:12; Lev 20:22; Num 21:5; 22:3) translates Hebrew Text ĒĂĔ (“loath”) through the verb ĔĂď, “to be distressed”.

21:6

On the Bath Qol, or “heavenly voice”; for the tradition on the serpent, a study of this midrash, and its bearing on the New Testament see Maneschg, Erzählung, n. 22. A thorough examination of the manna tradition has been made by B. J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition: The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and its Relationship to the New Testament, Leiden 1968, 42–93 for “The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums”; 67–70 for Pal. Tg. Num 21:5–6. As regards v. 6, he notes (p. 68) that the (manna) haggadah there seems to be proper to the Palestinian Targum tradition. Its date would have to be that of the origin of these Targums, since there is no datable rabbinic tradition, to our knowledge, that might serve as a parallel. For a detailed literary and textual study of the midrash in Neof. Num 21:6, see B. B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 107–111 (see n. 25 above). He considers the opening four lines as rhymed, parallel stichs. The point of the midrash is that the snake of Genesis 3 will dominate the ungrateful people. God cursed the serpent of Genesis 3 but blessed his people through

360 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 the gift of the Exodus, the manna, the well and the quails. But while the serpent did not complain about dust being given it as its food, the people complain about the manna. Hence, the serpent will rule over the people. The midrash makes clear reference to other biblical texts: Gen 3:14 (Hebrew Text: “and dust shall you eat”) which it gives as paraphrased in Neofiti (and the Palestinian Targum except in Pseudo-Jonathan which is influenced by Onqelos); Num 11:26; Exod 16; 17:1 ff. There is a clear connection between the paraphrase of Gen 3:14 (“dust shall be your food”) here and Neof. Gen 3:14, whether by direct dependence of one on the other, or dependence of both on a common translation is less certain. The rendering of Gen 3:14 apart, significant linguistic differences have been noted between the bulk of this midrash, and Neofiti’s usual style. This may indicate that the midrash originated outside of the Neofiti tradition; see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 111. The gifts of food through manna, water and quails are also linked together in Exodus 16–17; Ps 78:20 ff. and 105:40–41. “Its voice was heard on high” seems to echo Jer 31:15. While the midrash is on the serpent (of Gen 3:14) ruling over Israel, it is linked with the central idea of Num 21:6, and it serves as an introduction to the narrative of the fiery serpents, even though these are not said to be “descendants” of, or related to, the serpent of the Genesis narrative. 21:7

“murmured”; Hebrew Text: “spoken”.

21:8

“a bronze serpent”; Hebrew Text: “a seraph”.

21:9

“(on) an elevated place”; Hebrew Text: Ďčā§ĉď; rsv: “on a pole”; Neofiti renders Ďč in Exod 17:15 as Ďč (“sign, miracles”), and in Num 26:10 as ČĂĆĎč, “a trial, a test”.

21:11

“Passes of the Hebrews”; Hebrew Text: ĊĆĕþďā ĆĆď; cf. Num 27:12; 33:44; Deut 32:49.

21:14

The Hebrew Text (rsv) has: “wherefore it is written in the Book of the Wars of the Lord: ‘Waheb in Shaphah, and the valleys of the Arnon, (15) and the slope of the valleys that extends to the seat of Ar, and leans to the borders of Moab’.”

21:14–15

Apart from the introductory words, these verses in the Hebrew Text are particularly difficult. None the less, from the central unity in the targumic renderings (Onqelos; Palestinian Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan) it appears that a targumic exegesis

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21

361

of the verses came into being very early. Verse 14 is rendered in the Revised Standard Version: “Wherefore it is written in the Book of the Wars of the Lord: ‘Waheb in Shaphah (āđĂĎþþāçėý) and the valleys of the Arnon’” (ČĂčĕýĊĆĉĄčāėýĂ). For a study of the Neofiti text, see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 112–115. In 21:14 we are moving more deeply into a feature of the Palestinian Targum treatment of Numbers 21, which is that the paraphrase is a free development of a deep understanding of the text and instead of being translated the underlying Hebrew Text is woven into free-flowing midrash. “Written and explained”, óĕđċĂþĆėĈ, or “explicitly written” (M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 51, taking the last word as coming from Ėĕđ [prs] 4, “to specify”). In Neofiti the paraphrase occurs generally to introduce a Scripture citation: Neof. Exod 28:17; Lev 22:27; see also Deut 27:8. (A related formula is: ĕċýĂ óĕđċāþėĈČĈĀ, “for Scripture specifically says”, Frg. Tg. Gen 35:9.) “The Book” of the Hebrew Text is identified in Neofiti (and Palestinian Targum) as “the Book of the Law of the Lord”. The Hebrew Text ĕđĎ āĂāĆėĂċĄĉċ is generally taken by scholars today as one phrase: the Book of the Wars of the Lord. The targumic traditions seem to have taken “book” as in the absolute case, and the wars of the Lord as the book’s content; cf. Onqelos: “the Book concerning the Wars”; for the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti, Fragment Targum) these wars are the wonders of “Suph” and “Arnon”, Suph being understood as “ the Sea of Suph”, i.e. of Reeds, and Arnon as the River Arnon. Thus also Onqelos and the Vulgate. The Palestinian Targum tradition (Neofiti, Fragment Targums PV) and also Onqelos, omit þāçėý of the Hebrew Text. 21:15

In v. 15 we move more deeply still into the characteristic texture of Neof. (Pal. Tg.) Numbers 21, with the underlying Hebrew Text scarcely recognisable in the paraphrase. At first sight the Targum in v. 15 would seem to have little connection with the Hebrew Text. The contact with the Hebrew is probably to be found towards the end: “and the torrents overflowed with their blood”. Behind this probably lies ĊĆĉĄčāĀóýĂ of the Hebrew Text, rendered in the Revised Standard Version as “and the slope of the valleys”. The Hebrew Text word Āóý is understood through the Aramaic root Āóý, “pour out” (cf. Neof. mg. Deut 24:6; ėĂĀóý, “shedding” [innocent blood]) and rendered ĐąĖ (stp): “the wadis were awash with their blood” (Sokoloff, Dic-

362 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 tionary, 545). Onqelos understood the Hebrew Text in the same manner: “and the flowing (ćĂđó) of the streams”, but not in the sense of shedding blood, as Neofiti (and the Palestinian Targum) does. Ar of the Hebrew Text (ĕďėþóĉāąč; rsv: “that extends to the seat of Ar”), is taken to be Ar Moab, a natural understanding in this context. Ar Moab of Deut 2:9, 29, and Aroer of Deut 2:36; 4:48 are rendered in Neofiti (and the Palestinian Targum) as Lehayyath (ėĆĄĉ, ėĆĆĄĉ) Moab, as is Ar of Num 21:15, 28. It is also so rendered in Onq. Num 21:15, 28. Lehayyath seems to be a place name. Its root meaning is uncertain. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, New York 1950, 702–703, s.v., gives as meaning, “palisades, in general fortresses”, instancing Tg. Esth 9:27. (Likewise B. B. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, vol. 1, Leipzig 1867, 408.) The word is not registered in Sokoloff, Dictionary. The Hebrew Text ČďóčĂ þýĂċĉĂþÿĉ (rsv: “and extends to the borders of Moab”) is rendered “and behold it is near the boundaries of the Moabites”. In keeping with this basic paraphrase of the verse, Neofiti (and the other Palestinian Targum texts) insert a midrash on miracles believed to be worked for the Israelites when crossing the Arnon, a tradition found in other Jewish (and also in Christian) texts. See also Num 21:24, 26, 28, 36; Deuteronomy 2. 21:16–20

This is a midrash on the well that was believed to have followed the Israelites during the desert wanderings. It is inserted into the present context and developed especially through the interpretation of place names as common names, beginning with the place-name Beer (meaning well) in v. 16. While the greater part of vv. 16–17 is translated, very little of the original of vv. 18, 19, 20a remains unchanged. In this v. 19 in particular represents a further stage in the transformation of the original Hebrew in the interests of midrash, already in evidence in earlier verses. The Palestinian Targum paraphrase is for the greater part found also in Onqelos, in Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities (see text in introduction above, pp. 352–353), and the Tosefta, all evidence of the early date of its composition.

21:16

Verse 16 in the Hebrew Text reads: “And from there to Beer”, a Hebrew word meaning well. Onqelos (and Pseudo-Jonathan) understand as Neofiti and the Palestinian Targum: “At that time the well was given to them”. See G. Vermes, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum”, JJS 8 (1963), 159–169, reproduced in

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21

363

G. Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (StJLA 8), Leiden 1975, 127–138. 21:17

“song of praise”, Neofiti’s usual translation of (ā)ĕĆó of the Hebrew Text; also in Neof. Exod 15:1; Deut 31:19, 22, 32, 34. (Ąþó āėĕĆó, “praise of [this] song”). There is a different rendering, however, in Neof. Deut 21:30.

21:17

“and it sprung up”; an addition in Neofiti.

21:18

The Hebrew Text (rsv) has: “The well which the princes, which the nobles of the people delved, with the sceptre (MT: ĔĔĄċþ, bim oqeq) and with their staves. And from the wilderness (they went on to) Mattanah.” In the Palestinian Targum midrash the princes of the Hebrew Text are understood as the patriarchs and the nobles as the sages. Hebrew Text ĔĔĄċ is taken as deriving from ĔĄ, “statute”, and rendered as “scribe”; so also in the other two occurrences of the word, in Gen 49:10 and Deut 33:21. Onqelos is similar, Num 21:18: “the leaders of the people dug, the scribes with their staffs”. There is a similar interpretation in the Damascus Document (CD V 1:7): “the Mehoqeq is the interpreter of the Torah”; see Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 45–55.

21:18b–19 “(And from the wilderness) it was given to them (as) a gift …”. The Hebrew Text has a series of place names: “And from the wilderness (to) Mattanah. And from Mattanah to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth.” As already noted in the introduction (p. 353), the paraphrase of the place names of Num 21:18b–19 in the light of the well midrash is found already in Biblical Antiquities (LAB 10:7): “for forty years he brought forth a well of water to follow them”; 11:15: “And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains.” So also Onq. Num 21:19: “Now since it was given to them, it went down with them to the valleys, and from the valleys it went up with them to the high country.” The paraphrase of Num 21:19 is also found in Tosefta, t. Sukka 3:11: “travelling with them up the mountains and going down with them to the valleys”, going on to cite Num 21:18 in Hebrew. On 21:19–20 see also Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 117–188. 21:20

The Hebrew Text (nrsv) has: “And from Bamoth to the valley lying in the region of Moab by the top of Pisqah which over-

364 Chapter 14: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 21 looks the wasteland” (rsv: “… which looks down upon the desert”, ČċĆóĆā). The paraphrase in Neofiti (and in the Palestinian Targum) continues the description of the well of v. 19 and again treats the biblical narrative rather freely, in the overall interest of the midrash which is to give a rather full account of the well and insert it here by reason of the occurence of the name Beer in 21:16. In one tradition the well (“Miriam’s well”) ceased to come up at the death of Miriam which occurred at Kadesh (i.e. Reqem; i.e. Petra) (Num 20:1), while here its disappearance is said to have been at the boundaries of the Moabites. 21:22

“of the cisterns”, ČĆþĂÿ as in 20:17; Hebrew Text: “from a well”.

21:24

“boundaries”, ČĂāĆċĂĄė (instead of ČĂāċĂĄė), plural; Hebrew Text, singular. This is one of the many instances in Neofiti in which the letter yod is probably intended to indicate a vocalic shewa. An aleph is used for the same purpose in Neof. Gen 26:1.

21:25

“villages”; Hebrew Text, lit.: “daughters”.

21:26

“king of the Moabites”, ĥĀČĂāĆĈĉċ, or lit.: “kings (of the Moabites, ĆĆþýĂċĀČĂāĆĈĉċ). As in 21:24 (see note) the yod merely denotes a vocalic shewa.

21:27

“poets”, āĆĆĉėċ, also in Fragment Targums VN; Hebrew Text: ĊĆĉóċ (rsv: “ballad singers”).

21:28

“a people of heroes … like the fire; fighting men … like the flame”. “Fire” and “flame” of the Hebrew Text are taken as symbols for warriors.

21:28

“blotted out Lehawwath”; Hebrew Text: “it devoured Ar of Moab”. As in 21:15, in Fragment Targums PVN and Neofiti margin, we should probably read “Lehayyath”. See note to 21:15.

21:28

“slain the priests … bamoth”, Hebrew Text: “the lords of the heights of the Arnon”, the “heights”, ėĂċþ, being understood as the cultic high places, and “the lords” their priests. The words “and slain the priests” have been erased by the censor, because the word āĆĕċĂĈ means “priest” in the pejorative sense (of idols, etc.)

21:29

“chained in neck-irons”, ýĆĕĉĂĔ; a Greek or Latin loan word (Ĕęĕĕƪěēęė, collare); Hebrew Text: “he has made his sons fugitives”. There is a similar understanding in Onqelos.

7. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 21

365

21:29

“king of …”, ĆĆĕĂċýĀ ČĂāĆĈĉċ. Here again the letter yod is intended to indicate a vocalic shewa; see 21:24.

21:30

“the kingdom has ceased”, etc. In the Hebrew Text v. 30 (ĊĕĆčĂ ýþĀĆċ§ĀďĕóýĄđč§ĀďĊĆÖčĂČĂþĆĀ§ĀďČĂþóĄĀþý) has a number of obscurities, and has been variously understood and rendered. Neofiti takes ĊĕĆč (? “we have shot at them”) as deriving from ĕĆč, in Aramaic, “a yoke”, but apparently as a symbol of royalty. It joins ČĂþóĄ (“Heshbon”) with this and gives its translation a poetic symmetry. Onqelos understands here as Neofiti: “royalty has ceased at Heshbon”. Neofiti inserts ČĂąĉóĂ, “dominion”, for poetic balance (ĂĈĉċ and ČĂąĉó, ąĆĉóĂćĉċ often occurring as a pair in Neofiti). See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 119–120. In general Onqelos for this verse is in the same interpretative tradition, but keeps closer to the underlying Hebrew Text.

21:30

Neofiti understands ĊĆÖčĂ (rsv, margin, “we have laid waste”), as derived from Ċċó, “to lay waste”, and expands by inserting as subject “its highways”. Onqelos understands in a similar manner: “and desolation was laid”.

21:31

“The Fortress of Nephahayya”; Masoretic Text: “Nophah”. The names occur only here in the Hebrew Text and Targums. Possibly Neofiti is a mere transformation of the Hebrew Text name, and is not intended as an actual identification. Onqelos has: “Nophah”.

21:33

Butnim; (written ČĆčėþ, and ČĆčėĂþ): Hebrew Text: Bashan; in Neof. Num 32:33 ČĆčėĂċ. The regular rendering of Bashan in Neofiti (apart from Num 32:33) is ČĆčėĂþ (Num 21:33; Deut 1:4; 3:3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14; 11:43; 29:6) or ČĆĆčėĂþ (Num 34:15; Deut 3:1; 4:47; 33:2; ĆĆčėþĆčþ in Deut 32:14). It is rendered Batnin in the Samaritan Targum; as Matnan in Onqelos, and as Matnin in the Syriac. See note on Onqelos Num 21:31 in B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington 1988, 129, with reference for the place names to D. Raphael, “Geographic Names and Names for Nations in Targum Onqelos”, Beth Miqra 96 (1983), 73 (in Hebrew). See also McNamara, Targum and Testament, 192; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 290.

Chapter 15

Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1): Numbers Chapter 24*

1. The Palestinian Targum in Recent Study The Targums (Jewish Aramaic Versions of the Hebrew Bible) have been the subject of intense research over the recent decades. Most aspects of these writings have been attended to: text, versions, affiliations, transmission history, later influence. For Christians, there has traditionally been a deeper interest in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch than in the others, arising mainly from a belief that this particular tradition represents the translation of the Torah used in Palestine in the first Christian century. In more recent years there has been less use of these Targums in New Testament studies because of the serious objections raised against the presumed early date assigned to them. This date of origin is now generally regarded as too uncertain to warrant use of them in New Testament studies. Prevailing positions call for periodic revision. Leaving aside the question of the form of the Aramaic language in which the Palestinian Targums have come down to us (which is accepted by scholars as later than the first century of our era), the interpretative tradition in these Targums merits consideration. Contemporary studies make us ever more aware of the variety of scriptural interpretation in first-century Palestine. The exegetical tradition of the Palestinian Targums should be examined in the light of this diversity. Recently when studying the traditions of the Palestinian Targum of Numbers I was particularly impressed by the close manner in which some of its traditions (noticeably those on the manna, the cloud of glory and the well following the Israelites in the desert) were paralleled in the Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) of Pseudo-Philo.1 This is generally taken to be a work of the first century c.e., one which may reflect the

* First published, under the same title, in PIBA 16 (1993), 57–79. 1 M. McNamara, “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) Numbers Chapter 21”, in SNTU 16 (1991), 127–149 (above pp. 344–365).

2. Biblical Interpretation among the Zealots

367

milieu of the Palestinian synagogues at the turn of the common era.2 The relationship with the early Jewish traditions is particularly close with regard to the paraphrase in the Palestinian Targum of Numbers 21, studied in the preceding chapter. I study the paraphrase of Numbers 24 here because of the possible relationship of the understanding of this chapter with the Zealot movement and the revolt against Rome in 66–70 c.e.

2. Biblical Interpretation among the Zealots With the formation of a canon of Scripture, and the practical cessation of prophecy, in the late Second Temple period the Bible itself, the written word of God, was regarded as predictive prophecy.3 This seems to be clearly the case in 1 Macc 3:48, where we read that at Mizpah Judas Maccabee and his brothers unrolled the book of the law to inquire into the matters about which the Gentiles were consulting their idols.4 The Maccabees appear to have believed they were fighting a holy war and turned to the relevant texts of the law of Moses for their inspiration and model. The Zealots belonged to the same tradition, and it would appear that they too had ‘charismatic’, eschatological interpretation of Scripture as divine oracles. According to Josephus (War 6.5.4, §§ 312–313) among the main causes of the 66–70 c.e. rebellion against Rome stood: “an ambiguous oracular pronouncement, which had also been found in the sacred writings5 that at about that time one from their own country would be given command over the world. The Jews took this to refer to themselves in particular and many of their wise men erred in their interpretation. This oracle, however, referred to the assumption of power by Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.”

The Jewish belief in the existence of this oracle, and the conviction that it was to be realised at that particular point in time, must have been widespread, since it is also found in the Roman historians Tacitus (Histories 5.13) and Suetonius (Vespasian 4:5). Both of these appear to have come to know of it from sources other than Josephus. Tacitus writes of the Jews at this revolt: 2 See D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP, 299–377, at 299–300. 3 See M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983, esp. 62–64. 4 ĔċƯ őĘďĚƬĞċĝċė ĞƱ ČēČĕưęė ĞęȘ ėƲĖęğ Ơė őĘđěďƴėģė ĞƩ ŕĒėđ ĞƩ žĖęēƶĖċĞċ Ğȥė ďŭĎƶĕģėċƉĞȥė. In M. Hengel’s words (The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movements in the Period from Herod I until 70 a.d., Edinburgh 1989), 272): “Judas and his brothers fasted and put on sackcloth and consulted Holy Scripture as an oracle, as the Urim and Thummim had been consulted in the past.” 5 ţėġěđĝĖƱĜŁĖĠưČęĕęĜžĖęưģĜőėĞęȉĜŮďěęȉĜďƊěđĖƬėęĜčěƪĖĖċĝēė …

368 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 “Most people held the belief that according to the ancient priestly writings, this was the moment at which the east was fated to prevail; they would now start forth from Judea and conquer the world. The enigmatic prophecy really applied to Vespasian and Titus. But men are blinded by their hopes. The Jews took to themselves the promised destiny, and even defeat could not convince them of the truth.”6

Suetonius writes in a similar vein: “An ancient superstition was current in the east, that out of Judea at this time would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves, murdered their Governor, routed the Governor of Syria when he came down to restore order, and captured an Eagle.”7

It seems that the text on which the expectation was based was a biblical one; by Josephus’ words őėĞęȉĜŮďěęȉĜ…čěƪĖĖċĝēė (Tacitus: “antiquis sacerdotum litteris”) the Bible seems intended. From all three texts cited above, it can be presumed that the particular prophecy was widely known before the war in Zealot circles and was disseminated by them among the people in order to gain popular support for the war against Rome.8 What precisely this biblical text was is a matter of debate among scholars. There are two texts that come in for consideration, Dan 7:13–14 on the Son of Man, and Numbers 24, particularly Balaam’s fourth and last oracle in 24:17–24 (on the Star to arise out of Jacob). Most scholars seem to have accepted that Dan 7:13–14 was the oracular text in question.9 In favour of this position the known influence of the Book of Daniel on Hasidic and Zealot circles could be adduced. It might also be argued that the belief that the precise time for fulfilment had arrived might have arisen by the combination of the Son of Man passage (Dan 7:13–14) with the later one on the Seventy Weeks of Years of Dan 9:24–27.10 As against this, however, it must be observed that there is no clear evidence that by 70 c.e. the Son of Man had then been understood as referring to an individual, rather than a collectivity (the saints of the Most High; the people of the saints of the Most High). A more serious difficulty 6 Tacitus, Histories 5.13: “pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur, quae ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerat, sed vulgus more humanae cupidinis sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati ne adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur.” 7 Suetonius, Vespasian 4:5: “percrebruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatore Romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt.” 8 See Hengel, The Zealots, 238. 9 See works noted in Hengel, The Zealots, 238, n. 48. 10 Thus in (H. Strack &) P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 4, Munich 1928, 1001–1002: “The struggle with Rome was accepted because the end of the seventy weeks of years was thought to be approaching and because the Son of Man ‘who would rule the kingdom of the world’ (Dan 7.13 ff.), that is, the Messiah, was imminently expected” (cited in Hengel, The Zealots, 238).

3. Balaam in the Bible and Post-Biblical Jewish Literature

369

with the texts of Daniel is that in Daniel the (One like) the Son of Man and the kingdom are said to come from heaven, not to arise from this earth, whereas according to the oracle as given by Josephus and the other texts the person in question is someone (ĞēĜ) from the country of the Jews. If the oracle in question was really a biblical text, it is much more probable that the passage in question was the second option, the Balaam oracle, in particular Num 24:17 on the Star to arise from Jacob. This is the text favoured by M. Hengel11 and seems to best suit the evidence. We may note how in this text the Star from Jacob first dispossesses the nations surrounding Israel, including Edom (24:18) and proceeds to the destruction of other enemies of Israel (24:24). It remains for us to examine the manner in which the Balaam story is presented in the Bible and in post-biblical Jewish interpretation.

3. Balaam in the Bible and Post-Biblical Jewish Literature There is a very richly developed post-biblical Jewish tradition with regard to Balaam, found particularly in Philo, Josephus, in Pseudo-Philo’s Jewish Antiquities, in the Palestinian Targums and rabbinic tradition.12 In the biblical narratives we have at least two presentations of the figure of Balaam, one hostile, the other less so (if not quite positive). According to Num 31:8 and Josh 13:22 the Israelites killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. He had given evil counsel to Balak (Num 31:16). See also Deut 23:5–6; Neh 13:2; Josh 24:9–10. In the narratives of Numbers 22–24 Balaam’s counsel is not censured. The rabbinic and targumic traditions present Balaam in a negative light, interpreting the main biblical narrative in the light of Num 31:8, 16.13 This negative presentation is what we find in Philo, Life of Moses 1.48–54 (§§ 263–293), an indication of the antiquity of the targumic and rabbinic tradition. Curiously enough, it is not that followed by Josephus,

11

M. Hengel, The Zealots, 239–240. This tradition has been examined in detail by G. Vermes: “Deux traditions sur Balaam  – Nombres xxii. 2–21 et ses interprétations midrashiques”, Cahiers Sioniens 9 (1955), 289–302, and more fully (Numbers 22–24) in “The Story of Balaam”, in idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), Leiden 1961, 127–177; 2nd rev. edition 1973. Later studies are indicated in the next note. 13 For a summary of the rabbinic evidence see K. G. Kuhn, “Balaam”, TDNT 1 (1964), 524–525; also P. Billerbeck, Kommentar, vol. 3, 777 (on 2 Pet 2:15), 793 (on Rev 2:14). For the larger question see J. T. Greene, Balaam and his Interpreters: A Hermeneutical History of the Balaam Traditions, Atlanta 1992; J. R. Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (BJS 47), Chico 1983, 75–113, nn. 153–165: “Balaam Prophet of the Nations”. 12

370 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 Ant. 4.6.1–6, §§ 100–12614 or Pseudo-Philo,15 both of whom (particularly the latter) present Balaam as a noble character. We shall return to these individual writers below.

4. The Balaam Oracles in the Dead Sea Scrolls Scholars are today cautious about speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls as if they represented a single tradition. There are probably a number of Jewish exegetical and religious traditions present in these scrolls. The oracle on the Star to arise from Jacob (Num 24:17) is cited in at least three of these Qumran texts. It is quoted in the Damascus Document (CD 7:9–21)16 (ca. 100 b.c.e.?) which identifies the Star as the interpreter of the Law (the priestly Messiah?) and the Sceptre as “Prince of the whole congregation”, presumably the Messiah of Israel, a kingly figure. Num 24:15–17 is also one of the texts in the Qumran Messianic Anthology or Testimonia (4Q175), composed in the early first century b.c.e.17 Num 24:17–19 is cited as part of the battle liturgy in The War Scroll (1QM, 4QM), col. XI, 6–7 (ca. 10 b.c.e.–10 c.e.):18 “Truly the battle is thine and the power is from Thee! It is not ours. … This Thou hast taught us from ancient times, saying, A star shall come out of Jacob … The enemy shall be his possession and Israel shall accomplish mighty deeds.” With these texts from Qumran we may also mention the related works with a similar use of Num 24:17, namely the Testament of Juda 24:1 and the Testament of Levi 18:3.19 14

See also n. 29 below. According to LAB 17:4, on receiving Balak’s embassy Balaam prays to God: “And now enlighten your servant if it be right to go forth with them.” D. Harrington (in OTP 2, 325) notes on this that Balaam’s reply here puts him in a more favourable light than he receives in the Old Testament. Similarly Vermes (Scripture and Tradition, 174). As we shall see further below, “the Balaam of Ps.-Philo is hardly recognisable as the same person” as portrayed in Josephus, Philo and the relevant New Testament passages. In Vermes’ opinion Josephus only minimises Balaam’s wickedness slightly. Otherwise, with Philo, he shows the same general bias as that found in the rest of Palestinian tradition and in the New Testament. 16 For a study of this section of CD see H. Kosmala, “Damascus Document, 7:9–21”, in Essays in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of E. L. Sukenik, Jerusalem 1961, 183–190. The text in translation is in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 3rd edition, Sheffield 1987, 89; 4th edition, Sheffield 1995, 103. 17 Translation in Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 295; 4th edition, 355–356. 18 English translation in Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 116; 4th edition, 136. 19 See English translation of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by H. Kee in OTP 1, 794 for Testament of Levi 18:3 (with note b); 801 for Testament of Judah 24:1 (with note). 15

5. The Balaam Oracles in Philo Judaeus

371

5. The Balaam Oracles in Philo Judaeus Philo Judaeus (ca. 20 b.c.e.–50 c.e.) in his Life of Moses retells the narrative of the section of the Book of Numbers from the sending of the scouts to reconnoitre Canaan (Numbers 13) onwards (Vita Mosis 1.40–60, §§ 220– 334). Within this he covers the Balaam narrative at some length (48–53, §§ 263–294), followed by Balaam’s advice on how Israel could be seduced through the Midianite women (54–57, §§ 295–314). Philo ends his section on Balaam with the prophet’s third oracle (Num 24:4–9), given in keeping with the Septuagint version which Philo is following: “What, then, said the man who saw truly, who in his sleep saw a clear vision of God with the ever open and sleepless eyes of his soul? ‘How goodly are your abodes, O army of Hebrews; thy tents are shady as groves, as a paradise on the bank of a river, as a cedar by the waters. (24:7) A man shall hereafter come forth out of thee who shall rule over many nations, and his kingdom shall increase every day and be raised up to heaven. The people has God for its guide all the way from Egypt, who leads on their multitudes in one line. Therefore they shall devour many nations of their enemies, and they shall take all their fat as far as their very marrow, and shall destroy their enemies with their far-shooting arrows. He shall lie down to rest like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp fearing no one, and causing fear to all other nations. Miserable is he who shall rouse up and fear his anger. Blessed are they who bless thee and cursed are they who curse thee.’” (Vita Mosis 1.52, §§ 289–291)

The text goes on to give the biblical account (Num 24:10–14) of Balak’s expression of disappointment with Balaam, and Balaam’s decision to return to his own people, followed by his advice on how Israel could be seduced. Nothing is said on the final oracle of Balaam, with its reference to the Star to arise from Jacob (Num 24:14–24). Num 24:7 in the Hebrew Text reads: “Water shall flow from his buckets and his seed shall be in many waters, his king shall be mightier than Agag and his kingdom shall be exalted.” The verse is paraphrased messianically in all ancient versions with the exception of the Vulgate.20 The Septuagint renders v. 7a as follows: “And there shall come a man (ŅėĒěģĚęĜ) out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations.” Philo cites the opening words of the Septuagint rendering again in De praemiis et poenis 15 (95) and comments, but not in a militaristic sense: “‘For there shall come forth a man’ (Num 24:7) says the oracle, and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations, because God has sent to his aid the reinforcements which befit the godly, and that is dauntless courage of soul and powerful strength of body, either of which strikes fear into the enemy, and the two if united are quite irresistible.” 20

See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 159–161.

372 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 It has been noted that the messianic figure of this passage of Philo does not battle non-Jews but “some fanatics whose lust for war defies restraint or remonstrance” (De praemiis et poenis 94).21 Philo’s messianism cannot be taken as identical with what may be regarded as typical of Palestine of his own time or later in that century.22

6. The Book of Numbers and Balaam in Pseudo-Philo Pseudo-Philo’s retelling of the biblical narrative has some traditions very similar to the paraphrase of the Palestinian Targum, especially with regard to the sacrifice of Isaac, the gifts of the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna given to Israel on account of Miriam, Aaron and Moses. In LAB 14:1–19:1 Pseudo-Philo gives us his rewriting of the biblical narrative of the Book of Numbers. When he deviates from the biblical text his paraphrase is not always that of the Palestinian Targum, and the affiliations of his paraphrase have not as yet been ascertained. This is but one example of the variety of interpretative tradition of first-century Palestine. Almost half of what Pseudo-Philo devotes to retelling the story of the Book of Numbers is given over to Balaam, whom he presents in a positive light, as has already been noted. In his comparative study of the story of Balaam, Vermes23 observes that the Balaam of Pseudo-Philo is hardly recognisable as the same person we encounter in the interpretations of Philo, in the rest of rabbinic tradition, in the New Testament, and indeed in the general thrust of Josephus’ presentation who is seen by Vermes as minimising Balaam’s wickedness only slightly. In Pseudo-Philo, unlike the other texts, Balaam does not hate Israel, has no passion for money, and feels no special sympathy with the cause of Moab. His only desire is to do the will of God. Pseudo-Philo’s interpretation is not due to his unacquaintance with the Palestinian tradition, but a deliberate refusal to follow it.24 Vermes notes that it is enough to discard Numbers 31 of the biblical narrative to see in Balaam a 21 See R. D. Hecht, “Philo and Messiah”, in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. by J. Neusner et al., Cambridge & New York 1987, 139–168, at 147, with reference to J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, New York 1983, 115. 22 On this point see S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction, New York & Oxford 1979, 109–110: “The absence of a personal Messiah is the greatest distinction between Philo’s messianic thought and the attendant range of views which became part of rabbinic Judaism. There is no echo in Philo of the messiah as a son of David, of a great universal judgment day, or of resurrection. One might put it that Philo has a vision of a future messianic age, but completely without a messiah.” 23 Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 174–176. 24 Ibid., 175.

7. The Balaam Oracles in Josephus

373

personality very similar to the tragic hero of the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Pseudo-Philo, obeying his usual inclination towards tragedy merely brings into relief the underlying pathos of the biblical account.25 Unfortunately for our purpose here, Pseudo-Philo’s treatment of Balaam’s oracles ends with the third (at Num 24:11), after which he goes on to give Balaam’s advice to Balak to lead Israel astray through fornication (see Num 31:15). He has omitted the section on the Star to arise from Jacob.

7. The Balaam Oracles in Josephus What the personal views of Josephus Flavius (ca. 37–ca. 100 c.e.) on messianism or the future of his people were is hard to determine.26 As already noted, he knew of the oracle that in his view spurred on the Zealots to the war against Rome, an oracle he believed was fulfilled in Vespasian. He narrates the various liberation or messianic movements. As an historian he retells the biblical narratives which for others would have been regarded as messianic oracles. He gives us the contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of Daniel 2 (which he dates as two years after Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Egypt), and Daniel’s explanation of this, omitting what Daniel had to say on the stone not cut by human hands, since in Josephus’s view this was a prophecy still to be fulfilled.27 He speaks of Daniel’s prophecies, and expands on Daniel 8, and the destruction to come upon Israel. He sees it fulfilled through Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans, with obvious reference to the events of 70 c.e.28 This destruction by Antiochus and the Romans is seen by Josephus as demonstrating God’s providence. While Josephus stresses the accuracy of Daniel’s predictions, he makes no mention of the Son of Man text (Daniel 7) nor of the Seventy Weeks of Years, nor of any use that might have been made of them by the Zealots.

25

Ibid., 176. See also Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors, 100. On this see M.-J. Lagrange, Le messianisme chez les Juifs (150 av. J.-C. à 200 ap. J.-C.), Paris 1909, 1–27 (“Le messianisme en action d’après Josèphe”), esp. 5–7. 27 Ant. 10.10.4, § 210: “Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king; but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or things present, but not things that are future: yet if anyone be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to waive such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for understanding the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings.” 28 Ant. 10.11.7, §§ 269–276. See F. F. Bruce, “Josephus and Daniel”, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), 148–162; H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7), Missoula 1976, 103, and n. 1. 26

374 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 Josephus retells the Balaam story (Ant. 4.6.1–6, §§ 100–130). He looks on Balaam, as already noted, in a positive light.29 A central interest of Josephus in his retelling of these oracles seems to be his own doctrine of divine providence, a theme he introduces at the beginning of the first oracle (Ant. 4.6.4, § 114) and mentions again at Balaam’s departure (Ant. 4.6.6, § 128), Josephus only takes us to Num 23:14. He omits the remainder, which contains the passage which interests us, although he develops the section on the seduction of the Midianite women at length.30 The nearest he comes to a treatment of Num 24:7–24 is the summary he gives of Balaam’s oracles in Ant. 4.6.5, § 125: “Instead, falling upon his face, he foretold what calamities were to come for kings and what for cities of the highest celebrity (of which some had not yet so much as been inhabited at all), along with other events which have already befallen men in by-gone ages, by land or sea, down to times within my memory. And from all these prophecies having received the fulfilment which he predicted one may infer what the future also has in store.”

Josephus, thus, provides no evidence as to how the Zealots or other Jews of Palestine understood the oracles of the Book of Daniel or of Num 24:17–24.

8. Balaam in Rabbinic Judaism and in the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch The Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch is generally regarded as part of the legacy of Rabbinic Judaism, and rightly so. It has been regarded as its own by this rabbinic tradition and has been transmitted by the rabbis. Studies of the figure of Balaam in earlier (tannaitic) and later (amoraic) Rabbinic Judaism have shown that Balaam is universally regarded in a negative light. The older account of Numbers 22–24 has been interpreted in the light of Num 31:16. In this tradition he is regarded as having enticed Israel into licentiousness and apostasy. He was the “Villain”, the wrongdoer par excel-

29

Thus Kuhn, “Balaam”, TDNT 1 (1964), 524, who remarks that as against the portraits of Balaam in later Judaism and Philo, “Josephus is more restrained in his judgment (Ant. 4,100–158). He does not censure him in respect of his counsel (Nu. 31:16). He stresses all the favourable aspects and either ignores or quickly passes over the rest. Josephus must have had some interest in putting him in the best possible light”. Vermes (Scripture and Tradition, 174) takes a different view of Josephus’ presentation of Balaam: Josephus minimises Balaam’s wickedness slightly, by imputing his wrongs to a desire to please Balak, but apart from these specific slants, both Vita Mosis and Jewish Antiquities, show the same general bias as that found in the rest of the Palestinian tradition and in the New Testament. 30 See Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 74, 126–132 for treatment of the seduction section.

9. Numbers 24 in the Palestinian Targums

375

lence; he was envious and malicious, proud, covetous; full of hypocrisy and deceit; sexually depraved; having no place in the world to come.31 So unfavourable is the rabbinic portrait of Balaam that some scholars have suggested that more lies behind the obloquy than the mere castigation of a biblical villain.32 A view finding support in the nineteenth century was that the rabbinic criticisms of Balaam were often meant to refer to Jesus. More recent scholarship has disagreed with this particular theory. Some more recent Jewish scholars believe that the portrait painted of Balaam reflects the rabbis’ opinions of “foreign prophets”, both pagan and Christian. Their words would in part be directed against the Christian theologians and teachers, who presented Balaam as a prophet of Christ. If this is so, Balaam in rabbinic tradition is an ‘ideal type’, the bearer of a message, just as in Pseudo-Philo he is presented as a tragic figure and in Josephus is made the vehicle for a teaching on divine providence. Such a presentation of the evidence on Balaam as an ideal figure, and bearer of a particular message, does not take from the antiquity of the tradition which each individual writer (Josephus, Pseudo-Philo) or group (the rabbis) is remoulding. The antiquity of the tradition with a negative portrait of Balaam seems well attested for New Testament times by the evidence of Josephus, Philo and the New Testament writings. The rabbis would only have further remoulded an early tradition. We are, thus, permitted to regard the Palestinian Targum tradition enshrined in the paraphrase of Numbers 22–24 as basically old, even though the date to be assigned to any particular element within it would need individual examination.

9. Numbers 24 in the Palestinian Targums The Palestinian Targum tradition for Numbers 22–24 is best represented in the Vatican manuscript Codex Neofiti 1. This same tradition (with variants) is also attested in glosses to Neofiti 1, in the texts of the Fragment Targums (in the manuscripts given the sigla PVNL), in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, in citations in Targum dictionaries such as the Aruk of Rabbi Nathan and the Meturgeman of Elias Levita. Some of the tradition is also found in the Targum of Onqelos. Our present study concerns Numbers 24. The early character of a large part of this is attested by the tradition found in the Greek translation (the Septuagint), Philo, Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. With regard to the central 31 See summary in Kuhn, “Balaam”, TDNT 1 (1964), 524; Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors, 89–91. 32 See Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors, 91–93.

376 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 oracle on the Star to arise out of Jacob, none of these three first-century c.e. writers are of help, since they omit treatment of this part of the biblical text. However, the Qumran manuscripts indicate that this particular oracle was of interest to at least one section of Jewish tradition, and part of this tradition as found in the War Scroll (1QM, 4QM) leads us to the Zealots, and the “ambiguous oracle” found in the sacred writings. As an appendix to this chapter I here present the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Numbers 24 as found in Codex Neofiti 1, with the variants of the other texts, and also some notes on the Targum text.

10. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 24 (Paraphrase which adds to or alters the Hebrew Text is indicted by italics)

“(1) And Balaam saw that it was good before the Lord to bless Israel, and he did not go towards diviners as he used to go on every occasion, to consult through ghosts,a but he went and set his face towards the desert and recalled for them the affair of the calf.b (2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel encamped in its formations. And a holy spiritc from before the Lord came upon him. (3) And he took up his prophecy in parabolic discoursed and said: ‘Says Balaam, the son of Peore; saysf the man who is more honourable than his father:g what has been hidden from all the prophetsh has been revealed to him. (4)  The utterance of one who has heard a Memrai from before the Lord Most High, of the one who saw a vision of Shaddai. And when he used to see,j he used to prostrate himself upon his face and the mysteries of prophecy were revealed to him. And he prophesied concerning himself, that he would fall by the sword; and his prophecy was eventuallyk to be fulfilled. (5) How beautifulm are the tents of the house of Jacob,n for the merit of the tents in which Israel your fathero resided! What good things and what consolations is his Memra to bring upon you who arep of the house of Jacob, for the merit of the school housesq in which Israel your fathero served! How beautiful is the tent of meeting which encamps among you who are of the house of Jacob;p and tents are round about it, (you) of the house of Israel.r (6)  Like overflowing torrents, sos shall Israel overflow on your enemies.t Like gardens planted beside sources of water, so shallu their cities be producing sages and sons of the Law. Like the heavens w as the house of his Shekinah,x so shall Israel live and endure for ever beautiful and praised, and like the water cedars, praised and exalted among his creatures.y (7)  Their kingz shall rise up from among them and their redeemeraa shall be from them(selves).bb He shall gather their exiles for them from the provinces of their enemies, and his childrencc shall rule over

10. Text of Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 24

377

many nations.dd He shall be stronger than Saul who on Agag the king ofee the Amalekites, and the kingdom of the King Messiah shall be exalted.ff (8) To the God who brought them redeemed out of Egyptgg belong the power,hh praiseii and exaltation.jj The children of Israel shall eat up the possessions of the nations, their enemies, and their warriorskk they shall slay, and their cities they shall take and divide. (9) They repose and restmm like the lion and like the lionesses,nn and there is no nation or kingdom which stands up against . He who blesses them shall be blessed and he who curses them shall be cursed.’oo (10) And the anger of Balak was enkindled against Balaam and he clapped on the palm of his hands; and Balak said to Balaam: ‘I brought you to curse my enemies and behold, you have blessed them these three times.pp (11) And now, go to your place; I said that I would surely honour you and behold, the Lord has held back the honours from you.’ (12) And Balaam said to Balak: ‘Did I not also speak to your messengerqq whom you sent to me, saying: (13) ›If Balak should give me full of this house of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the decree of the Memra of the Lordrr to do either good or evil of my own knowledge.ss What the Lord will speak,tt that will I speak.‹ (14) And now behold, I am going to my people; comeuu I will give you counsel:ww cause them to sin, otherwise you will not be able to rule them;xx these, however, this people are to rule over your people at the end of the last days.’yy (15) And he took up his prophecy in a parabolic discourse and said: ‘Sayszz Balaam, the sona of Beor,b says the man who is more honoured than his father;c what was hidden from all the prophetsd has been revealed to him. (16) The utterance of him whoe heard a Memraf from before the Lord and got knowledge from before the Most High,g and saw visions of Shaddai. And when he made petition he prostrated himselfh upon his face, and the mysteries of prophecy were revealed to him. And he prophesied concerning himself that he would fall by the sword; and his prophecy was eventually to be fulfilled. (17) I see him, but he is not here now; I observe him, but he is not nigh. A king is to arise from those of the house of Jacob, and a redeemer and ruler from those of the house of Israel; and he shall kill the mighty ones of the Moabites and blot out all the sons of Sheth, and he shall cast out the ownersi of property. (18) And Edom shall bej an inheritance and the mountain of Gablahk shall be an inheritance for its enemies. And Israel shall prosper in abundant riches.m (19) A king is to arise from those of the house of Jacob and he will blot out the one who has sinnedn from the sinful city,o that is p.’ (20) And he sawq the Amalekites and took up his prophecy in a parabolic discourse and said: ‘The first of the nations who waged (war)r withs Israel were the Amalekitest, and in the last days, in the days of Gog and Magog,u they are to wage war against them; but their end shall be destruction, and their destruction shall be for ever.’w (21) And he sawx the Shalmaitesy and took up his prophecy in a parabolic

378 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 discourse and said: ‘How strong is your encampment; and in the cleft of the rockz you have set your dwelling. (22) But if the Shalmaite is to be despoiled it is still the Assyrian who will take you captive.’aa (23)  And he took up his prophecy in a parabolic discourse and said: ‘Who would livebb in those days whencc the Lord sets his mighty anger to take vengeance of the wicked, to give the rewarddd of the just ones, and when he lets kingdoms loose one against the other. (24) Numerous multitudesee shall come forthff language from the region of Italyhh that is ii. And many legions of jj shall join with them and they shall enslave the Assyrians and afflict (the region) beyond the River; and their end shall be destruction and their destruction shall be for ever.’kk (25) And Balaam went and returned to his place and Balak also returned to his place and set up his daughtersmm as prostitutes nn.”

11. Apparatus to Neofiti Numbers 24 a–z – vv. 1–7 a

b c

d e f

g h

i

Lit.: “to consult (āĆĉýóċĉ) by his phallus” (āĕĈĀ); cf. J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 176 (see note to 24:1 below). It means to make necromantic consultation; ĉýó originally used for “to consult”, like óĕĀ, both God and diviners, and then for “to seek”; Neof. int.: “(to seek) the blessings” (or: “[consult] pure things”); Neof. mg.: “(all and) every other time to seek the blessings”; PVN: “at all and every other time to allow himself to be inquired of (āĉýėóċĉ; or: ‘to answer, issue an oracle’) by his phallus.” (See also note to text below.) I.e., the Golden Calf; PVN add: “he sought to curse Israel”. “holy spirit” is the “spirit of prophecy”, as in Pseudo-Jonathan here and in other passages; Onqelos also translates here as “spirit of prophecy”. Samaritan Targum: “he lifted up his power”, translating ĉóċ by ąĉó. Masoretic Text and other Targums here and v. 15: “Beor”. ĕċý (“said”, but possibly = ĕċĆý, “speech, utterance, oracle” of Frg. Tg. Paris ms. P); Hebrew Text: Ċýč (MT: ne’um, “oracle”). See note to 24:3, paragraph 2. PVN: “than his brothers”. This paraphrase interprets Ċėó of the Masoretic Text as setum = “hidden” and šetum = “open”; cf. G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 156–157. In text: ĕċĆċ, which can also be rendered “order, command”; PVN have ĉĉċċ, “speech”; Neof. int.: “the Memra”. PVN: “the utterance of

11. Apparatus to Neofiti Numbers 24

j k

m

n o p q r

s t u

w

x

379

a man who heard speech from before the Lord and who saw [P: ýċĄ; VN: ýăĄ) from before Shaddai a vision [?; VN: ĆăĄ; P: ĆċĄ], and when he fell down upon his face [P; VN: “and when he desired he would prostrate himself – Ą[ėė]óċ, correcting text – upon his face”) and the secrets of the prophecy would be revealed to him. And he prophesied concerning himself that he would fall by the sword, and ultimately the prophecy was to be fulfilled.” Neof. int.: “to seek”; Pseudo-Jonathan adds: “that it be revealed to him”. Lit.: “and the end of his prophecy was that it be fulfilled”; Neof. mg.: “(and the end of his prophecy was that it would be) valid [or: ‘enduring’]”. Neof. mg.: “how good are your schools, (you) of the house of Jacob; and your synagogue (you) of the house of Israel”; PVN: “How good are tents in which Jacob your father prays, and tents which you made for the Lord’s name [P; VN: ‘for my name’] and your tents round about, you of the house of Israel”. Neof. int.: “those of the sons of Jacob”. Neof. int.: “their father”. Neof. int.: “(you,) house (of Jacob)”. Neof. int.: “(of) the schools”; in the Targums óĕĀċ occasionally occurs instead of óĕĀċėĆþ. “you of the house (ėĆþĆĀ) of Israel”: In the text ĆĀ has been wrongly crossed out, so that the literal translation is: “and the tents [lit.: ‘their tents’], which are round about it, of the house of Israel”. More probably, however, ĆĀ should be retained and “their tents” should be corrected to “your tents”, and the translation given as in text; cf. PseudoJonathan. “so, thus”, ČĀĈ; PVN have variant Č(Ć)Ĉ. PVN: “on their enemies”. Neof. int., Neof. mg.: “thus shall the synagogues of Israel bring forth wise men and masters of the Law. Like the heavens which the Lord has spread out and perfected as a house for his Shekinah, thus shall …”; PVN: “their cities bring forth scribes and teachers of the Law”. The text of Neofiti is corrupt; reconstructed according to Neofiti interlinear gloss, Neofiti margin (note u above) and PVN: “and like the heavens which the Memra of the Lord has spread out”. The Palestinian Targums, the Samaritan Targum, and other versions (not Onqelos) read ’ahalim (“aloes”) as ’ohalim (“tents”); the Palestinian Targums speak of the heavens because they are the tent of God; cf. Ps 19:4 and Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 158.

380 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 y

z

“his creatures”: āėĂĆĕþþ; Neof. mg.: “(thus shall Israel be) high and exalted above all the nations, beautiful and praised as the water cedars, and exalted among creatures” (correcting ýėĆĆĂĀþĆþ to ýėĂĆĕþĆþ); PVN end paraphrase of verse: “(of water cedars and exalted, PVN) among creatures”, ýėĂĆĕþþ, P; “through his pain / suffering”, āĆėĂĆĈĈþ, VN (to be corrected to P?). The Aruk has: “of water (cedars) and exalted like the cedar” – ýėĆĕþĈ (corrected to ýĆėĕþĈ by Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York & London 1903; repr. New York 1950, 195a, 198a). The original reading from which all descend may have been as the Aruk. In Neofiti, PVN: ČĂāĆĈĉċ, lit.: “their kings”.

aa–zz – vv. 7–15 aa bb cc

The paraphrase is also in PVN. PVN: “of them(selves) and in them(selves)”. Lit.: “his children”; PVN: “their children”; MT: Ăďĕă (zar‘ô), “his seed”. dd PVN: “he shall rule nation” (without “many”). ee Neofiti, PVN: ČĂāĆĈĉċ. ff PVN: “shall become great”. The paraphrase of v. 7 is otherwise practically identical in Neofiti and PVN. In Agag the Samaritan Targum sees King Gog of the last days: “and his king shall raise up Gog and his [i.e., the Messiah’s] kingdom shall be exalted”. gg PVN: “God who redeemed and brought out redeemed from the land of Egypt”. hh Neof. int.: “his power”. ii Neof. int.: “and his praise”. jj In text and Neof. int.: “his exaltation”; “exaltation” (and possibly also “power”) paraphrase Ċýĕ (re’em, “buffalo”) of the Masoretic Text; cf. 23:22. kk PVN, Neof. int.: “and their cities they shall divide and their warriors they shall blot out”; for “warriors”, the Masoretic Text has ĊāĆėċēď (‘a môtehem), “their bones”; PVN: “the children of Israel shall eat the [P adds: ‘remnants of the’] booty of their cities and their mighty ones shall be slain [P; VN: ‘they shall slay’], and what remains of them they shall divide up”. mm Neof. mg.: “(and rest) in the midst of war like the lion and like the lioness. There is not”; PVN: “Behold this people lies down [or: ‘dwells’] like the lion and like the lioness it grows strong. Whoever blesses them [VN: P: ‘blesses Israel’] will be blessed like Moses the prophet, the

11. Apparatus to Neofiti Numbers 24

381

scribe of Israel, and whoever curses them will be cursed like Balaam the son of Beor.” nn Cf. 23:24; probably “like the lioness”, correcting the text to ýėĂĆĕýĈ. oo Neof. mg.: “(stand up) against them. He who curses them shall be cursed like Balaam, the son of Peor [sic]; and he who blessed them shall be blessed (like) the prophet Moses, the scribe of Israel”; cf. PVN and Gen 12:3. pp PVN: “I brought you [VN; P: ‘your people’, corrected to VN] to curse those who hate me, and you have only blessed (them).” qq Neof. int.: “to your messenger” (another form). rr Cf. 22:18. ss The text, and Neofiti interlinear gloss, should probably be corrected with Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan: “of my own will” (ĆėĂďĕċ); see, nevertheless, 16:28. tt Neof. int.: “what (the Lord) has spoken”. uu PVN: “come, now”. ww Neof. int., PVN add: “that you shall do to [PVN: ‘in’] this people”. xx PVN: “you will not rule this people”. yy Lit.: “(at) the end of the heel of the days”. zz ĕċý; or: “oracle / utterance of” (ĕċĆý); cf. v. 4 above. a–z – vv. 15–21 a b c d e f g

h i

j k

Neof. int.: “sons of …”. V and in v. 3: “Peor”. PVN: “than his brothers”; see note g to v. 3. Neof. int.: “(from every) prophet”. PVN: “of the man who”; cf. to v. 3. PVN: “speech” (ĉĉċċ); cf. note i to v. 4. Neof. mg.: “(of) the Most High and the vision”; PVN: “from before the Most High; who saw a vision from Shaddai and when he desired he would prostrate himself upon his face”; cf. note i to v. 4. Neof. int.: “(and when) he prostrated himself”; cf. PVN, PseudoJonathan and v. 4 above. “masters” = Ćĕċ; possibly in this name, by reading Ćċĕ, there is a veiled allusion to “Rome”; cf. PVN: “… of the Moabites and he shall eject [lit.: ‘empty, drain’; VN add: ‘and blot out’] all the children of the east”. Neof. mg.: “is”, or: “shall be”. Neof. int.: ĉĂċ = “limit”?; perhaps it should be corrected to ĉĂþÿ, “Gabla”; or possibly to ĉăċ, “lot, possession”, and a displaced variant from the following verse: ĂėĕĆ (“inheritance”).

382 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 m n o p

q r s t u w

x y z

PVN: “and Israel shall grow strong [or: ‘overpower (them)’] with great might”. PVN: “everyone who has remained”. āĈĕĈ: “fortress”, frequently “capital”. PVN: “the sinful city, that is Rome”. Neofiti ends the verse without identification of the city, putting the sof pasuq (:) after “that is”. The copyist then leaves almost an entire line blank, possibly indicating that his original had the name of the city, which he omitted through fear of censorship, or because the identification was already censored, and erased, in his original. After the next verse, part of the line remains blank, without there being any reason to suppose that text is missing. For Pseudo-Jonathan’s rendering, see text and corresponding note. The subject “Balaam” is understood. This word, missing in text, is in PVN. PVN: “against”. PVN: “those of the house of Amalek”. PVN: “in the end [lit.: ‘in the heel’], in the end of the days”. Neof. mg.: “(and said): The first of the kings and the nations who waged war on the house of Israel were those of the house of Amalek. Joshua bar Nun of those of the house of Ephraim smashed them. The second who made war on them was Saul bar Kish, and he destroyed them [or: ‘when they made war on them a second time, Saul bar Kish destroyed them’]; but their end will be destruction for ever.” ýċĄ; Neof. mg.: “and he saw” (another verb; ýăĄ). Translating “Kenites” of the Masoretic Text, as in Gen 15:19. ýĕĔĆčþ; thus also P, Pseudo-Jonathan; VN: “like a cattle fold” (ėĕĔþĈ; to be corrected to P?).

aa–nn – vv. 22–25 aa

ćėĆĆþóċĆĆĕĂóýČýĈĀďāăĆþĉāĆċĉó ĆĂĂāĆČýĊĂĕý. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 4: Numeros, Madrid 1974, 240, renders: “The Salmites, however, will not be despoiled until the Assyrians take you captive”; Le Déaut, in his French translation for the editio princeps of Neofiti (ibid., 448) renders: “Because if the Shalmite must be despoiled (this will not be) until the Assyrians lead you into captivity.” P: “Because if (ČĆý) the Shalmaite is to be despoiled, it is (?; ČýĈĀď) (that) the Assyrian rises up and takes him captive” (Ćþó); VN: “Because if the Shalmaite is to be destroyed, it is (?;ČýĈĀď) that the Assyrian is to arise and break (ĕĆþó, Hebrew) you” (correct to: Ćþó; “take you captive”?).

11. Apparatus to Neofiti Numbers 24

bb

383

Neof. int.: “Woe”; P: “Woe to you sinners [lit.: ‘debtors’] who have incurred guilt. When God comes to exact vengeance from them, from the wicked, and to give a good reward to the just, and when he lets loose the kingdom(s) of the nations one against the other”; VN: “Who would be alive when the Memra of the Lord sets to give a good reward to the just and to exact vengeance from the wicked.” cc Neof. mg.: “when the Lord establishes his throne to exact vengeance and sets.” dd Neof. int.: “rewards”. ee Greek loan word ƁġĕęĜ. ff MT: ĊĆēĂ; text translated as if ĊĆēĆ (Samaritan Pentateuch); thus also Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, Onqelos, and Palestinian Targums. gg Greek or Latin loan word liburnica, liburna (ĕēČğěėưĜ,ĕưČďěėęė, etc.): light barks. In Neofiti this and words following erased by censor. VN: “and numerous multitudes in Liburnian ships (ýĆčĕþĉ) will come from the province of Italy and many legions from the south [ýċĂĕĀċ, or: “from those of the Romans”, or: “of Rome”] and they will subdue the Assyrians and afflict all the children of (the land) Beyond the River (Abar Nahara). However, the end of both one and the other is destruction, and the destruction will be forever”: P: “and numerous multitudes, with mixed multitudes (ýĆčþĕþĕď; cf. VN Exod 12:38) will come forth from the province of Italy, that is Rome, and numerous legions from Rome will join [or: ‘be joined’] with them, and the Assyrians will be subdued and they will afflict all the children of (the land) Beyond the River (Abar Nahara). However, the end of both one and the other is destruction, and their destruction is for ever.” hh Word erased, but can still be read. ii As in Palestinian Targum citation in the Aruk (“Italy, that is Rome”), we should read “Rome” as the continuation; cf. v. 19 and PVN; the scribe, however, passes to the following word without giving the name of Rome or leaving any space. jj Word erased and substituted by points as far as the margin. kk Neof. mg.: “numerous (armies shall come forth) from (Liburnia, from the region of Italy) [these last words, or words similar to them, have been erased by the censor] and shall subdue the Assyrians and shall end with the inhabitants of the bank of the Euphrates; but the end of both one and the other is destruction; (with) eternal (destruction) they shall perish.” mm Neof. mg.: “his daughters” (written differently); or: “the daughters”, i.e., “the young maidens”; cf. Num 25:1 and Pseudo-Jonathan. nn Lit.: “for to increase (and) multiply”, āþĕĂāĕđ, i.e., for propagation (an allusion to Hebrew Text Gen 1:28).

384 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24

12. Notes to Targum Neofiti Numbers 24 (24:1) The paraphrase of this verse is identical in Neofiti or PVN, except that PVN at the end add: “he sought to curse Israel”; and P lacks āĕĆĈĀþ, the Aramaic word here rendered “ghosts”. “towards diviners … to consult through ghosts”; lit.: “(on every occasion) to consult through his phallus towards diviners”; āĆĉýóċĉ āĆċĎĔėĂċĀĔĉāĕĆĈĀþ; this paraphrases the Hebrew Text (Ċďđþ§ĊďđĈ) ĊĆóĄčėýĕĔĉ, “(as at other times) towards omens [or: ‘spells’]”; rsv: “to look for omens”. What exact lexical form Neofiti āĆĉýóċĉ is, is uncertain.33 PVN have ýĉýėóċ, Itpe., “to inquire (of diviners)”.34 Other variants are ĉýóĉ; see Apparatus. The term ĕĆĈĀ is not registered by Jastrow or Sokoloff. J. Levy35 understands Frg. Tg. 24:1 to mean membrum virile, and probably to be corrected to ýĕĂĈĀ, “to consult through his membrum virile”; probably to make necromantic consultation, to seek apparitions of the dead in this manner. There is quite a variety of readings with regard to form of the term: Neofiti, VN: āĕĆĈĀ; Elias Levita, Meturgeman, Isny 1541: (ĉýóċĉ) ĂĕĂĈĀþ. For the rabbinic tradition of Balaam practising divination through his membrum, see b. Sanhedrin 105a; cf. J. R. Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors, 89. “as he used to go on every occasion”; same paraphrase in PVN; Hebrew Text: “as at the other times”, Ċďđþ§ĊďđĈ. “he went”; addition in Neofiti. “he recalled for [or: ‘to’, ČĂāĉ] them the affair of the calf”, i.e., the golden calf, Exodus 32: he either reminded God of this against Israel,36 as explicitly in Pseudo-Jonathan, or he reminded Israel itself, in order to break down their defences.37 The reference to the golden calf is in all Palestinian Targum texts (Neofiti, PVN) and in Pseudo-Jonathan. It is also in some manuscripts of Onqelos (mss. G, V, a, D), but not in the main text translated in the Aramaic Bible series.38 33 See D. M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti, Chico 1985, 151; it is not noted in M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990. 34 Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 533. 35 J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, 3rd edition, Leipzig 1881 (repr. Köln 1959, 1966), vol. 1, 176. 36 Thus G. Vermes, “The Story of Balaam”, in idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd rev. edition, Leiden 1961, 155. 37 Thus B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Lanham, New York & London 1987, 138–139. 38 See B. Grossfeld, The Targum of Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum of Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington 1988, 134.

12. Notes to Targum Neofiti Numbers 24

385

(24:2) “in its formations”; ČĂāĆĎĈąĉ, root ĎĈą, from the Greek ĞƪĘēĜ. HT: “according to its tribes”. The Aramaic word ĎĈą (rarely ĎĔą), elsewhere in Neofiti (Num 2:10, 17, 18, 25, 31, 34; 10:14, 22) renders ĉÿĀ of the Hebrew Text. Despite its Greek origins, Sokoloff renders the Aramaic term ĎĈą as “banner” (rather than “formation, battalion”).39 “a holy spirit from before the Lord”; HT: “the spirit of God”. See M. McNamara, Introduction to Neofiti, in idem, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1A), Collegeville 1992, 38–39. (24:3) The Hebrew Text presents a very difficult text: “And he took up his discourse (Ăĉóċ) and said: The oracle (Ċýč; MT: ne’um) of Balaam, the son of Beor” (ĕďþ Ăčþ). In its usual fashion Neofiti renders óċ Ăĉ as (ĉąč) āėĂþčĉėċþ (cf. Neof. Num 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23); which I render: “(he took up) his prophecy in a parabolic discourse”. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 377, renders: “in his prophetic theme”. Neofiti and most ancient versions understood Ċýč (“oracle”) as a verb: “he said” (Septuagint, Vulgate, Onqelos, Syriac). “the man who is more honourable than his father”; thus also Pseudo-Jonathan; PVN have: “than his brother”; HT: “the man”, ĕþÿā; the Hebrew word ĕþÿ is, apparently, taken as an honourable title.40 “what has been hidden … revealed to him”. HT: ČĆďāĊėó, “Ċėó of the eye”. The Hebrew word Ċėó, occurring only in 24:3, 15, could in later Hebrew be understood as “to open, unseal, bore” (Ċėó), or as “to close, to stop up” (ĊėĎ/Ċėô, with samech or sin). The Palestinian Targum makes use of both meanings in its paraphrase: “hidden, revealed”.41 What was hidden from the prophets but revealed to Balaam would be the redemption to come (Tg. Num 24:17–20), the reward in store for Israel in the world to come (Tg. Num 23:23), divine revenge on the wicked (Tg. Num 24:23). The paraphrase of this section of Neofiti of Numbers is to be compared with Pal. Tg. Gen 49:1.42 (24:4) The Hebrew Text reads: “The oracle of him who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of Shaddai, falling down but having his eyes uncovered” (see rsv). The single word “falling down” (ĉđč) is paraphrased at length, and the phrase “his eyes uncovered” is taken 39

Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 224. See Vermes, “The Story of Balaam”, 58–60, 63; also note to Neof. Gen 12:20; 32:7 (in M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 88, 157). 41 See B. Grossfeld, note to Onq. Num 34:3 (The Targum of Onqelos to Leviticus, 136). 42 For a comparison of Tg. Gen 49:1 with Matt 13:17 and Luke 10:24, see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 139–141; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 211–212. 40

386 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 to refer to the mysteries of prophecy revealed to him. The contents of his prophecies are then added. Balaam made reference to the possibility of his death by the sword already in Tg. Num 23:10. (24:5) The Hebrew Text (rsv) has: “How fair are your tents (ćĉāý), O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel.” The term ĉāý (“tent”) is used in different contexts in the Hebrew Bible: tents in which the Israelites lived, the tent of meeting, tents mentioned in connection with Jacob, called “a man of tents” (Gen 25:27). Furthermore, in rabbinic tradition ĉāý was interpreted as “academy” or “school house”. The Hebrew ĉāý is translated by ČĈóċ in the Palestinian Targums in general, a normal rendering, since ČĈóċ in Aramaic means “tent”. Onqelos here renders ĉāý as “land”, and ČĈóċ as “dwelling place”.43 The Syriac renders ĉāý as “tent” (ČĈóċ) and ČĈóċ as “dwelling place” (āĆĂĕóċ). The various Palestinian Targums texts (Neof. mg., PVN) in this particular instance (see Apparatus) paraphrase in keeping with the various meanings and associations of the two key terms. Neofiti is unique in giving a triple paraphrase, each based on the two key words. The first and third begin with “How” (āċ), the second with “what” (āċĈ).44 (24:6) The Hebrew Text has a description of “the tents of Jacob” of v. 5: “like wadis (ĊĆĉĄč) that stretch afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes (ĊĆĉāý; MT: ’ahalîm) that the Lord has planted (ďąč), like cedar trees beside the waters”. Neofiti explains the first three similes of Israel but leaves the fourth unexplained. The word ĉĄč, “wadi” (overflowing or dry), is understood as in spate, overpowering; the river (water) is understood as the Law, or the study (of the Law). The Hebrew Text ĊĆĉāý (MT: ’ahalim, “aloes”) is read as ’oholîm, “tents”, a symbol of the heavens (cf. Ps 19:4–5), and ďąč, “planted”, apparently seen as connected with āąč, “to stretch out”, and paraphrased as “his tent, his dwelling place”; cf. Ps 19:1–6; 104:2; Isa 40:22. The cedar is symbolic of dignity, and this is implicit in “praised and exalted (among his creatures)”. A paraphrase of the ending “like cedar trees beside the waters” would give a text very similar to that of v. 6b (“like gardens beside a river”), and for this reason the present ending may have been purposely chosen.45 However, there is a problem with regard to the original form of the final word: Neofiti has āėĂĆĕþĈ; ed. A. Díez Macho, āėĂĆĕþþ; VN, āĆėĂĆĕĈþ; Neof. mg., ýėĆĆĂĀþĆþ (which Díez Macho corrects to ýėĂĆĕþĆþ); an Aruk citation 43

See note by B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus, 136–137. See further B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 140–142. 45 See B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 143. 44

12. Notes to Targum Neofiti Numbers 24

387

has ýėĆĕþĈ. Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 112b, tentatively renders Neofiti as: “(exalted) in strength” (ĂĆĕþ; root 2 Ćĕþ, “to be strong”). Others understand as if āėĆĆĕþ = āėĂĆĕþ (Hebrew plural ėĂĆĕþ, “[among his] creatures”; “mankind”). Jastrow, A Dictionary, 195a, 198a, notes the Aruk reading and corrects Frg. Tg. Num 24:6 to an original ýėĕþ (so also Levy, Wörterbuch, 118b), plural of ėĕþ, “cypress, pine tree”. Thus, the original of all would have been “praised and exalted like the cypress”.46 The emendation, however, seems doubtful. (24:7) The Hebrew Text paraphrased may be rendered (rsv): “water shall flow from his buckets (ĂĆĉĀċ) and his seed (Ăāďĕă) shall be in many waters”. Neofiti (and the Palestinian Targum texts) understand the text messianically, and so probably also Onqelos, which renders: “The king who will be anointed from among his sons shall become great and rule over many nations.” Neofiti’s paraphrase is got by understanding “water” as “the king” (below identified as King Messiah); cf. Isa 45:8: “let righteousness flow” (same verb) and Amos 5:24 (righteousness like a stream); Jer 23:5; 33:15 (the Messiah a righteous branch). Israel is “the bucket” (ĂĆĉĀċ), unless the Targums have read or interpreted the Hebrew Text through ĂĆėĂĆĉĀċ, “(from) his branches”.47 The first stichos of the Hebrew Text is interpreted twice in Neofiti, the second time with the introduction of a reference to the messianic ingathering of the exiles. In regular targumic fashion “his seed” (Ăďĕă – zar‘o) is interpreted as “his children”, with, however, inclusion of an understanding of the Hebrew Text root as zaroa‘, “arm, power” (rule). The Vulgate and Syriac apart, ancient versions understood the present Hebrew Text ĊĆċ (“waters”) as “nations” (Septuagint; Onqelos; Pseudo-Jonathan; Palestinian Targum; Philo, Life of Moses 52, 290). The original reading may have been ĊĆċď, “nations”. The Hebrew Text has: “his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted”. Neofiti, in keeping with its overall paraphrase of the context, interprets messianically but retains a historical reference to Agag and Saul (1 Sam 15:9). (24:8) “power, praise, exaltation”; see note to Neof. Num 23:22 in M. J. McNamara & E. G. Clarke, Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers (Aramaic Bible Series 4), Collegeville & Edinburgh 1994, 132. 46 See also M. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to the Extant Sources, Rome 1980, vol. 2, 76. 47 See Vermes, “The Story of Balaam”, 159–160.

388 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 (24:9) “there is no nation or kingdom …”; HT: “who will rouse him up?” The Hebrew Text and Neofiti paraphrase are similar to those in Gen 49:9; see note to Neof. Gen 49:9 (M. McNamara, Genesis [The Aramaic Bible 1A], 219). (24:13) “decree of Memra of the Lord”; HT: “the mouth [= ‘command’] of the Lord”. (24:14) The Hebrew Text has: “And now, behold, I am going to my people; behold, I will let you know what this people will do to your people in the latter days.” The Palestinian Targum translates the beginning of the verse literally and gives the substance of the ending. In between the two it inserts Balaam’s advice to Balak to cause Israel to sin. Such advice is mentioned in Num 31:16 and is the substance of a developed midrash found in Pseudo-Philo, LAB 18:13; Philo, Life of Moses 53, §§ 294–298; Josephus, Ant. 4.6.6, §§ 126–130. The texts are given in Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Leiden 1961 (rev. edition 1973), 162–164. The tradition has influenced Onqelos and Vulgate, and is found in all Palestinian Targum texts of Num 24:14. (24:15) See notes to 24:3. (24:16) The Hebrew Text here is identical with 24:4. See to 24:4; and see comments of B. Barry Levy for differences of spelling and word usage in Neofiti’s translation.48 (24:17) This verse gets a clear messianic interpretation: “star” of the Hebrew Text is rendered as “king”, and “scepter” as “redeemer and ruler”. The “scepter” is also interpreted messianically in the Septuagint and Syriac, and both “star” and “scepter” are understood messianically in Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum. The messianic prophecy of this star was believed to have been fulfilled in Bar Cosba (Kosiba) by R. Aqiba (y. Taanit 68d; see also Rev 22:16). The messianic interpretation is probably older still, for instance by the Zealots of 64–70 c.e. and earlier. Josephus (War 6.5.4, §§ 312–313) tells us that among the causes of the final rebellion against Rome stood “an ambiguous oracular pronouncement, which had been found in Holy Scripture, that one from their country would at that time be given command over the world. This they applied to a member of their own people and many wise men erred in their interpretation” (see also Tacitus, Histories 5.13; Suetonius, Vespasian 4:5). The biblical text on which the interpretation referred to by Josephus was based is a matter of 48

B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, vol. 2, 146–147.

12. Notes to Targum Neofiti Numbers 24

389

debate. Some scholars favour Dan 7:13 ff. as the text. Others, with greater probability, opt for the present text of Numbers (vv. 24 ff.). The star to arise out of Israel would first subjugate the surrounding nations, and finally apparently (24:24) destroy all world powers.49 “he shall cast out the owners of property” (āĆĆĎĈčĆĕċ; the same expression occurs in Neof. mg. Gen 4:20). An addition in Neofiti; PVN have a different addition. See Apparatus. (24:18) “the mountain of Gablah”; Hebrew Text: “Seir”. Neofiti’s regular rendering of Seir, the home of Esau.50 (24:19) The Hebrew Text of v. 19 may be rendered “One will come down [or: ‘shall dominate’; ĀĕĆĂ] from Jacob and the fugitive from a city [or: ‘the city’] shall perish”. Neofiti (as PVN), in keeping with its approach, interprets the text messianically. The Hebrew word is understood of dominion and royal power. All the Targums identify the city as an important one or a capital: Onqelos as “the city of the nations”; Pseudo-Jonathan as Constantinople. See further the apparatus to v. 19 above. (24:20) “the first … who waged (war) with Israel”; Neofiti makes specific the more generic Hebrew Text: “Amalek was the first of the nations.” See also Onqelos. Neofiti also specifies the Hebrew Text: “in the end”, as in the days of Gog and Magog (cf. Ezekiel 38–39, etc.). (24:21) “Shalmaites”; the identification of Hebrew Text “Kenite” here and in Gen 15:19. The same identification is found in Onqelos and rabbinic texts.51 (24:23) “who would live …”; rendering the Hebrew Text ĂċĖċāĆĄĆĆċĆĂý (MT: mi umô; from the root ĊĂô?). The word Ăċôċ is taken by some scholars as the infinitive ĊĂô, with acc. rei = “set, ordain”; thus rsv: “Alas, who shall live when God does this.” Many modern versions emend the Masoretic Text variously. Onqelos interprets as: “Woe to sinners who shall be alive when God does these things.” Neofiti, like other Palestinian Targum texts, seems to understand by reading a dual sense in Ăċôċ: (1) “to set”, and (2) as if from, or related to, the Hebrew word Ċċó, āċċó, “to be desolated, to appal; devastation”: “when God sets (ĆĂĂóĆ) his mighty anger to take vengeance …”. 49 50

See M. Hengel, The Zealots, 237–240. See McNamara, Targum and Testament, 194; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited,

293. 51 See note by B. Grossfeld to Onq. Gen 15:19 in The Targum of Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington 1988, 71; also M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 304–305.

390 Chapter 15: Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum: Numbers Chapter 24 (The theme of God’s punishment of the wicked and rewarding of the good occurs elsewhere in Neofiti, e.g., Gen 3:19, 24; 4:8; 49:1.) The civil strife among nations may be a further expression of this desolation (Ċċó, āċċó). Belief in the coming eschatological strife (e.g., Gog and Magog [Neof. Num 24:20]) may stand behind it. The Septuagint renders v. 23a as: “and seeing Og … he said.” (24:24) The Hebrew Text of v. 24 may be rendered: “But ships (shall come) from Kittim (ĊĆėĈĀĆċĊĆēĂ) and shall afflict Asshur and Eber; and he shall also come to destruction.” The advent of ships of Kittim (ĊĆėĈĊĆĆē) is mentioned again in Dan 11:30, in which text the Kittim are generally understood to be the Romans. In the later Qumran writings, too, Kittim means the Romans. The Vulgate renders Num 24:24 as: “Venient trieribus de Italia” (“They shall come in triremes from Italy”). For “of insolent language” (ČĂóĉ Ćăď – actually two Hebrew words), see Dan 8:23 (ĊĆčđ ăď, “bold countenance”), and Deut 28:50. “Liburnian ships”, āĆĆčĕþĉþ (HT: ĊĆē, “ships”; also in Neof. Deut 28:68, HT: ėĂĆčý, “ships”). A Latin ([nauis] liburna) or Greek (ĕēČğěėưĜ,ĕưČďěėęė, etc.) loan word.52 In rabbinic sources “Liburnian” often glosses the Hebrew term for “noble (gallant) ship” (e.g., Isa 33:21). The term is found in Greek (under the form ĕưČďěėęĜ) in the first century c.e.53 “The liburnian was a fast two-banked galley adapted from a craft developed among the Liburnians, piraticalminded dwellers of the Dalmatian coast and its offshore islands.”54 According to b. Baba Mezia 80b the capacity of a large Liburnian was some 900 kors (over 2500 cubic meters), which has been reckoned as some ten tons.55 (24:25) “and set up his daughters as prostitutes”; an addition in Neofiti; in keeping with the advice given by Balaam according to Pal. Tg. Num 24:14; see note to 24:14. Here the addition serves to introduce the narrative of Israel’s seduction by the Midianite women in Numbers 25. See LAB 18:14: “On saying this, Balaam turned away and returned to his place. And afterwards the people were seduced after 52

See D. Sperber, Nautica Talmudica, Ramat Gan & Leiden 1986, 137–138. See F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Period, vol. 1: Phonology, Milan 1955, 222. 54 D. Sperber, Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, Jerusalem 1982, citing L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton 1971, 141–142. 55 On the liburnian, see also S. Panciera, Epigraphica 18 (1956), 130–156, and his entry “Liburna”, in Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane, ed. by E. De Ruggiero, Rome 1958 s.v. 53

12. Notes to Targum Neofiti Numbers 24

391

the daughters of Moab. For Balak did everything that Balaam had showed him.”56

56 For a detailed study of the Balaam legend and its development, see Vermes, “The Story of Balaam”, esp. 169–177.

Chapter 16

The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1: The Scribe Menahem and the Roman Medical Family of Manuele* 1. Introduction It is with great pleasure that I accepted the kind invitation of the editors to contribute to this volume of essays in honour of Professor Kevin Cathcart, with whom I have worked closely over the past twenty years in the initiation and progress of “The Aramaic Bible” project. As an appropriate topic for this festschrift I chose Targum Neofiti 1, and in particular its colophon which dates the writing of the work to either 1504 or 1499. In either case there is occasion to have some celebration of the 500th anniversary of the event. The half millennium in 2004 should also see the completion of the publication of the volumes in the Aramaic Bible project. Professor Cathcart played a key role in bringing together the team of experts which made the translation and annotation project possible. The editors’ foreword, prefaced to each of the volumes, ends by noting that “by their translations, introductions, and critical notes, the contributors to this series have rendered an immense service to the progress of targumic studies. It is hoped that this series, provisional though it be, will bring significantly nearer the day when a definitive translation of the Targums will be made”. Professor Cathcart’s own translation and annotation of one half of the Targum of the Minor Prophets is one of the outstanding contributions to this area of study. Targumic studies have flourished over the past two decades, now forming a highly organised branch of learning, with its own Newsletter and academic journal. The present short essay is intended to be a further step in tracing something of the history behind the Pentateuch Targum in Codex Neofiti 1 through greater attention to the colophon which the scribe Menahem appended to the work. * First published, under the same title, in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (JSOTSup 375), ed. by C. McCarthy & J. F. Healey, London & New York 2004, 154–167.

2. Colophon to Neofiti

393

2. Colophon to Neofiti The colophon to Codex Neofiti 1, at the end of Deuteronomy, reads as follows: ýĕĂĔāĒĆċýĂġþėĂĈāĄăĔ / ĕĈþĂēĆýđĂĕāĆĈĀĕċĕĈþĊĄčċĊĆĔĔĂĄċāĕĆďēĀĆĉďĊĉĖč / ĉýĂĆėþėĈĂĊĆýđĂĕāĕĆþýýđĂĕāĊĄčċĕċĈþĉăýđĂĕāāĖċ / ĂĕąĖĆĆċĉĂĀÿāĊĈĄā / ýċĂĕāđāĕĆĂĆĆĀĆĆý / āĄĆĖýĥýėĂĕĂþÿĕĀāčāĕĀýĖĀĄĉ ĥĆĆĉĊĆĉĄĆċāĉĈĊĈþþĉĒċýĆĂĂĔ㥠“The copyist strong and the reader valiant. It was completed by the youngest of the scribes, Menahem, son of the honourable Rabbi Mordecai the physician – may his Rock and Redeemer keep him –, son of the honourable Rabbi Mosheh the physician – may his memory be blessed –, son of the most honourable Rabbi Menahem the physician, the most eminent of the physicians. And I wrote it for the wise and great Master Aegidius – may his glory be exalted – here at Rome in the month of Adar the glorious (ĕĀāčā). The greatness of God I will sing. Be strong and let your heart take courage all who wait for the Lord.”

In the colophon the work is said to have been completed in Rome in the month of Adar ĕĀāčā, “the glorious”. This Hebrew word is taken as containing the date of composition, that is either in 1504 or 1499, depending on whether we take the initial ā as going with the preceding ĕĀāč or not (thus 259 or 264, which gives the year 5259 or 5264 in Jewish reckoning).1 This colophon is by a scribe who calls himself Menahem and who gives his ancestry back to his great-grandfather (Menahem ben Mordecai ben Moshe ben Menahem), probably spanning a period of about one hundred years (from ca. 1500 back to about 1400). In the introduction to the edition of the translation of Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy in the Aramaic Bible series in 1997 I made a special study of this colophon, a study taken up again in 1999.2 I give the substance of this material here as a preparation for research on the matter from 1999 onwards.

1 For details regarding its dating see A. Díez Macho, Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Madrid & Barcelona, vol.  1: Génesis, 1968, 51*; vol.  3: Levítico, 1971, 17*–19*; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978, 27*. 2 M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1997, 7–12; idem, “The Colophon to Neofiti”, JSP 19 (1999), 147–157.

394

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

3. Scribes and Annotators of Codex Neofiti 1 It has been ascertained that the main text of Codex Neofiti 1 was copied by three scribes (scribe 1, 2 and 3), and annotated in the margins and interlinearly by at least ten distinct hands, possibly eleven or more. Scribe 1 wrote the beginning of the work. He evidently intended to complete the transcription of the entire manuscript, since under the title of the work, “Targum Yerushalmi of the Pentateuch. This is the holy book called etc. (ĥċĂÿĈ)” (on fol. 2v), he has the prayer: “My God, help me at my beginning of this book [or: ‘manuscript’] right to my completion of it.” This is repeated in the hand of scribe 1 above the opening words of the beginning of the Targum of Genesis (on fol. 1r), followed by the title: “This is the holy book called Targum Yerushalmi of the Pentateuch.” Actually, scribe 1 copied only seventy folios: fol. 1r–30v (Gen 1:1–18:18) and 201r–240v (Lev 1:1–22:2). The intervening section of Genesis and Exodus was copied by scribe 2. Scribe 1 also annotated the main text he copied. Why scribe 1 did not copy the entire work, as he apparently intended, we cannot say. He was actively involved in the transcription until the end. He corrected the text copied by scribe 3 (Menahem), supplying omissions for the following: Numbers: fol. 266v; 274v; 284r; 286r; 289r; 292v; 301v; 302v; 304v; 311v; 313r; 335r; 338r; 338v; 339v; 341r, and likewise for Deuteronomy (which ends at fol. 446v): 360v; 378v; 387v; 402r; 409r; 412v; 414r; 423v. Scribe 3 is Menahem. He copied 202 folios: fol. 241r–242v (Lev 22:2–18); 245v–257v (Lev 23:28–27:34); 258r–355v (all Numbers); 356r–446v (all Deuteronomy, and the final colophon). We see from this that scribe 3 took over in the Book of Leviticus. Scribe 1 began the transcription of this book (Lev 1:1–22:2). Scribe 3 (Menahem) then transcribed a few verses (Lev 22:2–18), to be followed by scribe 2 for a short section (Lev 22:18–23:28). At this point (fol. 245v) scribe 3 (Menahem) takes over and continued for the remainder of the work (fol. 245v–446v). Scribe 3 (Menahem) is also annotator of fol. 169r–200r (Exod 28:7–40:38); 241r–407v (Lev 23:3–Deut 20:17). This he does not so much by marginal variants as in supplying, in the square characters proper to the text, portions of the text omitted by himself or by scribes 1 or 2. Thus for scribe 2 in fol. 170v; 171v; 173r; 187v; 194v; 195r; 200r; 242r; 243r; also for omissions in text copied by himself: fol. 260r; 261v; 274v; 284r; 279v; 343r; 423r; 425r; 443v. Menahem, as annotator, has added variants to text copied by himself in fol. 298r–315v; 318v–320r; 356v–405v; 407r–407v. In the colophon Menahem describes himself as “the youngest of the scribes”. It is not clear whether this is inspired by modesty, or refers to his relationship to the other scribes involved in the production of this codex. He is clearly the most self-conscious of the scribes. On fol. 187v (at Exod

5. Giles (Aegidius) of Viterbo and Codex Neofiti 1

395

35:29–30) he has so arranged enlarged initials in marginal glosses as to have the consonants of his own name (MNHM) stand out. He further emphasizes this by lines and dots pointing towards the initials. He may have chosen the text by reason of its content: “Behold the Lord has designated Bezalel by the name of Master …”.

4. Menahem of a Medical Family In the colophon Menahem describes his three immediate forebears both as rabbis and physicians. “Menahem, the youngest of the scribes, son of the honourable Rabbi Mordecai the physician (ýđĂĕā), … son of the honourable Rabbi Mosheh the physician (ýđĂĕā), … son of the most honourable Rabbi Menahem the physician, the most eminent of the physicians (ĊĆýđĂĕāĕĆþý).” The title ĕĆþý given to his great-grandfather Menahem (“the most excellent”, “the most eminent”) was at that time used in Europe to express exceptional skill in a profession. This most eminent physician Menahem, our scribe’s great-grandfather, would have lived about 1400. The careers of rabbi and physician were often combined during the Middle Ages.3 Towards 1500 the Jewish community in Europe seems to have been becoming more involved in obtaining professional training in the recognised medical universities. Training costs had to be borne by the families themselves. We can presume that the scribe Menahem belonged to at least a moderately well-off family, conscious of having a tradition in rabbinic training and in medicine.

5. Giles (Aegidius) of Viterbo and Codex Neofiti 1 The colophon says that the codex was written for (ĉý) “the great sage Maestro Aeidio, ĂĆĆĀĆĆý ĂĕąĖĆĆċ”, commonly understood to be the renowned Augustinian Renaissance scholar Egidio (Giles) of Viterbo. The date of composition suits Giles’s curriculum vitae, and the manuscript was used by him. None the less, as I have argued elsewhere,4 it is most unlikely that the transcription of Codex Neofiti 1 was commissioned by Giles, or ever became his property. It is not at all clear that in 1499 or 1504 Giles was in a financial position to commission such a manuscript, with at least 446 folios of sheepskin parchment, to be copied by at least ten scribes / annotators. It 3

S. Muntner, “Medicine”, EncJud 11 (1972), 1178–1195, at 1186. M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, 9–11; idem, “The Colophon to Neofiti”, 152–154. 4

396

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

makes better sense to regard Codex Neofiti 1 as having been conceived from the outset as a transcription of an ancient text by a Jewish family with a long history in rabbinic literature and in medicine, a history stretching back to over a century at least. The family, or the learned group that produced the work, had access to a number of other Targum texts (Fragment Targums, Genizah-type Palestinian Targum texts, a copy or copies of Targum PseudoJonathan) which were used for the marginal and interlinear variants. Giles of Viterbo (fresh from his Master’s degree in theology in 1497) might have been in contact with this family or learned group during his stays in Rome and his journeys to Naples over the years 1497 and 1504.5 He could then have entered the observations in Latin and added the chapter heads which are recognised as being in his hand.

6. Jewish Medical Men and Surgeons in Rome 1449–1495 In Western Mediterranean countries during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Jews were very much part of the medical world. J. Shatzmiller notes that during this period Jews were over-represented in the medical profession. Although they constituted no more than three to five percent (eight percent at most) of the population of certain cities, their proportion in medicine was ten times greater than that. In 1491 the historic city of Venosa in Apulia had precisely thirty-eight Jewish households, six of which were “medical” ones. Rome had fifteen “medical” families among the hundred Jewish ones whose profession can be established.6 A. Esposito7 has made a detailed study of the Jews in Rome during the second half of the fifteenth century as revealed by the protocols of the notary Angelo Amati. As a conclusion to this study she lists in chronological order the names of all the Jewish medical men and surgeons (“medici e chirurghi”) who worked in Rome during the second half of the fifteenth century (from 1449 to 1495), cited in the documents of the notary which she has studied. The names come to sixteen in all.8 To this list she says we can add two other names, on whom we have information from other sources: that of magister Moses of Isaac of Rieti (Mosè de Isaaco da Rieti) who, we 5 F. X. Martin, Friar, Reformer, and Renaissance Scholar: Life and Work of Giles of Viterbo 1469–1532 (The Augustinian Series 18), Villanova 1992, 15–28, 37–59. 6 J. Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London 1994, 108; A. Esposito, “Gli ebrei a Roma nella seconda metà del ’400 attraverso i protocolli del notaio Giovanni Angelo Amati”, in Aspetti e problemi della presenza ebraica nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XIV e XV), ed. by S. Boesch Gajano (Quaderni dell’instituto di scienze storiche dell’Università di Roma 2), Rome 1983, 29–97, at 71–73. 7 A. Esposito, “Gli ebrei a Roma”. 8 Given by A. Esposito, ibid., 78.

6. Jewish Medical Men and Surgeons in Rome 1449–1495

397

know, worked in Rome between the years 1431 and 1443, and after various absences in 1460, the year of his death; also the name of another no more precisely defined than “Salamoni medico iudiio”, for whose activities payments are registered for the years 1482–1483 to the account of the chamberlain of the Camera Urbis. Esposito further comments that from the list she has compiled it is possible for us to see evidence for the continuity of the medical profession within certain families. Thus, she believes that the physician (medico) Bonagiustus (= no. 11, Bonagiutus of her list) is in all probability the son of the renowned Moses of Rieti mentioned by her, while the surgeons “(chirurgi) Habraham magistri Angeli magistri Leutii” (= no. 14 of her list) and “Daniel magistri Leutii magistri Angeli” (= no. 16 of her list) are respectively brother and son of the physician Leutius9 (no. 5 of her list). As Esposito notes,10 during this period relationships between Jewish and Christians were good, based on familiarity and mutual acceptance, with respect for the identity of each side. This situation was to change in the middle of the sixteenth century with the institution of the ghetto. From that moment onwards, Esposito11 remarks12 “la dévotion devient vasillage, le respect dérision, l’honneur mépris”. Some medical families in Rome enjoyed good relations with the Church and the papacy. According to the lists established by Fausto Garofalo there were few medieval and Renaissance popes who did not have Jewish doctors in their service.13 Thus, Samuel Sarfati, a physician originating in Provence, settled in Rome in 1498. He represented the Jewish community at the coronation of Pope Julius II (1503)  and a year later became the personal physician of the Pope. His son Joseph was a physician, philosopher, poet and mathematician. An accomplished linguist, he had a good knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek and Latin. The Pope extended to him the privileges that had been accorded to his father, privileges confirmed by the later Popes Leo X and Clement VII. It is also worth noting that another person of the name Sarfati, Joseph Sarfati, a rabbi, came from Fez (Morocco) to Rome and was converted to Christianity in 1552. On conversion he 9

Ibid., 80. Ibid., 114. 11 Ibid., 97. 12 Citing M. Boiteux, “Les juifs dans le carnaval de la Rome moderne (XVe–XVIIIe siècles)”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen-Âge, Temps Modernes 88 (1976), 745–787, at 783. 13 See Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, 94, who makes reference to F. Garofalo, “I papi ed i medici ebrei di Roma”, Pagine di storia della scienza e della tecnica (Rome) 2 (1948), 1–25; V. Rocchi, “Gli ebrei e l’esercizio della medicina di fronte alle leggi della Chiesa e del governo di Roma papale”, Rivista di storia critica delle scienze mediche e naturali 1 (1910), 32–39, and J. Pinès, “Des médecins juifs en service de la papauté du XIIe au XVIIe siècle”, Revue d’histoire de la médicine hébraïque 18 (1965), 123–132. 10

398

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

adopted the name of his godfather, Pope Julius III (Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte), and was known as Andrea de Monte. He became a violent anti-Jewish preacher. He was a censor of Jewish books in Spoleto and Rome, where he died in 1587. In a manner unknown to us, Codex Neofiti 1 came into the possession of Andrea de Monte, most probably for censorship. It is one of the works left by him in his will (dated 19th September 1587) to Ugo Boncampagni – another convert from Judaism. Ugo in turn donated it, with other works, to the Venerabile Collegium Neophitorum, where they are known to have been in 1602.14 The history of Codex Neofiti 1 between its transcription (in 1499 or 1504) and its coming into the possession of Andrea de Monte remains to be traced.

7. Menahem son of Mordecai in Latin and Italian Vernacular = Manuele son of Angelo Much more light was shed on the relationship of the papacy with the Jews by the documents published by S. Simonsohn in a series of volumes under the title: The Apostolic See and the Jews (1988–1991) containing documents from 492 to 1555. On completion of my essay on the colophon of Neofiti15 it did not appear that further progress could be made, unless some new approach should prove possible. Very fortunately that same year (1999), during celebrations in Rome to mark the ninetieth anniversary of the foundation of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, I spoke to Professor Joseph Sievers on Neofiti 1 and the work done by Dr Anna Esposito. He remarked that Dr Esposito was well known to him and the Institute, and kindly put me in contact with her. She read through a copy of the 1999 essay, with particular interest in the question of the identity of the scribe Menahem and his family. She noted first of all that Menahem, son of Mordecai the physician, son of Mosheh the physician, son of Menahem the physician is equivalent in Latin / vernacular to Manuele son of Angelo, son of Mosè, the son of Manuele. In the documents in her files a Menahem (Manuele) is never cited in this manner, nor has she found any instance of an Angelo (son) of Mosè, or a Mosè son of Manuele the physician. She drew my attention, however, to the occurrence of Manuele and his son Angelo (and others) in the rich documentation provided by Simonsohn, 14 R. Le Déaut, “Jalons pour une histoire d’un manuscrit du Targum palestinien (Neofiti 1)”, Bib 48 (1967), 509–533, at 515–523; M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 8–9. 15 N. McNamara, “The Colophon to Neofiti 1”, JSP 19 (1999), 147–157.

8. The Avignon Exile, the Great Schism and the Council of Constance

399

with regard to the privileges and exemptions granted from 1376 to 1420 to the physicians Manuele, his son Angelo “de regione Transtiberim”, and their descendants, down to a prominent physician by the name of Manuele, active about 1400.16 This Manuele (Menahem) is very probably to be identified with the great-grandfather of Menahem the only named scribe of Codex Neofiti 1. These privileges and exemptions in question were granted by, and under, popes from Gregory XI to Martin V, with mention in a document of Martin V to the Anti-Pope John XXIII Baldassare (Cossa) (“Baldassar tunc Iohannis XXIII”).

8. The Avignon Exile, the Great Schism and the Council of Constance Before considering these relevant documents in detail, I do not consider it amiss to examine them against the background of the troubled period of Church history in question, ranging from the Avignon Exile (1309–1377) through the Great Western Schism (1378–1417) to the Council of Constance and immediately after. The last pope of the Avignon period was Gregory XI. He returned to Rome in 1377, and was very disappointed with what he found in Rome and by reason of the chaotic conditions of the papal states. However, he died in 1378 before he could leave Rome again. A Roman was elected as his successor (Urban VI, 1378–1389) in April 1378. Some months later a rival pope (Clement VII) was chosen. Urban was succeeded by Boniface IX (1389 to 10th October 1404), and in turn by Innocent VII (17th October 1404 to 6th November 1406), and Gregory XII (1406–1415). The Council of Pisa in 1409 “deposed” both the Roman and Avignon claimants to the papacy (Gregory XII and Benedict XIII), and “elected” a new pope, Alexander V, mainly through the influence of Baldassare Cossa. Cossa was a doctor of law and entered the Roman curia. From 1402 he resided in Bologna and was an administrator of the States of the Church. When Alexander V died in 1410 he was elected pope by the cardinals who recognised the Council of Pisa, but in good part through the intervention of Louis of Anjou. When Philip marched into Italy in 1411 John XXIII was able to enter Rome, but on Louis’s withdrawal the following year he had to retire. He was forced to resign the papacy at the Council of Constance, where Martin V (1417–1431) was elected and recognised as the sole suc16 The substance of the evidence on the Manuel family has been put together by S. Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews: History (Studies and Texts 109), Toronto & Turnhout 1991, 404–405; Simonsohn (404)  notes: “The physicians Manuel (son of Angelo), his son Angelo and their descendants were among the leaders of the Roman community in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.”

400

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

cessor of Peter, thus ending the Western Schism. In 1419 Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII) subscribed to the election of Martin and was made bishop of Frascati. He died that same year.

9. History of the Medical Family of Manuel, Angelo and their Descendants a. Privileges granted by the Roman Senate to Manuel, his son Angelo and their descendants on 29th April 1376, and confirmed on 8th August 1385. We know of these privileges of the Roman Senate not from a contemporary document but in citations of a document of Boniface IX, dated Rome, 6th April 1399 confirming them.17 The document is addressed to Angelo, declared son of the late Manuel. In 1376 the papal residence was at Avignon, returning to Rome only in 1377. This may explain the role played by the Roman Senate. The document speaks highly of the integrity of Manuel and Angelo and of the service rendered by both, in medical practice (“in arte cirurgie”) and in other ways, to the Roman people in general and to individuals as well. The document is a very lengthy one and cites extensively from the acts of the Roman Senate on both occasions with regard to Manuel and Angelo. They were exempted from taxes on Jews, there was a reduction of thirty florins on the tax burden of the Jewish community in Rome for the games of Agone and Testaccio, and also exemption from wearing the Jewish badge. In the body of the last of the Roman Senate’s documents, but not earlier, both Manuel and Angelo are each described as magister (“magistris Manuel et Angelo; magister Manuel et magister Angelus”), a term in this context probably to be understood as indicating possession of the degree of master of medicine. b. Rome, 1st July 1392. Appointment by Pope Boniface IX of Angelo, son of Manuel, papal physician, to the status of a member of the papal household, and the grant of papal protection.18 This is the oldest document we have relating the Manuel family. It is addressed by Pope Boniface to Angelo, son of Manuel, of the region (rione) “in transtiberim de Urbe”, and the presumption is that Manuel is still alive. Boniface acknowledges the honourable life and integrity of Angelo and his dedication to the Roman Church. For this reason, and because of his respect for Angelo, he wishes to honour him still more by making him papal physician and member of the papal household (“… dignioris nominis titulo et gratia provenire, te in nostrum et apostolicae 17 S. Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents 492–1404, Turnhout 1988, 518–524, no. 487. 18 Ibid., 511–512, no. 481.

9. History of the Medical Family of Manuel, Angelo and their Descendants

401

sedis medicum et familiarem et sub beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ac nostra et sedis predicte protectione tenore presentium recipimus”). c. Rome, 6th April 1399. Confirmation to Angelo, son of the late Manuel, papal surgeon and member of the papal household, of the privilege granted his father, him and their descendants by the Roman Senate in 1376 and confirmed in 1385.19 Angelo is said to be residing “in regione Transtiberim de Urbe”. This very lengthy document (which has already been mentioned) was probably occasioned by the recent death of Angelo’s father Manuel. d. Rome, 20th February 1404. A document from Conradius, papal chamberlain (of Boniface IX) with concession to Magister Angelo, son of Magister Manuel, and his [Angelo’s] sons Leutius and Manuel, Jewish surgeons, of Trastevere [de regione Transtibirim] in Rome, members of the papal household, that they were subject to the sole jurisdiction of the chamberlain’s court, and confirmation of their privileges.20 In this document we are introduced to the third generation of the family with the addition of Angelo’s two sons Leutius and Manuel. All three are stated to be surgeons (cirurgici) of the rione of the Trastevere. The occasion of the document may be a determination of their legal status and the addition of the two sons by name. e. Rome, 11th November 1404. Confirmation (by Pope Innocent VII, 17th October 1404 to 6th November 1406) to Angelo, son of Manuel, and his sons Leutius and Manuel, of the privileges granted him by Boniface on 6th April 1399, and confirmed on 20th February 1404, and the additional privileges granted him by the same pope and confirmed on papal instructions by Conrad Caracciolo, papal chamberlain.21 This document adds nothing new. Its purpose seems to be to give assurances from the pope himself of those already given by his chamberlain Conrad. f. Rome, 8th July 1411. Confirmation by Pope John XXIII (of the Pisa obedience) to Angelo, son of the late Manuel, a Jewish surgeon in Trastevere in Rome, of the privileges granted him and his family by Boniface IX and later confirmed.22 We have seen how during the Great Schism John XXIII of the Pisa obedience entered Rome in 1411. He succeeded in expelling Pope Gregory XII of the Roman obedience. The change in the control of the city appears to have prompted Angelo to petition confirmation of the privilege granted to him and his family. g. Rome, 11th December 1420. Confirmation by Pope Martin V to the brothers Liucius and Manuel, son of the late Angelo, son of Manuel, in Trastevere in Rome, of the privileges granted Angelo by Boniface IX and 19

Ibid., 518–524, no. 487. Ibid., 548–549, no. 503*. 21 Ibid., 621, no. 560. 22 S. Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents 1394–1464, Turnhout 1989, 662–663, no. 585. 20

402

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

John XXIII.23 This is a reply to a petition by Liucius and Manuel, sons of the late Angelo, son of Manuel. The occasion of the request would appear to have been the recent death of their father Angelo, and is informative from this point of view. In this document Pope Martin constantly refers to John XXIII as “Baldassar then John XXIII” (Baldassar tunc Iohannes XXIII). We have seen that both of these brothers, Leutius and Manuel, were already active as surgeons / physicians (cirurgici) in Rome in 1404. h. Manuel, son of Angelo, surgeon, of the Trastevere, a member of the college of antepositi in Rome 1398–1409. The evidence given above from the papal archives on Manuel son of Angelo fits in excellently with that already made available by J.-C. Maire Vigueur from the registers of the notary Antonio Scambi for the years 1363–1409.24 At the end of his essay Vigueur notes that during this period the Jewish community in Rome was governed by a college of antepositi. He gives the list of these antepositi furnished by the registers of the notary Scambi for nine years between 1390 and 1409. For five of these years Manuel son of Angelo figures, and for one of the years Lencius [read: Leucius] son of Angelo. Thus: 1398: Magister Manuele magistri Angeli cirurcus r. Trastevere 1400: magister Manuele magistri Angeli cirurcus r. Trastevere 1403: magister Manuele magistri Angeli cirurcus 1407: magister Lencius [read: Leucius] magistri Angeli cirurcus r. Trastevere 1408: magister Manuele magistri Angeli cirurcus 1409: magister Manuele magistri Angeli cirurcus r. Trastevere

i. Rome, 16th March 1472. Confirmation by Pope Sixtus IV, to Aleucius, a Hebrew (Jewish) physician / surgeon (“… pro parte Aleucii Ebrei … in arte cyrurgie periti”) in Rome, of the privileges granted to his ancestors Manuel and Angelus, by the authorities in Rome, confirmed by Boniface IX, John XXIII, Martin V and their successors. Aleucius and the members of his family, and his descendants, are to enjoy the liberties granted them, including exemption from taxes, especially the carnival tax of the Jews in Rome, exemption from the wearing of the badge, and the permit to treat Christian patients.25 It is clear that this Aleucius is a descendant of the original Manuel († ca. 1399) and of his son Angelo († ca. 1420), since this document refers 23

Ibid., 693–695, no. 605. J.-C. Maire Vigueur, “Les juifs à Rome dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle: Information tirée d’un fonds notarié”, in Aspetti e problemi (see n. 6 above), 19–28, at 27. 25 S. Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents 1454–1521, Turnhout 1990, 1186–1188, no. 951. 24

10. Magister Manuele circurcus

403

back to earlier ones which we have already considered. The exact line of descent is not clear, and whether it is through the Manuel just considered or not. Aleucius is not said to be connected with the Trastevere, nor is he stated to be a physician of the Pope or a member of the papal family. The tone of the document is also rather patronising. He seems too young (1472) to be identified with Leucius brother of Manuel (active from ca. 1407 to 1420), since if he were he would probably be described as son of Angelo (a son of Manuel), rather than as a descendant of Manuel and Angelo. However, he apparently is the same person as the “Leutius magistri Angeli, medicuscirurgicus” who, according to documents examined by A. Esposito, was active in Rome in the years 1462–1480.26

10. Magister Manuele circurcus = Rabbi Menahem the Physician, Great-Grandfather of the Scribe of Codex Neofiti 1 We may now return to consideration of the colophon of Neofiti. If we take the equation of Menahem with Manuel and Mordecai with Angelo, I believe that we can safely identify Menahem, the great-grandfather of Menahem the chief scribe of Codex Neofiti 1 with the Manuel whose career can be traced from 1398 into 1420. Menahem, the chief scribe of the codex, who described himself as “the youngest of the scribes”, had every reason to be proud of his earlier namesake, “the most honourable rabbi Menahem, the most eminent of the physicians”. But Menahem the younger really only tells half of the story. We apparently can now trace his genealogy back to an earlier Menahem, grandfather of his great-grandfather, who was honoured by the Roman Senate as early as 1376, and was both a papal physician and member of the papal family. Menahem, the scribe of Neofiti, presents himself as a scribe, not as a physician or surgeon. How far back proficiency in Jewish learning went in the Manuel family we cannot say. Future research may be able to throw some light on this matter. In the suppositions which we follow, Menahem (Manuel), “the most eminent of the physicians”, the great-grandfather of the scribe of Neofiti 1, had his floruit 1400–1420; the floruit of his grandfather, the honourable rabbi Mosheh the physician, would have been 1440–1460. That of his father Mordecai (Angelo) the physician would have been ca. 1470–1480 – roughly contemporary with Aleucius (his cousin?). Menahem (Manuel) himself wrote his colophon to Neofiti 1 ca. 1500. All these, like Aleucius in 1472, can be presumed to have been members of a well-placed Roman family of 26

Esposito, “Gli ebrei a Roma”, 78.

404

Chapter 16: The Colophon of Codex Neofiti 1

physicians, enjoying the favours granted them by the authorities in Rome (from 1376 onwards), confirmed by the popes Boniface IX, John XXIII, Martin V and their successors. It was a society in which Giles of Viterbo would have felt at home.

11. Postscript 2010 A question that could be explored further is the exact date (whether 1504 or 1499) on which the manuscript Codex Neofiti 1 was completed, and how one or other date relates to what is known of the life of Giles (Egidio) of Viterbo, for whom the manuscript is presumed to have been written. There are two possible avenues of approach to a solution of this question. One is the word (ĕĀāčā, “the glorious”) chosen to express the date, whether the adjective was chosen because the month of Adar in question was exceptionally “glorious” and memorable. An idea of exceptional weather conditions for that month (February–March) either in 1504 or 1499 might throw light on this, and such information might possibly be preserved by some diarist, chronicler or in a biography. The other avenue is what is known of Giles of Viterbo for one or other of these years. Giles was born in Viterbo in 1469 and made profession in the Augustinian Order in 1489.27 In 1490 he was studying theology at Padua and from there he went to Florence to study Plato, under Marsilio Ficino, leader of a group at Florence who were formulating a new exposition of Christianity, the theologia platonica, to counteract what they condemned as the insidious errors of Averroistic Aristotelianism.28 In the winter of 1496, or the spring of 1497, Giles was called to Rome by the vicar general of his Order to undergo an examination for the magisterium in theology. He had to withstand a fierce assault by the examiners on his Platonic exposition of Christian doctrine, but he emerged successfully from the test. Giles describes his experience of this in graphic terms in a letter to Ficino about the summer of 1499.29 He was then sent to Florence to teach philosophy.30 He was sufficiently well known to be called to Rome, probably on 18th March 1498, to preach before Pope Alexander VI. He travelled to Naples in the spring of 1499 and remained there until June 1501. The years 1501–1506 saw 27

F. X. Martin, Friar, Reformer and Renaissance Scholar, 13. Ibid., 14. 29 See ibid., 29, nn. 17 and 15. This notwithstanding, Martin (ibid., 17) remarks on the lack of letters to and from Giles during the year 1499, which he takes as a convincing indication that he turned his back on normal social intercourse for the sake of the gifts of self-knowledge and contemplation of the divine. 30 See ibid., 16–17. 28

11. Postscript 2010

405

an increasing tension between two aspects of Giles’ life. Giles the scholar grew plaintive in his appeals that he be allowed to follow a life of solitude, of prayer, of study. Giles the preacher was in popular demand, being regarded as “the Christian Cicero”. He became a member of the Augustinian Lecceto community, near Siena, in 1503. After an exhaustive round of sermons in central and northern Italy he sought refuge in July 1504 in a hermitage on Mount Cimino near Viterbo, only to be informed in 1506 that Pope Julius II had appointed him vicar general of the Augustinian Order.31 In a letter to a friend of his, in the summer of 1504, Giles speaks of his earlier life.32 In all that we know of Giles, there seems to be no mention of his involvement with Targums before 1515. In a letter to a friend of his in January of that year, before Elias Levita arrived in Rome, Giles wrote:33 “On the subject of Targums, it would please me that you do not relax your efforts on behalf of this matter which is so close to my heart. Indeed, here in Rome, a man has died, who was a great authority in this field, and the pope Leo X [1513–1521] has ordered that his books are to be preserved in the Pontifical Library. Furthermore, His Holiness has in his great generosity given me a copy of the Targum and several other books. Little wonder that his name is a happy omen for me.”

While there does not appear to be any evidence in the documents on a friendship between Giles and the Manuele Jewish family in Rome, or possession of Codex Neofiti, the available evidence seems to favour completion of Codex Neofiti in the spring (Adar, February–March) of 1499, rather than in 1504. Neofiti was completed (ĊĉĖč) in the glorious month of Adar. Composition would have begun some time – probably one or two years – previously, that is in 1497 or 1498. The year 1497 was a memorable year in the life of Giles, that in which he defended and received his Masters (magisterium) in theology. He was now a Maestro Egidio, the title given him in the colophon. In the letter of 1499 to his friend Ficino, already referred to, Giles himself describes this test he had to undergo at his defence for this degree. The year and the Master’s might even have acted as inspiration for the Manuele family to think of Giles in the planning of the transcription of the Targum now known as Codex Neofiti 1. In the spring (the month of Adar?) of 1499 Giles left Rome for Naples. It may have been the occasion for the Menahem/ Manuele scribe to show him the Targum composed or completed in his honour, possibly allowing him possession of it for some time.

31

See ibid., 24. See ibid., 29, n. 8. 33 Text in ibid., 171. 32

Part Four

Targum and New Testament

Chapter 17

Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology* Midrash has been traditionally regarded as something specifically Jewish and rabbinic, but later as a reality found already in the Hebrew Scriptures and present also in New Testament writings. In this essay the more recent debates regarding the nature of midrash are examined in the larger context of inner-biblical exegesis and against the background of canonical process. Some midrash-type features or techniques are examined and these are seen to be found also in apocryphal and traditional Christian commentary literature. In the light of this there is a consideration of the reflection on the afterlife in Irish apocrypha and Irish theological treatises. Some years ago after reflection on the matter I wrote an essay under the title “Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”.1 In that essay I noted that a certain amount of what I had observed concerning midrash would hold good as well with regard to some at least of the apocryphal literature and to the mentality that produced it. What I intend to do here is to go over some of what I have said concerning midrash and develop the principles involved with regard to the apocrypha. We can begin with a rapid glance on some writings on midrash over the past six decades.

1. Traditional Understanding of Midrash Traditionally the term “midrash” was associated with Rabbinic Judaism and with it alone, and this even when authors were not quite at one in the definition or description of midrash. After all, the term for one thing described one of the major divisions of rabbinic literature. The word has been so defined in dictionaries of the English language. Thus in The Shorter

* First published, under the same title, in Apocrypha 6 (1995), 127–164. 1 M. McNamara, “Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”, PIBA 11 (1987; published 1988), 67–87.

410 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles2 we are told that it comes from the Hebrew, and means commentary (with reference to its use in the 1613 Revised Version of 2 Chr 24:27). The dictionary defines it as: “an ancient Jewish homiletic commentary on some portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, in which allegory and legendary illustration was freely used. Hence Midrashic”. The Standard Dictionary of the English Language. International Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1954) defines the word as: “Jewish exegetical treatise on the Old Testament, dating from the 4th to the 12th Century, specifically the Haggadah”, noting that it derives from the Hebrew (darash), with the meaning “explanation”. Essays on midrash in earlier times made the same point. In his entry on the word in 1908 in F. Vigouroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible H. Lesêtre defines the term (which under German influence he writes as “midrasch”) as “commentaire rabbinique du texte de la Sainte Écriture”,3 and goes on to say that this commentary which is both on the legal and the historical and moral parts of the sacred books has as purpose to study the text not merely in itself but also with the help of comparisons with other passages, of various combinations and of allegorical explanations. It never occurred to him that midrash could be anything other than rabbinic. Jewish scholars, more familiar with the rabbinic sources, have been more nuanced in their definitions and descriptions, but naturally take midrash as something rabbinic. In his dictionary4 Marcus Jastrow explains the Hebrew and Aramaic word as “textual interpretation, study”, but especially, with capital M, “homiletic book”. Similarly J. Levy in his dictionaries of Talmudic Literature and of the Targumim.5 In 1934 the Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto wrote an essay on “Midrash” for the Enciclopedia Italiana. In this contribution he notes that the term has as meanings: 1) the exegetical examination of the sacred texts which was carried out by the Hebrew teachers from the talmudic period (indicated as the last centuries b.c.e. and the first five centuries c.e.) and by the teachers who continued their work; 2) the 2 The Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford 1944; revised with addenda, 1953. Likewise Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. New edition, Edinburgh 1983, 796: “Midrash. The Hebrew exposition of the Old Testament – in two divisions, Haggada and Halachah.” 3 H. Lesêtre, “Midrasch”, Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. by F. Vigouroux, vol. 4, Paris 1908, cols. 1077–1079, at 1077. 4 M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York & London 1886–1903; many later editions (with preface 1903). 5 J. Levy, Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim, 2nd edition, Berlin & Vienna 1925 (repr. Darmstadt 1963), 34; idem, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, 2 vols., Leipzig 1867–1868 (repr. Cologne 1959), vol. 2, 12–13.

1. Traditional Understanding of Midrash

411

results of this examination. Cassuto recalls that the term bet ha-midrash, “house of the midrash”, is found in Sir 51:23 to designate the school where the sacred texts are studied, although it is not easy to determine what kind of study is intended in the passage. In the specific senses listed by him, Cassuto notes that the term is very frequent in the rabbinic literature, which in itself, in fact, is in good part midrash. He further notes that this research, this close examination, in the matter of the biblical texts became particularly intense and active in the circles of Pharisaic Judaism, and then in those of rabbinic Judaism which continued Pharisaism, in so far as these circles, animated by the most passionate love and deep veneration for the Bible, tended to make the Bible the fundamental norm of all forms of the life of Jewish society and of the individual Jew and saw in it the exclusive source of all wisdom. He continues as follows:6 “This gave rise to assiduous and zealous, loving, reverent, detailed and subtle study of the biblical text, a study which tended to closely examine and precisely determine its meaning, even its most hidden meaning or that which was believed to be such, in order to draw from this norms for life and for teaching on religion and morals. From this also derived the ‘interpretation’ of the word of Scripture, an interpretation which, quite unconsciously came to modify its meaning, adapting it to changed times and to changed social and political conditions. Thereby also is explained the intense effort to connect with the Bible, through a more or less artificial exegesis, the traditional juridical and religious customs, and the new institutions or the new norms of law and of religious life which were coming into being within Judaism or which were penetrating it from without – all this in order to give them that official consecration which alone could derive from the connection with revealed law, the one source of (human) law. From this besides is explained the analogous intense activity to connect in a similar fashion with the text of the Bible ancient traditions, historical or legendary, relating to biblical personages and to the events of biblical history; likewise the traditional or newly formed teachings in matters of religious beliefs and moral obligations, of national and human awareness, of the religious expectation concerning the future of Israel and of humanity. All this was midrash. And just as midrash was the complex of all this exegetical activity on the texts of the Bible, so also the teaching of this midrash, and the individual norm or the individual point of teaching resulting from this exegesis was midrash (in this sense with the plural form midrashot). Midrash halakah or halakic midrash was that with juridical content; midrash haggadah or haggadic midrash that of non-juridical content. And the expression bet ha-midrash, ‘house of midrash’ (plural batte midrashot) becomes the customary denomination for the Pharisaic and rabbinical schools.”

6 U. Cassuto, “Midrash”, Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 23, Rome 1934, 239. (Translation by the present writer.)

412 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine

2. Newer Viewpoints 1. Renée Bloch. In the Supplément to Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. 5 (1957),7 there appeared posthumously an essay on “Midrash” by Renée Bloch. (She herself had perished on her way to Israel in a plane shot down over Bulgaria in July 1955.) It was a study that was to prove extremely influential in the modern history of midrash. In this essay Bloch studies the meaning of the term, the characteristics of rabbinic midrash, the biblical origins of midrash (with examples taken from the Bible), midrash in the biblical milieu. This essay of Bloch was the culmination of a number of studies by her on the subject. She recognised the need for an exact definition of midrash, since she realised that the term had taken on the pejorative meaning of fable, legendary tale, a fact which in her view was keeping scholars away from studying midrash in its relation to Scripture, and from examining its scriptural origins. In the essay referred to she examines the meaning of the term midrash and related words in the Bible and in rabbinic literature. In the latter, she notes, the term midrash has taken on a “technical” meaning, and is always used in relation to Scripture, in the sense of “to seek, to bring oneself to understand the sense, the content, of the scriptural text; to explain, to bring out in public, the sense of the Scripture”.8 As the essential characteristics of rabbinic midrash she instances the following:9 it has its point of departure in the Scripture; it is of a homiletic nature; it is an attentive study of the text, and adaptation to the present; it is of two kinds – haggadah and halakah. She writes:10 “This intense activity of study and ‘practical’ interpretation of the Torah, pursued for many centuries, has given rise to a collection of explanations and commentaries which, having been transmitted orally by scholars from generation to generation were finally redacted to form a whole body of halakhic commentaries, the Tannaitic midrašim. These midrashim contain very ancient materials and have for the most part preserved the simple methods of interpretation of the ancient scholars, who limited themselves to a very literal explanation of the biblical text.”

The haggadah, she continues, has given birth to an immense literature which comprises homilies and continuous commentaries on biblical books. It makes its appearance first as a form of popular instruction where the biblical text occasionally serves as a spring-board to raise oneself to meditation of the divine mysteries. 7

R. Bloch, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280. (Translated into English by Mary Howard Callaway, with the assistance of James A. Sanders, “Midrash”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. by W. S. Green, Missoula 1978, 29–50.) 8 Ibid., col. 1265 (transl., p. 31). 9 Ibid., cols. 1265–1267 (transl., 31–34). 10 Ibid., col. 1267 (transl., 33–34).

2. Newer Viewpoints

413

In her section on the biblical origins of midrash11 Bloch considers the historical background of the birth of the midrashic process – during the exile (Ezekiel, Isaiah 40–55), the Persian period (the formation of the Canon and the consequences of this for midrash, the role of the Torah in life and cult). She begins the section on the evolution of the literary genres by recalling that the origin of the midrashic genre is inseparable from the formation and the life of the sacred books. The first developments of midrash are to be sought within the Bible itself and in the literature attached to it – the versions, apocrypha. The later literature of purely midrashic character will remain in continuity with the Bible and the rabbinic literature. Bloch devotes attention to the “anthological process” or style, which A. Robert had identified in certain books such as Proverbs 1–9, in which words or formulas of earlier books of Scripture are seen as re-employed in later books, either literally or equivalently. As examples of midrashic processes within the Bible she instances Chronicles, Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 60–62, Proverbs 1–9, Canticle of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus 24 and 44:1–50:24, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 132 (which she regards as apparently a midrashic reflection on the oracle of Nathan), Psalm 88 and some further examples of a minor nature. She goes on to consider midrash in later, non-biblical, writings: the apocryphal literature (midrash and apocalyptic), the versions of the Bible, the Palestinian Targum, which in her view cannot be considered a translation but rather originally a kind of homiletic midrash or simply the outline of a series of homilies on Scripture, given in the synagogue after the public reading of the Torah. She ends her inquiry into this history by a consideration of midrash in the New Testament.12 Quite naturally, she remarks, the tendencies which she has described in cursory fashion are to be found in the New Testament. She adds further that the study of the midrashic procedures in the New Testament (which, she sadly remarks, were up to then almost completely ignored) would be of the greatest interest. She lists some of the New Testament texts which are of interest from this point of view: the Gospels of Matthew, Luke (especially the infancy narratives), but also Paul, Hebrews, the Apocalypse of John. All the forms of midrash, she concludes, are thus found in the New Testament: the close examination of a biblical personage, of an event or a group of scriptural texts, the midrashic development with a given text (sometimes composite) as its point of departure. The midrashic actualisation of ancient texts so as to apply them to the present (Matthew, Acts 1:15–22, etc.), the homiletic midrash, even the halakic midrash (see Matt 5:32; 19:9 regarding divorce; 1 Cor 9:8–10 on Deut 25:4). One could 11 12

Ibid., cols. 1267–1276 (transl., 34–44). Ibid., cols. 1279–1280 (transl., 48–49).

414 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine also mention certain non-biblical midrashic traditions which have entered the New Testament, and certain loca classica of the apostolic preaching which equally belong to the midrashic genre. 2. A. G. Wright. Renée Bloch’s studies on midrash, from her earliest in 1954 until her major essay in 1959,13 were instrumental in accelerating interest in the subject, and in the contribution it seemed to have made for understanding certain passages of the New Testament, of the Gospels in particular. Studies on midrash itself and on midrash in the New Testament continued to appear apace and the understanding or definition of the term itself was being enlarged in the process.14 Objections were also being raised regarding this inflated use of the term, and also regarding the treatment of certain portions of the New Testament, the Infancy Narratives for instance, as midrash. A significant contribution to this ongoing debate was made by A. G. Wright in his doctoral dissertation, “The literary Genre Midrash”, published under that title in the form of two essays in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly in 1966 and in book form, with the same title, the year following.15 In the introduction Wright tells us that he has set himself the task of carrying out “an investigation into midrash as a literary form for the purpose of delineating its primary characteristics, constructing a definition in terms of them, and finding genuine pre-rabbinic examples”.16 In chapter 13 R. Bloch, “Écriture et tradition dans le Judaïsme: Aperçus sur l’origine du midrash”, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), 9–34; eadem, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique”, RSR 43 (1955), 194–227. (English translation by W. S. Green and W. J. Sullivan, “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. by W. S. Green, Missoula 1978, 51–75.) 14 See the select bibliography (pp. 135–137) on midrash, appended to G. Porton, “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman Period”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. by H. Temporini & W. Haase, Teil II: Principat, vol. 19.2, Berlin & New York 1979, 104–135. See also the bibliography on midrash by L. Haas (ibid., 93–103) to G. Porton, “Defining Midrash”, in The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol.  1: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. by J. Neusner, New York 1981, 55–92. To these we can add Midrash and Literature, ed. by G. H. Hartman & S. Budick, New Haven & London 1952, with sections on “Bible and Midrash” (including M. Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of interpretation in Ancient Israel”), “Midrash and Aggadah” and select bibliography (ibid., 369–395). 15 A. G. Wright, “The Literary Genre Midrash”, CBQ 28 (1966), 105–138, 417–458; idem, The Literary Genre Midrash, New York 1967. Wright notes that in the preceding fifteen years (i.e. 1951–1966) in Christian biblical circles there had been a growing interest in the literary genre midrash in both Old and New Testament studies, and a large number of biblical passages had been assigned to this category. Yet it had become more and more evident that there was little agreement among scholars as to what the literary genre really is (The Literary Genre Midrash, 18). As then employed the word midrash was an equivocal term, and was being used to describe a mass of disparate material (ibid., 21). As the term was at that time (1967–1968) being used in biblical studies Wright also noted (ibid., 21–22), that the word midrash was approaching the point where it was no longer really meaningful. 16 Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, 25.

2. Newer Viewpoints

415

three of the work he studies what he considers the characteristics of rabbinic midrash. In the course of a summary of this discussion he writes:17 “[R]abbinic midrash is a literature concerned with the Bible; it is a literature about a literature. A midrash is a work that attempts to make a text of Scripture understandable, useful, and relevant for a later generation. It is the text of Scripture which is the point of departure, and it is for the sake of the text that the midrash exists. The treatment of any given text may be creative or non-creative, but the literature as a whole is predominantly creative in its handling of the biblical material. The interpretation is accomplished sometimes by rewriting the biblical material, sometimes by commenting upon it. In either case the midrash may go as far afield as it wishes provided that at some stage at least there is to be found some connection, implicit or explicit, between the biblical text and the new midrashic composition. At times this connection with the text may be convincing, at times it may be desperate; it is sufficient merely that a connection be there. Frequently the midrashic literature is characterized by a careful analysis of and attention to the biblical text.”

The study goes on to give examples of pre-rabbinic midrashim, tending to exclude the Gospel Infancy Narratives from the genre midrash. The fundamental criterion in regard to both Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts in this regard is: do the narratives in question actualise biblical texts? It is hard to see how Luke’s narrative does while the citations in Matthew 1–2 “seem to be used not to direct attention to the OT material so that it might be explained but to explain the person of Jesus”.18 3. R. Le Déaut. In a review essay of Wright’s work, under the title “À propos d’une définition du Midrash”, published in 1969,19 R. Le Déaut has made what in fact is a major contribution to the understanding of midrash, a contribution that was to become highly influential in later discussion of the subject. Le Déaut cites the texts of Wright given above, and objects to his practical reduction of midrash to a literary genre. For Le Déaut midrash is much more:20 “When we try to discover and to classify the literary genres of the Bible we use the categories which are attested in a great number of literatures, especially those of the West (history, legend, parable). But in the case of midrash one is in the presence of a Jewish category for which there is no equally ‘comprehensive’ analogy in our Western categories and vocabulary … It [i.e. midrash] is part of a specific ‘mental constellation’ in which it is endowed with an emotional and religious charge which, we think, obliges us to reserve to it exclusively its traditional meaning. But it is a very 17 Ibid., 74 (italics as added by R. Le Déaut, “À propos d’une définition du Midrash”, Bib 50 (1969), 395–413, at 396; English translation by Mary Howard Callaway, “A Propos a Definition of Midrash”, Int 25 (1971), 262–282, with introduction by J. A. Sanders (259–261), at 263. 18 Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, 139–142, at 141. 19 Le Déaut, “À propos d’une définition du Midrash”, Bib 50 (1969), 395–413; English translation 1971 (see n. 17). 20 Ibid., 400–402 (transl., 267–269).

416 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine broad meaning which has been adopted by the Jewish and Christian authors who have dedicated the most important studies to it. Midrash is in effect a whole world which can be discovered only by accepting its complexity at the outset. It is pervasive throughout the whole Jewish approach to the Bible, which could in its entirety be called midrash. Technique and method cannot be separated, even if they lead to different literary genres. Midrash may be described but not defined, for it is also a way of thinking and reasoning which is often disconcerting to us. One may best perceive its nature, therefore, by listing its characteristics, as Zunz, Bloch, Seeligman, and others have done. Studies like Wright’s can then sharpen the literary structures and their different forms in order to classify them in precise genres. But reducing midrash itself to a very definite and limited literary genre would be comparable to cutting down a forest in order to make a box of matches. Ancient hermeneutics, and that of the Semites in particular, is often diametrically opposed to modern scientific requirements; but in order to understand them one must adopt their point of view, and midrash represents a privileged form of it.”

3. Reflections on New Approaches One gets the impression, Le Déaut remarks,21 that the primary aim of Wright’s research was to furnish Christian exegetes with a rigorous terminology and that problems raised by the Infancy Narratives have been at the background of the inquiry. He had not the intention of studying midrash for its own sake, as otherwise his study of the rabbinic literature would be quite insufficient. In his observations on the understanding of the use of the Scripture in the New Testament and of what Le Déaut would call Christian midrash, and Wright’s position on Matthew 1–2, Le Déaut speaks of the “Copernican revolution” that has been brought about by the incarnation, since God has now spoken to us through his Son (Heb 1:2). He cites C. Perrot’s words in his study on Infancy Narratives in the haggadah: if the older midrashim “always have the Scripture as the basic point of reference, the first (Christian) oral tradition and the Gospels effect a complete reversal of the situation. The basic point of reference is Christ”.22 Christ becomes the key to the Scriptures. The “quest”, inquiry (recherche) is henceforth centered on him and the Spirit is the tanna and the amora who recalls his doctrine and reveals its deepest meaning. This radical change, however, in Le Déaut’s view altered nothing, or next to nothing, of the methods involved and thus we find Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 constructing a Christian midrash after the fashion of a Jewish rabbi.23 21

Ibid., 395 (transl., 265). See ibid., 407 (transl., 275), citing C. Perrot, “Les récits d’enfance dans la Haggada”, RSR 55 (1967), 481–518. 23 Ibid., 408 (transl., 276). 22

3. Reflections on New Approaches

417

1. G. Porton. Studies on the nature of midrash and of its presence in the New Testament continued to appear even in greater numbers in the quarter century that followed. In an essay on the subject published in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, volume 19.2 in 1979, and in a revised form in 1981,24 the Jewish scholar Gary Porton begins with the telling sentence: “The scholarly study of midrash is in its infancy.” He notes that although there have been a number of studies in the last few decades dealing with midrash, many have complained about the vague manner in which the term is defined. At the same time, he continues, others have warned against too narrow a definition which would exclude material which is probably midrashic. He gives instances of the variety of definitions given over the preceding decades. Among other tendencies he notes the Jewish scholar’s Meir Gertner’s distinction between covert midrash in which neither the scriptural text nor the midrashic idea, nor the midrashic technique is defined or mentioned and overt midrash in which the verse, idea, and most often the technique are explicitly stated.25 He also notes J. Sanders’s similar opinion arguing that “any definition of midrash which limits its scope to the citation and use of an actual biblical passage is deficient”.26 “It is difficult”, he continues,27 “to bring these various comments [made on midrash] into relationship with one another. Frankel and Brownlee derive their descriptions of midrash from the content of some midrashic texts. Lieberman, Childs, Wright, Zunz, Vermes, and Bloch seem to focus their attention on the process through which some of the midrashic texts were created or the function certain midrashic passages played in the life of the community. LeDéaut has argued the midrash is an attitude, and Sanders has written that midrash is the way in which a community finds its identity. Gertner, Sanders and Wright have also discussed midrash in terms of its literary features, that is, how does it relate literarily to the canonical text and traditions. In brief, these several writers do not seem to me to be discussing the same phenomenon in a similar manner.” After a little further discussion of the matter he gives his own definition of midrash as follows:28 “In brief, I would define midrash as a type of literature, oral or written, which stands in direct relationship to a fixed, canonical text, considered to be the authoritative and the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, and in which this canonical text is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to.” 24

G. Porton, “Midrash” (1979), and idem, “Defining Midrash” (1981) (n. 14 above). Porton, “Midrash”, 110; idem, “Defining Midrash”, 60; with reference to M. Gertner, “Midrashim in the New Testament”, in JSS 7 (1962), 267–292, at 268–269. 26 Porton, “Midrash”, 110; idem, “Defining Midrash”, 60; with reference to J. Sanders, Torah and Canon, Philadelphia 1972, xiv. 27 Porton, “Defining Midrash”, 60–61. 28 Ibid., 62. 25

418 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine Before he comes to discuss the different midrashic collections, as he sees them, he makes the point that the Torah was not the sole source of religious authority before 70 c.e.29 During the intertestamental period there were two possible sources of authority, two parallel but possibly conflicting paths to God: the priesthood / priestly tradition and the Torah. Until the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e., it is likely that the former were the more important. There was some limited midrashic activity among Palestinian Jews before 70. The supposed work of the scribes, the earliest parts of the targumim and some early material from Qumran fall into this category. However, he remarks further, claims that the Bible as a closed, revealed text and as the central force within the Jewish communities which necessitated midrashic activity, fail to recognise the importance of the priesthood and its traditions or the wide variety of ideas and sources of authority within the Jewish society. Those who argue that the regular readings of the Torah within the synagogue service gave rise to the midrash find little evidence upon which to base their theory. In short, he continues, we have little which suggests that the creation of midrash was of central importance for Palestinian Jews before the first century of our era. On the assumption that his definition of midrash is accepted, he states that post-biblical midrash includes more than the rabbinical collections. There are, he says, at least four classes of Palestinian Jewish midrashic activity in the post-biblical period: translation (with targumim as the example), the rewriting of the biblical text (the most important examples being the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and the [Qumran] Genesis Apocryphon), the (Qumran) pesher and rabbinic midrash.30 2. J. Neusner. In his work Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (1983),31 Jacob Neusner generally avoids the term midrash despite the title of his work. He explains why:32 “‘Midrash’ stands for at least three specific things, as well as a great many things in general. It refers, first, to a particular kind of book, a compilation of biblical exegeses, amplifications, and compositions, as in Midrash Rabbah … It speaks, second, to an activity of explaining or applying the meaning of a biblical verse (or group of verses), as in ‘the midrash of this verse is …’. In this sense, the Gospel of Matthew is not a midrash but it contains much midrash.”

He goes on to note that a word so rich in ambiguities is best avoided; other words, each of them standing for some one thing, will prove more useful. This is still clearer, he continues, when we realise that the word midrash may 29

Porton, ibid., 63–65; idem, “Midrash”, 114–115. Porton, “Defining Midrash”, 70. 31 J. Neusner, Midrash in Context, Philadelphia 1983. See also M. McNamara, “Some Issues and Recent Writings on Judaism and the New Testament”, Irish Biblical Studies 9 (1987), 131–150, at 146–148. 32 J. Neusner, Midrash in Context, xvi. 30

3. Reflections on New Approaches

419

stand for yet a third thing: hermeneutics of a particular kind. As a mode of interpretation, people use the word midrash to mean the reading of one thing in terms of some other. The usage is so general as to defy concrete application, as in the statement, “Life itself is a midrash on the Torah”. That is to say, things that happen constitute amplifications and applications of statements made in Scripture. He then remarks:33 “The range of definitions of the word midrash, of the modes of exegesis encompassed within that word (as well as those excluded by it, if there are any), or the sorts of books that constitute midrash (and those that do not) – these are so vast as to make the word, by itself, more of a hindrance than a help in saying what we mean.”

He notes Porton’s essay on the subject, and cites his definition of midrash given above, and comments:34 “That definition encompasses a vast range of Judaic and early Christian literature – as Porton says …, ‘broad enough to include a large variety of treatments of the canonical texts and traditions, and yet narrow enough to distinguish this activity from other literary activities’.”

Since Neusner finds these statements accurate, he cannot use the word midrash at all, because he addresses the genre of writing and thinking known as midrash in only one context, namely that of Rabbinic Judaism. Thus has it come about that due to the extended meaning of a term drawn from Rabbinic Judaism, a leading authority on this same Judaism finds that he can no longer profitably use it at all in this same area! A few years later Neusner returns to the same topic with a booklet entitled What is Midrash?.35 He opens the work in the preface by noting that many people these days refer to “midrash”, but few tell us what they mean. The reason for prevailing confusion about midrash, he continues, is that a common English word “exegesis”, meaning “interpretation and explanation”, is replaced by an uncommon Hebrew word. The result is that people obscure matters that should be clear. In this book he sets out three types of midrash, meaning simply “biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities”. The three types of midrash-exegesis, deriving from three distinct Judaisms or Judaic religious systems in antiquity, involve the interpretation of Scripture in one of three ways: as (1) prophecy, characteristic of the Judaism set forth in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as of the Judaism laid out by the school of Matthew, the (re)reading of Scripture through (2) systematic paraphrase, accomplished by the translators of Scripture into Aramaic and Greek, and the reconsideration of Scripture as (3)  parable, inclusive of allegorising tendencies, characteristic of the biblical interpretation of the Judaism of the 33

Ibid., xvi. Ibid., xvii. 35 J. Neusner, What is Midrash?, Philadelphia 1987. 34

420 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine dual Torah. In his consideration of definition, he observes that the word midrash stands for many things, but is mainly understood in three ways.36 If one says “the midrash says”, this may refer to midrash as: (1) a concrete unit of scriptural exegesis; (2) a compilation of the results of that process; (3) a process of interpretation of a particular text (i.e. midrash-process: paraphrase, prophecy, parable). It follows, he goes on to say, that for clear speech the word “midrash”, standing by itself, bears no meaning. In place of the word “midrash”, he prefers to use the following compound designations: (1) Midrash exegesis; (2) Midrash-compilation of exegeses (or compilation of midrashim); (3) Midrash-process for a particular way of reading Scripture in general or a discrete verse. The best definition of midrash known to him derives from Gary G. Porton (part of which I have cited earlier). The third part of this work of Neusner, and over half the booklet, is entitled “When Things Are Not What They Seem” and is on what he calls “parable” or “allegory”, reading one thing in terms of another. Here he deals with the treatment of the biblical text in the great compilations Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah and Sifre on Numbers. Midrash, as produced by the Judaism of the dual Torah, appeals to some other set of values or considerations than those contained within the verse or topic at hand. For this reason he classifies rabbinic midrash as allegorical, in the sense that it compares something to something else, as does a parable.37 Rabbinic midrash reads Scripture within the principle that things never are what they seem. What changed the sages’ world between the advent of the Mishnah in 200 and the making of the major midrash-compilations at the end of the fourth century was the challenge of Christianity, specifically three challenges: (1) the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; (2) the Church’s claim to be the successor of Israel as God’s people; (3) the appeal to Scripture to demonstrate these two propositions.38 In the epilogue Neusner shares some of his reflections with us: Midrash shows us how the Judaic sages mediated between God’s Word and their own world, equally and reciprocally invoking one as a metaphor for the other. They learned from Scripture about what it means for humanity to be “in our image, after our likeness”. In the dual Torah of Judaism, but also in the Gospel of the incarnate God, Scripture, read in the prism of midrash, forms a commentary on everyday life – as much as everyday life brings with it fresh understanding of Scripture. That theological conviction, moreover, frames a theology of culture, one that constantly refers to Scripture in the interpretation of everyday life, and to everyday life in the 36

Ibid., 9. Ibid., 44. 38 Ibid., 47–48. 37

3. Reflections on New Approaches

421

interpretation of Scripture. Such a theology of culture invokes both the eternal and continuing truths of Scripture and the ephemeral but urgent considerations of the here and now. Midrash then forms that bridge, defines that metaphor, holds in the balance those two worlds of the here and now and the always.39 3. P. S. Alexander. In recent years, other scholars too have become uneasy with the use of the term, and this for a variety of reasons. Some have objected to its application to New Testament literature.40 They do not believe that there is midrash in the Gospels. In 1982 P. S. Alexander read a paper on “Midrash and the Gospels” at the Gospel Conference, Ampleforth, York. The first part of this conference appeared under the heading “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament” in 1983.41 This part was intended as a preamble to the body of his study and is concerned to identify and define in a general way some of the weaknesses still in evidence in many New Testament scholars’ handling of Rabbinic literature, such as the state of Jewish texts being used, the understanding of the texts, the problems of dating the texts, the accuracy of the attributions of sayings to a given rabbi, the “massive and sustained anachronism” on the part of many New Testament scholars in their use of rabbinic sources, who time and again quote texts from the third, fourth or fifth centuries c.e., or even later, to illustrate Jewish teaching in the first century, and finally parallelomania. The body of Alexander’s paper, entitled “Midrash and the Gospels” appeared in 1984.42 He notes the confusion concerning the definition and states the principles that, in his view, “the correct procedure in the definition of midrash should be to isolate a corpus of midrashic texts; to examine those texts in order to discover their characteristics; and then to consider the question of whether there are texts outside the corpus which possess the same features”. In establishing a corpus of midrash on which to base our investigations, priority should be given to early rabbinic literature,43 since midrash as a technical term in modern scholarship was borrowed from Rabbinica, having been first applied to rabbinic literature. He believes it is necessary to make a distinction between midrashic form and midrashic 39

Ibid., 102. See, for instance, B. Chilton, “Varieties and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23”, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography, vol. 3, ed. by R. T. France & D. Wenham, Sheffield 1983, 9–32; also R. T. France, “Jewish Historiography, Midrash and the Gospels”, in ibid., 99–127; idem, “Postscript – Where have we got to, and where do we go from here?”, in ibid., 289–299. 41 P. S. Alexander, “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament”, ZAW 74 (1983), 237– 246. 42 P. S. Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. by C. M. Tuckett, Sheffield 1984, 1–18. 43 Ibid., 2. 40

422 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine method. Texts such as Genesis Rabbah are in midrashic form and exemplify midrashic method, whereas the Targums, for example, could be described as midrashic in method, but with regard to form must be classed as translation. With regard to form, the basic literary form of midrash, he notes, is biblical lemma (i.e. the text of Scripture for comment) plus commentary. The commentary reveals the following five features:44 (1) it quotes freely verses of Scripture as proof-texts; (2) the darshan is particularly fond of stringing biblical verses together; (3) he quotes freely named authorities – Rabbi Ishmael, etc.; (4)  he cites different and sometimes contradictory interpretations of the same verse; (5)  he commonly employs meshalim (“parables”), especially to resolve theological problems. This set of characteristics, Alexander believes, is sufficient to set midrash off from Targum and Mishnah. It is problematic whether we can differentiate midrash from Gemara (i.e. the commentary on the Mishnah in the Talmuds), since the formal similarities between midrash and Gemara are unquestionably great. But this may indicate that the Mishnah had been elevated to the status of a canonical text. He admits that defining midrashic method is much more difficult than defining midrashic form, and stresses the importance here of a dual Torah, written and oral, in the rabbinic scheme of things. The Oral Torah was Tradition. Somehow a way had to be found in meshing Scripture and Tradition which would make them in a sense one, while at the same time preserving their individual identity. The rabbis achieved this by presenting Tradition in the form of midrash on Scripture. By so doing they were implying that Scripture had priority over Tradition. This priority was logical or symbolic: formally at least it was Tradition that was brought into relationship with Scripture, and not vice versa. New ideas and developments within Judaism have to be legitimated by being brought into relationship with Scripture: it must be shown that they are somewhere present in Scripture. At first sight this condition imposes severe restraints on the development of Judaism; it limits its options for change. In practice, however the only limiting factor has proved to be the ingenuity of the interpreter. So although at a formal, superficial, level it is Tradition that is accommodated to Scripture, at a deeper level Scripture is accommodated to Tradition.45 Midrash becomes the means whereby Scripture can be made over in the image of the Tradition. Midrash is the link between Holy Writ, fixed by the Canon, and the Tradition. It is the flexible joint which keeps the Oral and the Written Torah in constant alignment. It enables the sacred text to be brought to bear upon and made relevant to changing historical circumstances. 44 45

Ibid., 3–4. Ibid., 6.

3. Reflections on New Approaches

423

The darshan, the Jewish teacher involved in the midrashic explanation of Scripture, had, then, as a major aim – perhaps, Dr Alexander notes, one might say the major aim – to find ways of convincingly validating Tradition in terms of Scripture. He had other aims as well, related specifically to his view of the nature of the Written Torah. On these aims Alexander writes:46 “Scripture contained God’s supremely authoritative revelation to Israel: above all other texts, therefore, it was worthy of study and meditation. Its teachings had to be searched out, explained, and applied to the heart and conscience of the Jew. It was divine utterance, and its content had originated in the mind of God. It was, in consequence, not like other texts. The darshan was continually looking for evidence of Scripture’s unique character, and trying to draw out its glory and beauty. From his belief in the divine origin of Scripture the darshan made three important deductions. First, the text of Scripture is totally coherent and self-consistent. This meant that any one part of Scripture may be interpreted in the light of any other part and harmonized with it. Contradictions in Scripture can only be apparent, not real. The darshanim spend much time weaving together diverse Scriptures, and reconciling Scripture with Scripture. Second, the text of Scripture is polyvalent. It contains different levels and layers of meaning. It is not a question of finding the one, true, original meaning of Scripture: Scripture can mean several  – sometimes seemingly contradictory – things at once … Third, Scripture is inerrant. It is the darshan’s business to explain away any apparent errors of fact.”

The writer goes on to note that the darshanim are adept at exploiting real problems in the text as a way of reading their own ideas into Scripture. In any given instance it will probably be impossible to say whether the interpretation was suggested simply by meditation on Scripture, or devised deliberately as a way of attaching certain ideas to Scripture. The darshanim are so ingenious at finding points of contact for Tradition in Scripture, and argue their case with such verve and conviction, that it is very easy to suppose that their whole interpretation has simply emerged from pious meditation on Scripture. Alexander’s strong suspicion is, that, despite appearances, the dynamo which drives midrash forward is located not in pure and disinterested meditation on Scripture, but in the need to validate the tradition.47 After consideration of the function of midrash and its aims, Alexander treats of the means to achieve these aims. The darshanim had a whole array of techniques: wordplay, etymology, numerical value of words. He notes the middot (hermeneutical rules) of Hillel, Ishmael and Eliezer ben Yose Ha-Gelili, noting that if they were intended as actual rules for midrash of Scripture, they bear little relationship to the actual exercise of midrash as this is known to us from the texts.48 46

Ibid., 7. Ibid., 8. 48 Ibid., 9. 47

424 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine He then highlights four general characteristics of early rabbinic Bible exegesis.49 It is in no sense a substitute for Scripture, or a rewriting of it. Midrash is argumentative, frequently setting out different options and debating their merits. Under this heading the “crypto-midrash” of New Testament scholars, in the sense of an interpretation of some unquoted text of Scripture, is rejected. Thus understood, the notion is seen as decidedly odd in the context of rabbinic midrash. The third characteristic is that normally midrash has a point of contact, a “peg” in the text on which it hangs. Finally, the darshanim felt that they were working within a very definite, ongoing, tradition of scholarship. They seemed to regard themselves primarily as transmitters of the tradition. After his definition of midrash, Alexander asks whether in the light of it it is possible to identify midrash outside rabbinic literature. He is inclined to say, No: midrash is best confined to early rabbinic Bible exegesis.50 The differences he perceives between the rabbinic and the non-rabbinic texts are more important than the similarities. To call these other, non-rabbinic interpretations of the Bible midrash is, to his mind, highly tendentious. The only effect of a lack of discrimination between Bible exposition in such texts as Chronicles, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Enoch, Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, the Septuagint and Targums, the Qumran pesharim, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, is to evacuate midrash of any real meaning: midrash becomes simply a fancy word for “Bible interpretation”.51 If midrash means no more than this, then it would be advisable to drop the term. Dr Alexander ends his section on midrash proper by noting that the way forward lies in trying to define these distinctive styles of Bible interpretation, rather than in treating them as an undifferentiated mass.

4. Inner-Biblical Development: Interpretation, Exegesis At the beginning of the period with which we began our survey (1934) A. Robert published a study in which he drew attention to the reuse of earlier biblical texts in later canonical writings,52 in what he called a “style anthologique”. In 1954 and later R. Bloch was arguing that midrash was present already in the Bible.53 Inner-biblical interpretation, or exegesis, has 49

Ibid., 9–11. Ibid., 11. 51 Ibid., 12. 52 A. Robert, “Les attaches littéraires de Prov. I–IX”, RB 43 (1934), 42–68, 172–204, 374–384; 44 (1935), 344–365; idem, “Le genre littéraire du Cantique des Cantiques”, Vivre et penser: Recherches d’exégèse et d’histoire 3 (1943/44), 192–213; idem, “Littéraires, genres”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 405–421, esp. 413–416. 53 See literature indicated in n. 13 above. 50

4. Inner-Biblical Development: Interpretation, Exegesis

425

become the subject of detailed study by various scholars during the decade 1985–1995, especially by M. Fishbane.54 Fishbane speaks both of inner-biblical exegesis and (inner-biblical) interpretation. Since part of our concern here is terminology, a caveat can be entered with regard to the use of either of these two terms in this context. Their use depends somewhat on what one means by either of the terms. For some, each of these terms would imply examination of a text with the intent of determining what its original author had in mind. With regard to the biblical data the later author may not have been particularly interested in what the original sense of a text or tradition was, but rather in what message the traditional passage or tradition had for the later generation recalling it. Another point to be noted is that exegesis and interpretation imply a fixed text to be interpreted or exegeted. Undoubtedly, in many cases the reformulations we find in later biblical tradition are based on earlier written texts. None the less, it is not always necessary to postulate a text, and a certain amount of what we find in this regard in the Hebrew Scriptures could also have taken place at the level of oral tradition. From our present point of view what is important is that we examine the evidence provided by the books of the Hebrew Bible on the later representation of earlier material. How we designate such later use (re-use, exegesis, interpretation, or whatever) is less important. In this present context by “Bible” I mean the books of the Hebrew Canon. We must recognise, of course, that laws operating with regard to these books may have been present before the tradition in these works was written down, and that they may also be found in later Jewish texts, not accepted as part of this canon (for instance Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon). It must also be noted that even in the inner-biblical period it is not always easy to determine whether we are dealing with a fixed written text, or an evolving oral tradition. And even when we are dealing with a fixed text, it is not always clear whether what appears to be re-use, interpretation etc. really has reference to an earlier fixed text, or is merely the articulation of a religious tradition in the light of belief in a living God, in his word and the promises that he has made in the past. Fishbane examines inner-biblical interpretation (or exegesis) under four headings: scribal comments and corrections; legal exegesis; haggadic exegesis; mantological exegesis. While other approaches could be taken to the subject, the biblical evidence seems to make clear that our present text of the 54

M. Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis”, JBL 99 (1980), 343–361; idem, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985; idem, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel”, in Midrash and Literature, ed. by G. H. Hartman & S. Budick, New Haven & London 1986, 19–37 (repr. in idem, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics, Bloomington etc. 1989, 3–18).

426 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine Hebrew Bible came about through a lengthy process of re-use, reformulation, re-interpretation of the earlier tradition. A few examples will suffice to illustrate, showing how the biblical tradition is in dialogue with its past. The principle of individual responsibility in Ezek 18:1–4 and Jer 31:27–30 seems to be a reformulation of the earlier principle of God’s vengeance extending to the children and grandchildren of sinful parents (Exod 20:5–6; 34:6–7; Deut 5:9–10). We have evidence on the growth of tradition in the expanded editions of certain canonical books, for instance Jeremiah in the Hebrew Text, which is longer by some 2700 words than the Greek Septuagint. Within Jeremiah we can see the development in messianic prophecies, for instance Jeremiah’s prophecy of the righteous branch (23:5–6) expanded in the Hebrew Text, absent from the Greek of Jer 33:14–22. Similarly, Jeremiah’s words on king Jehoiachin (Koniah) as signet ring are reapplied, with reference to Zerubbabel, in Hag 3:23. We may also note the expansions in the Book of Sirach. While Sirach’s original Hebrew Text seems to have the older and Pentateuch view regarding the afterlife (that is without assertion either of immortality or of bodily resurrection), other forms are found in Greek texts, in the Latin and Syriac versions and also in some Hebrew manuscripts. In these we have a later, more developed (Essene?) view of an afterlife of bliss for the just and of darkness for the sinner. In the words of C. Kearns, the expansions, above all, “supplement the rudimentary eschatology of the Primary Text by stressing the ideas of judgement at or after death, of conscious survival in the next world, of the moral aspects of human immortality, of lasting punishment and reward beyond the grave”.55

5. Inner-Biblical Development: Canonical Process; Comparative Midrash Analysis of the biblical evidence seems to make clear that within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves there is a development, and a later re-use of earlier material (written, and possibly also oral), and that in this re-use there 55 C. J. Kearns, “Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach)”, in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London 1953, 512; in a more nuanced manner in Kearns, A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, new and rev. edition, London 1969, 549 (with separate treatment of “The eschatology of [Sirach] Greek II and VL”, and “The Eschatology of Syr” [the Syriac version]; the Essenian origin of the expanded recension(s). See also A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York & London 1987, 86–87, with indication of the studies of M. Fang Che-Yong in the bibliography (at 101).

5. Inner-Biblical Development: Canonical Process; Comparative Midrash

427

are certain features found also in what is commonly known as midrash. The transmission (traditio) of the earlier accepted body of beliefs (the traditum) involved interpretation, reformulation, and recasting for a new age. While there is general agreement on what appear to be the facts of development, scholars differ on how present what is agreed on in a theoretical manner, how describe it and how work it into a synthesis. The phenomenon is examined in tradition criticism and in canonical criticism, generally associated with the name of B. S. Childs. Speaking of the “canonical process” Childs writes:56 “The heart of the canonical process lay in transmitting and ordering the authoritative tradition in a form which was compatible to function as Scripture for a generation which had not participated in the original events of revelation. The ordering of the tradition for this new function involved a profoundly hermeneutical activity, the effects of which are now built into the structure of the canonical text.”

J. A. Sanders has reflected on the same biblical evidence, the same process, the re-use of earlier biblical tradition by later biblical writers, but uses a different terminology to describe it. Writing on canonical hermeneutics in 1976 he says that in this process the most common hermeneutical rule employed was that of historical analogy or typology.57 In other writings he will refer to the process as “comparative midrash”. In 1972, in Torah and Canon, he wrote:58 “One of the results of form criticism was a special type of investigation of the appearance of certain crucial traditions in the works of more than one early biblical author, editor, prophet, or psalmist. The name given to such exercises is tradition criticism. … Tradition criticism traces the life or history of an early idea or concept in the hands of more than one editor, composer, or writer, or in more than one segment or period of the ongoing life of the believing community.” A delicate question arising out of an extension of such work, which is called comparative midrash,59 is when the use of a tradition ceases to be tradition-critical and becomes midrashic. Renée Bloch wrote a remarkable article published in 1955 on the origins of midrash within the Old Testament itself. There are those who feel that tradition criticism and comparative midrash are one and the same discipline, the first concentrating on the use and function of early traditions (such as the Reed Sea cross-

56

B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia 1979, 60. J. A. Sanders, “Hermeneutics”, IDBSup, 402–407, at 404. 58 J. A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, xii–xiii. See also J. A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, Philadelphia 1984, 26: “A new approach to the study of early Jewish interpretation of Scripture, comparative midrash began to emerge in the 1950s” (italics in the original). See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 7, n. 22: “In the past decade J. Sanders has frequently articulated the link between tradition-history and ‘midrash’ (by which is meant what is here called inner-biblical exegesis, as well as what post-biblical Judaism called ‘midrash’).” 59 Italics added by present writer. 57

428 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine ing) in preexilic times, the midrashic study coming in with early Judaism in exilic and post-exilic biblical materials. Certainly the two disciplines are related, tradition criticism being the older and more established and comparative midrash the younger, still groping for sound methods and controls.”

We need not here enter the debate concerning canonical criticism. Objections have been raised to the use of canon in such studies, as if the perception of a text as canonical was operative in the original process. True, the process in question did give rise to the canon, and once books were accepted as canonical and closed, the results of the process that gave them birth could no longer be included as part of the canon, but must remain foreign to it. Canonisation, however, does not mean that the original process was brought to an end. Furthermore, there is disagreement as to what exactly constitutes the canon of the Old Testament, for instance whether it includes the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon and others. Objections can be raised, too, to the designation of the process in question as “comparative midrash”. The term “midrash” has sufficient problems attached to it that it is best reserved for rabbinic literature and the process that produced this. Rather than designate earlier biblical, or later Christian, literature as “midrash”, it may be better to identify certain characteristics running through these, which we may describe as “midrash-type features”. To these we now turn.

6. Some Midrash-Type Features or Techniques Here I wish to examine some features of biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature, which we may refer to as “midrash-type techniques”, techniques used in the effort to have the community’s religious message transmitted and transformed. The list I give is, as is to be expected, selective. 1. Ideal (or idealised) figures. In biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature certain persons, apart from what historical existence they may have had, are also presented as carriers of particular messages, for example Moses as lawgiver, recipient of revelation, intercessor; Samuel as judge, ruler, prophet, intercessor; David; Daniel and so on. As J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg put it:60 “While tradition plays a part in the portrayal of all ideal figures, it never determines them fully. Traditional conceptions undergo modifications to reflect more closely the 60 J. J. Collins in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by J. J. Collins & G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Chico 1980, 5. See also M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 372–379 (“Typologies of a biographical nature”).

6. Some Midrash-Type Features or Techniques

429

circumstances, purposes, and ideals of the authors. Ultimately, all ideal figures are generated by the ideals of the day.”

Among these ideal (or preferably idealised) figures we may also include the villains, or those made so in the process of tradition, as for instance Balaam. Tradition may also create personalities to carry its message. The Books of Chronicles contain good examples of the transformation of earlier biblical tradition, and the otherwise unknown prophet Azariah ben Oded of 2 Chr 15:1–7 may be such a creation. Needless to say, this phenomenon of ideal or idealised figures holds true also for the New Testament, and later Christian literature. 2. Midrashic reflection on biblical texts of similar nature. One characteristic of Jewish midrashic reflection seems to be the bringing together in a creative manner of a chain of biblical texts on a similar subject. Two examples of this can be given. One concerns biblical texts with reference to some event in the past having occurred, according to the Bible itself, “on the third day”, with which rabbinic reflection sometimes combines the significance of biblical reference to “rain” or “dew”.61 “Showers” of Hos 6:3 and “dew” of Isa 26:19 are taken as referring to the resurrection. Hos 6:2 speaks also of “the third day”, and also elsewhere, for example Gen 22:4 (Isaac on Moriah), Gen 42:17 (Joseph), Jona 2:1; Exod 19:6 (The Sinai event), Esther 5:1. Esther Rabbah 9:2 (on Esther 5:1) remarks: “The Rabbis noted that in all these there is question of rescuing Israel from distress.” With such a Jewish reflection behind it the Targum thus paraphrases Hosea 6:2: “He will give us life in the days of consolation that are coming; and in the day of the resurrection of the dead [Hebrew Text: ‘on the third day’] he will revive us so that we will live before him.” There seems to be general agreement that at least one of the principle texts behind 1 Cor 15:4 (Christ raised from the dead on the third day in accord with the Scriptures) is Hos 6:2. This is all the more probable when the Jewish midrashic interpretation of this text is taken into consideration. Another chain of texts brought together by rabbinic tradition are those with the key words ăď (‘oz, “strength, bulwark”), “babes”, “sucklings”, “fount”, “womb”.62 The texts occur at Ps 8:2 (3); Exod 15:2, 4; Job 3:16; Joel 2:16; Ps 68:26 (27); Ps 29:1. “Israel’s fountain” (Ps 68:26) is the mother’s womb. These texts were brought together in a midrash that spoke of babes (even in the wombs) praising God. The praise was believed to have been ren-

61 See M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983, 183–185. 62 See ibid., 185–188.

430 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine dered by the babes and sucklings in the very womb and at the first redemption of Israel at the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 15:2, 4) and at Sinai. Thus already for the Red Sea Wis 10:21 (and naturally the Palestinian Targums of Exod 15:2, 4). Such a midrash, linked with Ps 8:2, may stand behind the events of Matt 21:15–16, with its reference to Ps 8:2. 3. Basing later doctrine on the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. The desire to link with Moses and the Pentateuch particular doctrines (as well as laws) formulated only after Moses’s time would have been natural for Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism. It may have been hard to envisage a Pentateuch without having such doctrines in some form, implicitly or explicitly. A typical example would be the resurrection (or in rabbinic terminology “vivification”) of the dead. In a debate on the matter Jesus refers to Exod 3:6 (“the passage about the [burning] bush”). In rabbinic sources a given rabbi is introduced as asking: “How do you prove the vivification of the dead from the Torah?” (“Torah” in this context sometimes meaning “the Scriptures”, or “the Psalms”). The Scripture texts adduced often differ (Deut 33:6; Exod 15:1; Ps 84:4; Gen 3:19). In this regard it is quite interesting to find in 4 Macc 18:16–19 (probably first century c.e.) an attempt to base the doctrine of the immortality of the soul (not bodily resurrection) on the Scripture, on the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, adducing the following texts: Prov 3:18; Ezek 37:2–3; Deut 32:39.63 4. Adding later doctrine to earlier incomplete formulation or understanding in the biblical text. As an instance of this I may give God’s words to Adam in Gen 3:19: “For you are dust and to dust you shall return.” The Palestinian Targums add to this: “But from the dust you are to arise again to give an account and a reckoning of all that you have done.” In the Roman Catholic burial rite, I may note, the words of Gen 3:19 are also used, followed by the statement: “But the Lord will raise you up on the last day.” 5. Adding messianic references to the biblical text. Of the many examples that could be given I instance Gen 3:15, with the obscure passage in the Hebrew Text ĖýĕćđĂĖĆýĂā, “it [the seed; or ‘he’] will crush [?] your head”. The Greek Septuagint rendered as masculine (ċƉĞƲĜ). The Aramaic Palestinian Targums paraphrase at some length, with a reference to “the days of King Messiah” at the end. The Vetus Latina, followed by the Vulgate, has a feminine subject, ipsa, “she will crush your head”, paving the way for the later Mariological interpretation, if not already emanating from such a Mariological understanding.

63

See ibid., 180–183.

7. Midrashic Mind-Set Jewish and Christian

431

7. Midrashic Mind-Set Jewish and Christian If it is proving nigh well impossible to define or even accurately describe midrash, it would seem that it will be much more so for the larger but related phenomenon to which I believe midrash belongs, the question we have been examining. I believe that in the whole question of midrash we are in the presence of a complex phenomenon of religious psychology, and probably with the atmosphere, ambient, projected around itself by the religious mind in an effort to better achieve self-articulation. Since the desire for self-articulation in line with a clear concept of self-identity need not be restricted to the religious mind, much of what we say in this regard could also be applied to other traditions, whether religious or philosophical. For the moment, however, we can restrict our attention to religious psychology.64 Discussing the question once with me, a French-speaking colleague spoke of midrash as the bouillon de culture required by the mind to develop its concepts. The French words I render as “culture medium” or “nutrient broth”. Microbiologists speak of a culture medium required for the growth and development of micro-organisms. Midrash, in a sense, might be considered as such a medium for the religious mind, a projected atmosphere facilitating quiet reflection on God, on the truths revealed by him, on his law and the demands it makes for believers in the changing fortunes of the centuries and of everyday life. Together with this, in the midrashic mind-set there is an element of immediate contact with the earlier sacred text or tradition. The sacred text or tradition is taken as speaking directly to the later generations. When there is an unacceptable distance in expression or formulation, when non-canonical, the earlier text or tradition is recast and reformulated; when canonical it can be rephrased in translation or supplemented by a new understanding in the independent midrashic-like compositions. There is good evidence that such a mentality transcends the centuries. It is present in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the New Testament interpretation of the Old, in the New Testament articulation of its own tradition, in post-

64 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 1: “One of the most remarkable features of the great world religions is the emergence to independent dignity of traditions and commentaries which supplement the original authoritative teachings – be these latter the product of divine revelation or human wisdom. This phenomenon is not restricted to religious literature, of course, as the commentaries and super-commentaries to Aristotle in the middle Ages, or to Freud in modernity, fully attest. But it is in the classical expressions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the one hand, and Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism on the other, that interpretation has become a cultural form of the first magnitude – transforming the foundational revelations of the first group and the metaphysical insights of the second, and determining the fateful historical paths of both.”

432 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine New Testament Christian tradition, whether in the mainstream theological reflection and treatises or in the apocrypha. In both the Old and New Testaments, before a tradition became text and canon, the inner-biblical development became enshrined as part of the text. After canonisation the sacred text was closed and fixed, but articulation went on. In fact, within Christian tradition we have since early times the presence of two schools of thought in this regard: the allegorical and the historical, represented chiefly by Alexandria and Antioch. The Alexandrians were suspicious of the Antiochenes in matters Christological, since they tended to believe that the Antiochenes were too much bound by older Christological concepts and formulation, beyond which they were loathe to move. In the exegetical field the Antiochenes favoured an historical approach, respecting the distance in time between text and interpreter. The Alexandrians, through allegorisation, more easily found doctrines and practices close to their hearts in the biblical texts themselves. The attitude continued down through the Middle Ages, and at one level of the believer’s being it can be present even with high regard for historical interpretation. At the Reformation period it characterised theologians on either side of a denominational religious divide, who took their own beliefs to the Scriptures and believed they found them there. As the situation is described in a saying of the Swiss theologian Samuel Werenfels (1657–1740), cited by Karl Barth: Hic liber est, in quo sua quaerit dogmata quisque; invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua. (“This is the book in which each seek and find their own dogmas.”)

8. Some Examples of “Midrashic Mind” Jewish and Christian 1. Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. Passing beyond the Bible into Christian tradition, I believe we can find a similar use of Scripture in earlier Trinitarian and Christological debates and also in later instances of doctrinal development. The Trinitarian and Christological debates as a sort of culture medium had Greek philosophical syntheses, such as are found in Middle Platonism, but had likewise the Old Testament Wisdom synthesis. Central to the entire process, however, was the perception on the person of Christ. The syntheses, whether they be Greek or Jewish, were but the backdrop, the wall on which to bounce their developing concepts in order to better formulate both concept and expression. 2. Synthesis from a combination of related Scripture texts. I have earlier drawn attention to such collections of texts (on the “third day”; on infants

9. Midrash, Apocrypha, Biblical Commentaries, Theological Treatises

433

in the womb) in Jewish writings.65 As a similar phenomenon from Christian writings I may instance Gregory the Great’s description of the Last Judgement scene, with four groups: two to be judged, two others not for judgement; two to be damned, two for eternal bliss. The scenario is built up from Scripture citations (Ps 1:5; Matt 25:42, 43; 25:41; John 3:18; Rom 2:12; Matt 25:35; 25:34; 19:18; Isa 3:14; Prov 31:23) (Gregory, Moralia in Iob 26, 27, 50; on Job 36:6; PL 75, 378–379). 3. The Intermediate State and Purgatory. We have noted above the midrashic situation with regard to the resurrection of the dead and immortality. The belief can be presumed to have arisen independent of any particular text. Belief in bodily resurrection was later linked with different texts. Similarly with the belief in the Intermediate State, later referred to as Purgatory. Belief in the value of prayers for the faithful departed is an old one in Christianity, and with it belief in some Intermediate State distinct from Hell in the strict sense. This belief was invoked in solving the problem of the threat of Gehenna in Matt 5:22 (Gehenna of this text being understood as ignis purgatorius) and was also linked with other Bible texts, principally 2 Macc 12:42–45 and 1 Cor 3:15.

9. Midrash, Apocrypha, Biblical Commentaries, Theological Treatises What essentially constitutes an apocryphal writing is probably less easy to define than midrash. And the apocrypha differ considerably one from the other. Apocrypha in general, however, differ from midrash in that (a) they stand over against a canon of Scripture and (b) as a consequence they can elaborate themes freely without need to refer to a biblical text. In the approach to their themes the apocrypha may have much in common with biblical commentaries and theological treatises. These writings, particularly with regard to the afterlife and to Marian doctrine and devotion, should not be too clearly set off one against the other. In the relation of midrash to a biblical text the question has been asked as to where the dynamo lies – in the biblical text controlling the midrashic interpretation or in the midrash which has the biblical text say what the darshan wants expressed. For the author of at least some apocrypha, the problem would not appear to exist, since the message intended to be conveyed is central. I illustrate with some examples on Marian doctrine.

65

188.

See also M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 183–185, 185–

434 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine 1. The Protevangelium Jacobi. In O. Cullmann’s words with regard to this:66 “The whole work is written for the glorification of Mary. Not only are Jewish calumnies (…) by implication vigorously refuted; all the themes of future Mariology are propounded: although, it is true, the ‘Immaculate conception’ of the mother of Jesus is not taught, her miraculous birth is recorded.” 2. Continued Mariological reflection and later reworking of the Protevangelium Jacobi. It would be misleading to consider the Protevangelium of James as a Christian midrash.67 It has in common with midrash that it is not impeded by canon and can freely develop insights with regard to Mary. Reflection on the same themes will continue in the Church, in suspect apocrypha and in mainstream orthodox circles. The Protevangelium Jacobi will be freely updated in later centuries, in keeping with developing Mariological doctrine and Marian devotion, to give us the Gospel of PseudoMatthew (early seventh century?) and later (tenth century) the De nativitate Mariae. During the Middle Ages from the eighth century onwards, Mariological doctrine was articulated in differing contexts and against varying backgrounds:68 in the liturgy, in the interpretation of the Song of Songs, in apocryphal writings and in theological treatises. The perceptions concerning Mary were the same, but were expressed in different media. In this particular context it seems difficult to single out any one of these as more important than the other.

10. Irish Apocrypha, Theological Reflection and Theological Treatises on the Afterlife In treating of the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul can be regarded as being in the tradition and of using techniques of Jewish midrash. Christian theologians inherited his teaching, together with other 66 O. Cullmann, “Infancy Narratives”, in E. Hennecke & W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, English translation R.McL. Wilson, vol. 1, London 1963, 363–417, at 373; idem, “Infancy Narratives”, in ibid., rev. edition, Cambridge & Louisville 1991, 414–469, at 425. 67 In an earlier writing E. Cothenet refers to motifs of Jewish haggadah in Protevangelium Jacobi (Cothenet, “Protévangile de Jacques”, DBSup 8 [1972], cols. 1374–1384, at col. 1382). In his later writing he designates it a midrash: “Le Protévangile de Jacques: Origine, genre et signification d’un premier midrash sur la nativité de Marie”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. by H. Temporini & W. Haase, Teil II: Principat, vol. 25,6, Berlin & New York 1988, 4252–4269 (“Le genre littéraire: un midrash chrétien”, 4259–4263). 68 See E. A. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity, Philadelphia 1990, 151–178 (“The Woman who is all”). See also R. Beyers, “De nativitate Mariae: Problèmes d’origine”, RTP 122 (1990), 171–188.

10. Irish Apocrypha, Theological Reflection and Theological Treatises

435

biblical texts, and had to attempt to work them into a synthesis, in keeping with what they regarded the essentials of Christian belief and their own particular philosophical and theological views. Augustine treated in extenso of the bodily resurrection, with an eye to critics of the Christian faith. He allows himself to be drawn into details as to the nature of the risen body and the many questions arising from belief in the material nature of this body. Gregory the Great also treats of the question, and had to enter into open debate on the issue at Constantinople with Eutyches, bishop of the city. From these two Christian Fathers there was developed a synthesis on the matter which was transmitted to the Middle Ages. We find an early form of this synthesis in the Irish “Reference Bible” (Das Bibelwerk; De enigmatibus), a one-volume commentary on the Bible composed towards the end of the eighth century. We have an Irish text, Scéla na hEsérgi, “Tidings of the Resurrection” (probably of the tenth century), which is heavily dependent on the writings of Augustine and Gregory, apparently through an intermediate writing rather than directly. The work is to be regarded as a theological treatise rather than as an apocryphal text.69 “Tidings of the Resurrection” is a semi-canonical theological text, representing an accepted synthesis which scarcely permitted much personal speculation. For this, further use of a “culture medium”, free from chains, would be indicated. In another medieval Irish text, Scéla Laí Brátha, “Tidings of Doomsday”, we have a text which at first sight appears to be less in the tradition of Patristic or medieval theology. R. Flower70 was of the opinion that this text “probably represents a lost Questions of Matthew resembling the part of the Book of John the Evangelist dealing with the last things as printed by James”.71 This Irish text is currently being critically studied. It was probably composed in the eleventh century. In part it depends on the verse composition Saltair na Rann (“Psalter of the Quatrains”), composed in 988. It divides those gathered for judgement into four classes: the very good, the not very good, the very bad, the not very bad (boni valde, boni non valde, mali valde, mali non valde). In this (terminology apart) it depends on a text of Gregory’s Moralia in Job, referred to above. It is in the form of a homily, with exordium and final peroratio as in a series of eleventh-century Irish 69 For text and editions see M. McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church, Dublin 1975 (repr., with corrections, 1984), 141 (no. 107). For source analysis see M. McNamara, “Patristic Background to Medieval Irish Ecclesiastical Sources”, in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit, Dublin 1995, 253–281, at 263–264, 276–281. Although listed among the Irish Apocrypha in McNamara, The Apocrypha, source analysis indicates that the work is a theological treatise rather than an apocryphon. 70 R. Flower, Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 2, London 1926 (repr. Dublin 1992), 502, note. 71 In The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1953, 191–193.

436 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine homilies, of which it may have formed part. It may represent, however, a mixed genre, part homily, part apocryphon, or with a section of an apocryphal writing worked in as part of the homily. In any case it represents a less formal, stereotyped, medieval Irish approach to eschatology.72 Th. Silverstein has noted that the Vision of Saint Paul (Visio Sancti Pauli) became “one of the chief formative elements in the development of the later legends of Heaven and Hell which culminated in the Divina Commedia of Dante”.73 While the Latin texts go back to the fifth and the sixth centuries, the original long Latin text gave way from the ninth century forward to shorter Latin versions and vernacular adaptations. The Latin Version VI represents a complete rewriting of the Apocalypse, and has close similarities in the description of Hell with a group of early Irish revelations: the Vision of Laisrén, the Vision of Adamnán, the Voyage of Ui Corra. There is an Irish translation of the Visio Sancti Pauli, of the Recension IV type, and there are other vernacular Irish texts clearly in the tradition of the Visio Sancti Pauli. It seems clear, then, that from the ninth or tenth century onwards Irish eschatological thinking was changing from the formal semi-canonical treatise to the more amenable (and midrashic) Vision type. Noteworthy in this regard is the Vision of Adamnán, probably from the early eleventh century (it seems dependent on Saltair na Rann, composed as said 988). Using the freedom to speculate arising from the Vision genre, it also shows clear dependence on the apocrypha: the Visio Sancti Pauli, the Seven Heavens apocryphon, such Irish apocrypha as The Two Sorrows of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Transitus Mariae. It remains for future research to see how dependent it is on the Irish patristic-homiletic tradition going back to Gregory and Augustine. We may finish our rapid survey of the Irish Vision literature with the Visio Tnugdali. This was written down in 1149 in Regensburg, Bavaria, by an Irishman named Mark (undoubtedly a monk), and is presented as the Latin translation of the account of a nobleman called Tnugdal (or Tundale). In the vision of the other world he mentions the various classes, among them explicitly the mali non valde and the boni non valde. The author was evidently conversant with earlier Irish apocrypha: the homiletic-theological synthesis dependent on Gregory the Great. The view has been put forward that Mark in Visio Tnugdali is engaging in the twelfth-century debate on the nature of purgatorial existence and in the nature of the soul, and furthermore taking sides with the position of Hugh of Saint Victor (in Paris) and William of Saint Thierry against the position of Origen and John Scottus Eriugena, 72

See further, McNamara, “Patristic Background”, 265–270. Th. Silverstein, Visio Sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin together with Nine Texts, London 1935, 3. See also R. Piovanelli, “Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées”, Apocrypha 4 (1993), 25–64. 73

11. Conclusions

437

whose writings were being promoted by Mark’s contemporary Honorius Augustodunensis.74 The Vision genre came to Ireland from outside. The Voyage literature was another genre in which eschatological ideas were promoted in medieval Ireland. In the view of some, this genre was basically pre-Christian, although later widely used for Christian compositions. It, too, was free from the restraints of canon and the restrictions of semi-canonical theological treatises. It will be a matter for the research currently being conducted to determine how much of this medieval Irish material belongs to the genre of apocrypha, and can legitimately be included in the publications of the Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC), which among publications in the “Series Apocryphorum” is including Irish New Testament apocrypha. In any event we can safely say that the Irish Vision and Voyage genres provided that mental ambient, the culture medium, in which speculation on the Afterlife, the Otherworld, could flourish, producing works that had influence on national literatures and on theological speculation.

11. Conclusions This paper set out to examine the links which appeared to the writer to exist between midrash, some Christian apocrypha, and the frame of mind that produced both. The paper was intended to explore this particular field. Perhaps the results of the enquiry have been meagre. The field of apocrypha is immense, including writings of many kinds: gnostic, encratite, Judeo-Christian etc. Only a very small portion of the corpus of apocrypha has been explored in the paper. The central position put forward, however, seems to warrant consideration, namely that midrash is a many-sided affair and that some of its concerns and techniques are already very much part of biblical literature, both of the Old and of the New Testaments. Midrash and apocrypha to a certain extent have in common that they presuppose a fixed and unalterable text, be it biblical canon or (in the case of some apocrypha) conciliar statements, Church doctrine or semi-canonical theological treatises. Midrash and apocrypha have to do with a spiritual ambient where reflection on revealed truths can take place without the constraints of canon, in 74 See C. Carozzi, “Structure et fonction de la Vision de Tnugdal”, in Faire Croire: Modalités de la diffusion et de la réception des messages religieux du XIIe au XVe siècle. Table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome 22–23 juin 1979, Paris 1981, 223–234.

438 Chapter 17: Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine an atmosphere in which the message of traditional texts in changed circumstances can be reflected on and new insights deriving from old truths developed. The mentality, the mind-set, of midrash and the apocrypha has existed side by side with Canon, and with historical exegesis (to the extent that this was there) almost from the beginning. Today, after the contributions of such diverse disciplines as tradition criticism, canonical criticism, the new hermeneutic, there is a greater awareness that biblical books and biblical tradition had a long and creative history of transmission; there is an awareness that approaches to the biblical text other than the historical, were part of the biblical tradition itself. In the ongoing hermeneutical quest, it might be well to consider that the apocrypha and the religious mentality that produced them could have a very valid contribution to make.

Chapter 18

Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Exod 12:42)* There was a time when many scholars believed that John called Christ the Word (Logos) because of the then current use of the expression “the Word (Memra) of the Lord” in the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament (i.e. Targums) which were used in the synagogues of Palestine. “The Word (in Aramaic Memra) of the Lord” is of extremely frequent use in these versions. The religious mentality which produced the Targums shrank from speaking of God as acting directly in the world and spoke instead of his Memra doing so. Some of the earlier scholars we have referred to went so far as to consider the “Memra” of the Targums as a hypostatized being between God and the world, an intermediary through which God communicated with visible creation. In this case, the doctrine as well as the term used by John would have been prepared in the synagogue theology. When this presumed origin of the Logos doctrine of the Fourth Gospel came to be studied in greater detail weaknesses soon became apparent. To begin with, whereas in John Logos is not just another manner of expressing the divine Name but is a term rich in theological import, the Memra of the Targum seems to be a term devoid of special content; it appears to be merely another way of saying “God” or “the Lord”. In no sense can the “Memra of the Lord” be taken as a hypostasis, an intermediary between God and humanity. This view is now generally accepted by students of Jewish and Christian theology. “As for the memra of the Targum”, writes H. A. Wolfson,1 “no scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is either a real being or an intermediary.” This change of view on the nature of the Memra of the Lord in the usage of the Targums has also had its effects in exegetical circles. The targumic expression has come to be seen as no true preparation for the rich Johannine doctrine of the Logos. In this case, John would not have been influenced by the paraphrases of the synagogue in his choice of term. And, in point of fact, many scholars have come to see the preparation

* First published under the same title in ExpTim 79 (1968), 115–117. 1 H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Cambridge, Mass. 1948, vol. 1, 287.

440 Chapter 18: Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum for the doctrine of John in the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament, and for the term he uses in the creative Word (in Hebrew dabar) of God. While there are some who still believe that the “Word of the Lord” (Memra) in the Targums is, at least to some extent, hypostatized, it is hard to deny that the weight of evidence favours those who see in the term no more than another way of saying “God”, or “the Lord”. An examination of targumic usage appears to make this clear. The text can pass with the greatest of ease from mention of the Lord to mention of the Word (Memra) of the Lord, and vice versa. In one verse, or in one half of a verse, the subject can be “the Lord”, while in the next verse, or in the very same verse, it can be “the Word of the Lord”. The same conclusion is reached when we compare the parallel renderings of the Palestinian Targum among themselves. One text will have “the Lord” where another has “the Word of the Lord”. This is especially evident in the numerous marginal glosses to Neofiti where we repeatedly find “the Word of the Lord” when the text itself has “the Lord”. One feels justified, therefore, in maintaining that the term in the Targums has no special significance; it is simply another way of saying “the Lord” or “God”. But it is one thing to say that the expression has no special significance (it being neither an hypostasis nor intermediary), quite another thing to maintain that synagogue usage did not influence John in his choice of the term “Logos” in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel. Even if in the Targums “the Word of the Lord” is no more than a metonym for “the Lord”, this by no means excludes a possible influence of the phrase on the author of the Fourth Gospel in his choice of terms for the realities of the New Testament dispensation. For John, too, “the Word was God” (1:1). His teaching on the nature of the Logos John got from New Testament revelation. The source from which he drew the words that express this new doctrine is then the point at issue. While studying the overall relation of the New Testament to the Palestinian Targum on the Pentateuch,2 it became apparent to the present writer that there is a very close relationship between the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John and the Jewish liturgy as expressed in this Targum. If this is so, one may expect to find explanations for difficult texts of the Fourth Gospel in this same body of Jewish literature.3 In view of this, the ancient problem of the origin of the Johannine doctrine of the Logos merits reconsideration. In this we are thinking especially of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. It is clear that the author is here thinking against the background of the first 2 Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966, 255–256. 3 See ibid., 145–149.

Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum

441

chapter of Genesis. If we turn to the Aramaic paraphrases of this chapter we find little that will help us in our task. It may be this, among other things, that has turned scholars away from the Targums when seeking the origins of the Johannine usage. It has, however, been too long forgotten that Genesis 1 is not the only place in the Palestinian Targum where the creation of the world is referred to. We find it again in the beautiful midrash on the Four Nights in the paraphrase to Exod 12:42 (to Exod 15:18 in the Paris manuscript Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Hébr. 110). In the paraphrase in question, sacred history is summed up in four nights, all apparently believed to be Passover nights. The first was that of creation; the second when the promise of posterity was made to Abraham. The third was that in which the Lord slew the first-born of the Egyptians. The fourth and final night will be that of the advent of the Messiah, when the world will be redeemed and iniquity blotted out. The first night is thus described in the text of Codex Neofiti 1 (that is, the entire text of the Palestinian Targum found in the Vatican Library):4 “The first night: when the Lord was revealed above the world to create it. The world was void and empty and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss. And the Word (Memra) of the Lord was the light and it [or: ‘he’] shone (ĤĀāĆĕċċĂ ĕāčĂýĕĂāčāĂāĂ); and he called it the first night.”5

The first part of the relevant passage of this text would be rendered literally as: “And the Word of the Lord and it was the Light” (ýĕĂāčāĂāĂ).6 The waw before āĂā is evidently a scribal error, due to the numerous waws of the context. That this is so seems to be clear from the parallel versions of this text in the Fragment Targum as found in Walton’s London Polyglot and in the Paris manuscript (Hébr. 110). Walton’s text reads: “And the Word of the Lord was shining (ĕĆāčāĂā) and illuminating.” The Paris manuscript has: “And in his Word he was shining (ĕĆāčāĂā) and illuminating.” Apart from showing that the waw of Neofiti is a scribal error, these texts indicate that Neofiti’s paraphrase is in the tradition of the Palestinian Targum. While they may appear to differ from it, the other two texts in fact say 4 On the value of the Targums for New Testament studies and on the latest report on progress in publication of Neofiti, see M. McNamara, “The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study”, Scrip 18 (1966), 47–56 (above, pp. 59–67). In 1969 the editio princeps of Neofiti Genesis, with Spanish, English, and French renderings, was already in proof form. Exodus and Leviticus would soon follow. (See the Postscript at the end of this essay, and Appendix no. 3 below.) 5 For light and darkness during the third night, see all texts of the Palestinian Targums of Exod 14:20; for instance Targum Neofiti: “The cloud became darkness and in part light: obscuring darkness for the Egyptians and light for Israel all the night” (italics indicate mirashic expansion of the Hebrew Text). 6 See N. Séd’s objections in a review of R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale, in REJ 123 (1964), 529–533, esp. 532.

442 Chapter 18: Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum the very same thing, identifying the Word of the Lord with the primordial light. If the Word of the Lord shone at creation, as these two texts of the Fragment Targum say it did, this can only mean that the Word was Light. Neofiti, then, merely states explicitly what is implicit in the other texts. Arguments have been produced elsewhere in favour of a very early date, and a generally faithful transmission, of the form of the Palestinian Targum as found in Neofiti.7 It may well have been in use in Palestine from the second century c.e. onwards. Its substance would then go back to preChristian times. In fact some authors claim that there are positive arguments for dating it in the pre-Christian era.8 It is legitimate, then, to presume that the author of the Fourth Gospel heard read in the synagogue that, at the very beginning of time, at the creation of the universe (“the first night”), there was an all-pervading darkness. There was also God, or “the Word of the Lord”. This Word of the Lord was the light and it shone – to use the very words of Neofiti. This is the very thing the Prologue of John says when it speaks of the creative action of the Word (Logos) at the beginning of all things:9 “In the beginning was the Word …; and the Word was God. In him was light and the light shines in darkness” (John 1:1–3). The mention of the primordial darkness which we find in the midrash to Exod 12:42 is not incidental. The text is speaking of the first night. The implication in the Targum is that the light dispels the darkness. According to the same targumic paraphrase, the Messiah will come on the fourth night. No mention is made there, however, of the Messiah dissipating the darkness. The same need not be true of John and it is quite possible that the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine Epistles is thinking against the same background of the poem of the four nights when he speaks of it as dispelling darkness. At his coming the world was in darkness. He, the Word, is the light that shines in the darkness (John 1:9). All who are not attached to him by faith and good works are still in darkness (John 8:12; 1 John 1:6; 2:9, 11). They who refuse to come to him remain outside the new messianic age; they love darkness more than the light (John 3:19). Those who follow him do not walk any more in darkness (John 8:12). They have submitted to hypostatized Light of the new creation. This new creation, described in John 1 as the counterpart of the first creation, began when the Word was made 7

McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 45–46. This is the opinion of M. Kasher and A. Díez Macho. 9 The bearing of this text of Neofiti on the Prologue of John has been noted independently by A. Díez Macho (“El Logos y el Espiritu Santo”, Atlantida 1 [1963], 381–396, at 390–394) and R. Le Déaut (La Nuit pascale, Rome 1963, 215–216). The latter, in fact, considers the poem on the Four Nights, particularly as found in Pseudo-Jonathan, as a type of hymn to the Word (Memra) of the Lord. 8

Postscript 2010

443

flesh. The light then began to shine in the darkness of the non-messianic age. The progress of the Gospel is, then, the dissipation of darkness and 1 John 2:8 can say: “the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining”. Those who believe in the Messiah, the Word of God, the Light, are the children of light; those who do not are children of darkness. If we accept this view of the origin of the concepts and terminology of John it will follow that the Johannine tradition is less under the influence of Qumranic Judaism than is now generally believed – not, of course that influence from Qumran is to be excluded entirely. Johannine tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influenced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly of the form found in the Targums. As E. Stauffer has remarked: “Nowhere in rabbinic literature or in pre-Christian Hellenism is there a writing or a tradition which can exhibit anything like the same wealth of Johannine parallels. That fixes the place of John in the history of religion. He belongs to the priestly tradition. The Baptist’s disciple John is an apocalyptist cast in a levitical-liturgical mould, just as Gamaliel’s disciple Paul is an apocalyptist cast in a rabbinic-dialectical mould.”10 “[I]t is not to no purpose that it [the Apocalypse] contains more hymns than any other book in the NT, while its framework and its formal language are unmistakably liturgical in character (…).”11

Postscript 2010 Much has been written on the question of Memra of the Targums and Logos in John since this essay was first published in 1968. I have very recently given a history of modern research on the question, reviewing an earlier consideration of the matter.12 The latest examination of the evidence is by John Ronning, in a work already referred to in the introduction.13 After a thorough review of the evidence, Ronning devotes a chapter to the superiority of the Targum view on this issue, under the headings: Introduction; Common features between the Targum view and other proposed views; Evaluation of arguments used against the Targum background; Conclusion. In his summation Ronning expresses his view that the cumulative weight of evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the Logos title (of John) is adapted from the Targums.

10

E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, English translation, London 1963, 41–42. Ibid., 41. 12 M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 155–166 (a new edition of Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972). 13 J. Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Peabody 2010. See above pp. 20–21. 11

Chapter 19

“To Prepare a Resting-Place for You”: A Targumic Expression and John 14:2–3* In Targum and Testament1 I commented on the similarity of expression in Neof. Exod 33:14 and John 14:2–3: “I go to prepare a place for you.” The targumic text, in which the Lord is addressing Israel, runs: “The glory of my Shekinah will accompany amongst you and will prepare a resting-place for you.” Since then much has been written on the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and their relevance for the study of the New Testament. On the one hand the early, even pre-Christian, date assigned to them by some scholars and their utility for an understanding of the New Testament have been queried or denied, while on the other hand some leading New Testament scholars seem to turn to them ever more in their researches. What is called for in the present state of targumic research is a more refined methodology for determining the date of a particular targumic text or tradition and for ascertaining its relevance for the understanding of a New Testament passage. With regard to the former it seems desirable to see whether the targumic understanding of a given text is part of a well-founded ancient Jewish interpretative tradition or merely an isolated or personal view of a translator, since unlike the latter, the former is more likely to have been widely known. In what concerns the use of targumic (or indeed any other) tradition for an understanding of the New Testament, the determinative factor must be the New Testament context, the thought sequence of the writer or speaker, whether the Jewish tradition fits into this and helps us explain it. Otherwise we may have to do with mere external parallels, interesting parallels possibly, but without any particular exegetical relevance. In the present note I intend to study only the targumic evidence, leaving it to others to evaluate its relevance for the understanding of the Fourth Gospel.

* First published, under the same title, in Milltown Studies 3 (1979), 100–197. 1 M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 142–143; see also idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 214.

1. Aramaic Translations of Deut 1:33 and Num 10:33

445

1. Aramaic Translations of Deut 1:33 and Num 10:33 The expression “to prepare a resting place for you”, or its equivalent, occurs a few times in the Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch: in the Targum of Onqelos, in the Palestinian Targum texts of Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, the Fragment Targum and in the Peshitta. The significance of the Peshitta or Syriac (Eastern Aramaic) rendering lies in the fact that for the Pentateuch it seems to depend on an early Jewish Palestinian Aramaic rendering.2 A study of the Hebrew texts underlying the Aramaic renderings reveals that they represent an exegetical understanding of particular Hebrew terms, specifically of ĕĂė (“to spy out”), ĄĂč, āĄĂčċ (“rest”), āčĄ (“encamp”). We may begin with the term ĕĂė which occurs fifteen times in the Pentateuch, fourteen of these being in Numbers and one in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:33). The Hebrew dictionary of Brown-Driver-Briggs3 classifies the occurrences under three meanings: (1) to seek out, to select: Num 10:33; cf. Deut 1:33; (2) to spy out, to explore (the land); (3) to go about, Num 15:39. Only the first of the three meanings interests us here. Apart from Num 10:33 and 15:39, in all the other occurrences in the Book of Numbers, the term means “to spy out (the land)”, and is rendered accordingly in ancient and modern versions. The occurrence in Deut 1:33 is in the context of a discourse of Moses in which he speaks of his people’s lack of trust in Yahweh during the desert wanderings, in the Lord “who went before you in the way to seek you a place to pitch your tents (ĊĈėčĄĉĊĂĔċĊĈĉĕĂėĉ) in fire by night to show what way you should go; and in cloud by day”. In all the Aramaic versions (Peshitta included), the verb ĕĂė (“to seek”) of the Hebrew Text is rendered by “to prepare” (from the root ČĔė) and “a place of encampment” by words which can be translated either by “place of encampment” or “resting place”, i.e. ĆĕĖĆċ (Onqelos), ĆĂĕĖċ (Galilean Aramaic form), ėĂĆĕĖý (lit.: “dwelling”). All forms come from the Aramaic verb ĆĕĖ which has a wide range of meaning: (1) “to loose, untie” (camels, etc.), “unharness, disengage, dismiss”; (2) “allow, permit, forgive (sin), absolve”; (3) “sit down for a meal” (unloose one’s girdle; cf. Luke 17:8); (4) “begin, start”; (5) “encamp (unloose camels, etc.), dwell, rest”. The context must determine which term we are to choose 2 See Targum and Testament (1972), 66–68; A. Vööbus, “Syriac Versions”, IDBSup, 848–849; R. Le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Rome 1966, 60–65. (It now seems established that the relationship between the Syriac Pentateuch and the Targum is not through direct dependence of one on the other but rather dependence of both on Jewish interpretative tradition. See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 100, with reference in footnote to Targum Studies, ed. by P. V. M. Flesher, vol. 2: Targum and Peshitta (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165), Atlanta 1998. 3 F. Brown, S. R. Driver & C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1906, 1064.

446

Chapter 19: A Targumic Expression and John 14:2–3

to translate in any given occurrence, for instance whether “camping place”, or “place of rest”. We may now return to the text of Deut 1:33 which the ancient Aramaic versions render as: “to prepare for you a place, a place of encampment [or: ‘resting place’] for your encampment” (Onqelos; Pseudo-Jonathan); “to prepare for you a place for your encampment [or: ‘a resting place’]” (Neofiti); “to prepare for you a place in which you might encamp [or: ‘rest’]” (Peshitta). The following are the texts in the original: Masoretic Text: Onqelos: Pseudo-Jonathan: Neofiti: Peshitta:

ĊĈėčĄĉ ĊĂĔċ ĊĈĉ ĕĂėĉ ČĂĈėĂĆĕĖýĉĆĕĖĆċėĆþ ĕėýČĂĈĉāýčĔėýĉ ČĂĈėĂĆĕĖýĉĆĂĕĖċėĆþ ĕėýČĂĈĉ ýčĔėĆýĉ  ČĂĈĆĆĂĕĖĉ ĕėýČĂĈĉ āčĔėċĉ āþČĂĕĖėĀýĕėýČĂĈĉ āčĔėċĉ

Num 10:33 is also in the context of the desert wanderings, specifically of the journey from the mount of the Lord. “So they set out from the mount of the Lord, and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them a three days’ journey, to seek a resting place for them (ĊāĉĕĂėĉ āĄĂčċ).” (v. 34: “And the cloud of the Lord was over them by day, whenever they set out from the camp.”)

This in the various translations becomes: “And they set out from the mountain over which the glory of the Lord was revealed, a journeying distance of three days, and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them, a journeying distance of three days, to prepare for them a place, a place of encampment [or: ‘a resting place’; or: ‘a dwelling place’]” (Onqelos). “And they set out from the mount of the sanctuary of the Lord, a journey (of three days, and the ark of the covenant journeyed before them) a three days’ journeying distance, to prepare for them a place, a place of encampment [or: ‘resting place’; or: ‘dwelling place’]” (Neofiti).

The Peshitta renders in the same manner, except that in this instance it uses a different word (þĆą) to express the idea “to prepare”. The following are the texts: Masoretic Text: Onqelos: Pseudo-Jonathan: Neofiti: Peshitta:

āĄĂčċ  Ċāĉ ĕĂėĉ ĆĕĖĆċėĆþĕėýČĂāĉāýčĔėýĉ ĆĂĕĖċėĆþĕėýČĂāĉ ýčĔėýĉ ĂĆĕĖċėĆþĕėýČĂāĉāýčĔėċĉ ýĆĕĖċėĆþ ČĂāĉ þĆąėĀ

This uniformity of translation in all the Aramaic versions indicates that here we are in the presence of a well-established and ancient Palestinian exegetical tradition. Just how old remains to be determined. The date to be assigned to the present text of the Palestinian Targums (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan)

2. Some Further Texts

447

continues to be a matter of debate. While the earlier view that Onqelos is the oldest Targum of the Pentateuch is no longer universally held, it is still to be reckoned as an early rendering. Together with the Targum of the Prophets, traditionally ascribed to Jonathan, A. Tal (Rosenthal)4 would assign it, on philological grounds, to a date before 135 c.e. The origins of the Peshitta Syriac translation are complex but it seems reasonably well established that the translation of the Pentateuch is early and closely related to the Palestinian Targums and Palestinian exegetical tradition.5 All this evidence leads to the conclusion that the paraphrase of Deut 1:33 and Num 10:33 as “to prepare a place of encampment [or: ‘resting place’] for you” is very old and presumably pre-Christian.

2. Some Further Texts These are not the only occurrences of the phrase in the Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch. In Exod 33:14 Yahweh tells Moses: “My presence [lit.: ‘my face’] will go with you and give you rest” (ĆėĄčā). This is rendered in a rather literal fashion in most of the Targums, except that Onqelos avoids the anthropomorphism by paraphrasing “my face” as “my Skekinah” (i.e. presence). Neofiti, however, paraphrases as follows: “The glory of my Shekinah will go [lit.: ‘lead, accompany’] among you, and I shall prepare a resting place for you” (“you”, plural in both instances), ĆĂĕĖċėĆþČĂĈĉČ)Ć(ĔėýĂ. In this paraphrase the words are intended both for Moses and the people. It is worth recalling that in the Targums, in Exod 33:16, the sign that Israel is God’s people consists in the fact that his Shekinah (Neofiti: “the glory of his Shekinah”) accompanies them; or more explicitly in Pseudo-Jonathan’s paraphrase in the fact that his Shekinah speaks with them, in God’s withholding or removing (lit.: “in your taking up”, ćėĂĔĉĎþ) the spirit of prophecy from the (pagan) nations and in his conversing in a holy spirit with Moses and the people. Occasionally one or other of the targumic texts paraphrases rather than translates literally the Hebrew term for “rest”. Thus Deut 12:9 where the Hebrew reads: “You have not yet come to the rest (āĄĂčċ) and to the inheritance.” Onqelos and Neofiti render literally, except that the latter renders “rest” as “place of rest” (ýĄĆčėĆþ). For Pseudo-Jonathan the “rest” is the sanctuary or temple: “For you have not yet come to the sanctuary [lit.: 4

A. Tal (Rosenthal), The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects, Tel Aviv 1975 (Hebrew, with an English summary, vii– xii). A very lengthy Spanish summary of Tal’s work is given by A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 5: Deuteronomio, Madrid & Barcelona 1978, 106*–136*. 5 See n. 2 above.

448

Chapter 19: A Targumic Expression and John 14:2–3

‘house of holiness’] which is the house [or: ‘place’] of rest” (ýĄĆĆčėĆþ). Likewise in a marginal gloss in Neofiti which reads: “The sanctuary [lit.: ‘house of holiness’] which is called the house [or: ‘place’] of rest (ýĄĆĆčėĆþ) and the land of Israel which is called inheritance.” We have a similar occurrence in the translations of Gen 49:15, which in the Hebrew Text reads: “He [i.e. Issachar] saw that a resting place (āĄčċ) was good …”. This is rendered in the Peshitta as: “And he saw his resting place (āĆĕĖċ) that it was good.” The Fragment Targum renders as: “And he saw the sanctuary [lit.: ‘house of holiness’], which is called rest (āĄĂčċ), that it was good …”, a text also found in the margin of Neofiti. The translation of Neofiti itself reads, “And he saw from the beginning (ýĆĂĕĆĖČċ) that it was good …”, which makes poor sense. Possibly ýĆĂĕĆĖČċ is an error for ĆĂĕĆĖ ėĆþ, “the resting place”, which would be more in keeping with the underlying Hebrew word and the targumic tradition of translation (cf. the Peshitta). Pseudo-Jonathan sees in the verse a contrast between the next world and this: “And he saw the rest (ýĄĆĆč) of the world to come that it was good, and the portion of the land of Israel that it was pleasant.”

3. Conclusion From the manner in which the Aramaic translations (the Peshitta included) render the terms ĕĂė, āĄĂčċ and related words, we can presume that the expression “to prepare a resting place for you” was an established interpretation in the New Testament period. In the Pentateuch, the resting place or place of encampment which the Lord would seek out for his people, referred in the first instance to stations of the desert wanderings. In later times, and presumably for those who made the Aramaic translations and those who listened to them, it would have implied much more than this. The place of rest would have meant the land of promise, the sanctuary, the place which God had chosen to make his name, his Shekinah, dwell, where he, in his Word (Dibbera), in a holy spirit, would converse with his people. To what extent New Testament writers, the author of the Fourth Gospel in particular, were aware of, and used, this Jewish tradition is for others to examine.

4. Postscript 2010 In 1981 James McCaffrey presented a doctoral thesis (in Sacred Scripture) at the Biblical Institute in Rome, under the title “The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme in Jn. 14,2–3”. He later published a somewhat

4. Postscript 2010

449

modified form of this.6 The first part of his thesis deals with the Jewish background to the text of John’s Gospel. The second deals directly with John’s text and its context, immediate and general. McCaffrey is aware of the targumic evidence presented in the 1979 essay here reproduced, and of the English translations of the relevant texts given above, as well as those in Spanish of A. Díez Macho and in French by R. Le Déaut. He is well aware of the problems relating to the date to be assigned to the Targums, and the current discussions regarding this. He treats in some detail of Deut 1:33 and Num 10:33, and the Aramaic renderings of these texts.7 In his opinion the Targum of Deut 1:33 provides further important evidence (to that of other texts) in support of his understanding of John 14:2–3 against the background of Jewish tradition of the entrance into the land. There are clearly some literary links between Deut 1:33 (LXX) and the text and context of John 14:2–3. The Septuagint text of Deut 1:33 provides such evidence. However, McCaffrey notes, the possibility of dependence is further strengthened by the evidence of the Targum tradition. All the Targums (Palestinian Targums, Onqelos) and the Peshitta translate ĕĂė of Deut 1:33 as “prepare” from the root ČĔė, and āčĄ by the root ĆĕĖ, meaning “to rest”. In view of the uniform rendering there can hardly be any doubt that the tradition is ancient. We have a similar uniformity in the rendering of all the Targums (Palestinian Targums and Onqelos) and the Peshitta for the Hebrew roots ĕĂė by ČĔė, and āčĄ by ĆĕĖ in Num 10:33. The uniformity of translation in all the Aramaic versions indicates that here we are in the presence of a well-established and ancient Palestinian exegetical tradition which leads to the conclusion that the rendering of Deut 1:33 and Num 10:33 as “to prepare a place of encampment [or: ‘resting place’] for you” is very old and presumably pre-Christian. There is a certain limitation in the targumic evidence in that in the Targums “the place” refers to the promised land as “the resting place” (ĆĕĖĆċėĆþ of the Targums) which God is to prepare, and not the Temple. In this regard one may point out that in the renderings of Deut 12:9 in both Pseudo-Jonathan and a marginal gloss to Neofiti the “rest” is “the sanctuary [lit.: ‘house of holiness’, that is the Temple] which is the place of rest”. Similarly in the Fragment Targum of Gen 49:15, in the texts cited above towards the end of the essay. It may be that this identification of “the rest” as the Temple (possibly together with the land of promise) is also an old exegetical tradition.8 6

J. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme in Jn. 14,2–3 (AnBib 114), Rome 1988. 7 Ibid., 91–93. 8 Later in his work (ibid., 102), McCaffrey grants that the understanding of the Hebrew texts as the Temple in Ps-J. Deut 12:19 and in the Fragment Targums of Gen 49:15 may be an old tradition.

Chapter 20

The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel* The problems connected with Johns specific use of the word ƊĢęȘė, ƊĢģĒǻėċē (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32–34) need no introduction. In the present essay I intend to study four aspects of the question: 1. The specific theological connotation of “Exaltation” in the Fourth Gospel. 2. The association of the “Exaltation” of Christ and his Ascension into heaven. 3. The Aramaic terms underlying John’s Greek words. 4. The origin of the Johannine usage. All four questions, we hope to show, are intimately connected and are considered separately merely for the purpose of clarity.1

1. The Theological Connotation of ƊĢęȘė, ƊĢģĒǻėċē The Fourth Gospel uses the word ƊĢęȘė or its passive form ƊĢģĒǻėċē, in three passages (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32–34) and in each instance the verb is predicated of the Son of Man whom the Jews are “to lift up” (8:28), or who must be “lifted up” (3:14; 12:32–34). In each case, too, the words are spoken by Christ himself. In this peculiar mode of speech Christ is clearly referring to his death, and to his death by crucifixion. Christ’s own words in 3:14 and John’s reflection in 12:33 place this beyond all doubt. More than the mere fact of his death is, however, implied by the word. By his “Exaltation” the Son of Man becomes the Saviour and centre of the new community of believers. “So must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (3:14b–15); “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then will you know that I am he (8:28a); “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to myself” (12:32a). * First published, under the same title, in Scrip 19 (1967), 65–73. 1 This is the development of a theme already broached in M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966, 145–149, where a more extensive bibliography can be found.

3. The Aramaic Underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē

451

2. The Exaltation of Christ Associated with the Ascension A point not generally noted by expositors is that in John 3:14 and 8:28 the lifting up of the Son of Man comes immediately after reference to his ascension (3:13) and to the fact that heaven is his proper dwelling place (8:23–26). The transition from one theme to the other is scarcely fortuitous and merits consideration in any effort tending to determine the origin of the Johannine usage. The first occurrence of the word ƊĢģĒǻėċē is found in Jesus’ discourse to Nicodemus (3:14) immediately after Christ’s words reminding him (3:13) that “no one has ascended (ŁėċČƬČđĔďė) into heaven but he who has descended from heaven, the Son of man”. The context of the second occurrence of the term (John 8:28) is somewhat parallel to the first. As in 3:13–14, so too here, Christ is referring to his ascension in language the Jews cannot grasp. “(8:21) Again he said to them, ‘I go away (ƊĚƪčģ), and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going (ƊĚƪčģ), you cannot come’. (22) Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, “Where I am going, you cannot come”?’ (23) He said to them, ‘You are from below, I am from above …’. (24) They did not understand. … (28) So Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realise that I am he …’.”

In both these texts, then, Christ passes from mention of his ascension to that of his being “lifted up”. That the transition is not accidental will appear clearer when we have considered the two following points.

3. The Aramaic Underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē Authors have for some time sought to determine the Aramaic word underlying John 12:32–34, a term which gave rise to the crowd’s question in 12:34. In 12:32 Jesus told the Jews that when he would be lifted up (ƊĢģĒȥ) from the earth he would draw all people to himself. In the following verse John interprets this as referring to the manner of Christ’s death, that is by crucifixion. It is a true reflection of the author but need not be the exact meaning of the word used by Christ. The crowd, apparently, also took the words of Christ to refer to his death, as they remark that they understood from the Law that the Messiah is to remain forever, and find a difficulty in the fact that one who has implicitly announced himself as the Messiah is to be lifted up. The problem facing anyone who holds these to be the words of Christ and of his audience, or at least to represent an Aramaic original, is to find an Aramaic term which means “to die”, and which can, at the same time, be translated “to be lifted up, exalted”.

452 Chapter 20: The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel Various Aramaic words have been put forward. E. A. Abbott believed the word rendered by ƊĢęȘė in 3:14, and here used in the passive, was ĐĔă.2 The same view was advanced by C. Lattey in French in 1912,3 and in English, in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1918–1919.4 In the same issue of the English journal F. C. Burkitt raised objections to the view of E. A. Abbott. According to Burkitt5 “the ‘lifting up’ implied in ĐĔă and its derivatives is of the nature of ‘fixing’, ‘hanging’, ‘staking’, or ‘straightening’, hardly ever of ‘raising to a higher level’.”6 The word, then, does not correspond to “exalt” in the Johannine sense and could not be used of a “lifting up” such as the ascension was. Burkitt himself believes we have a word exactly corresponding to ƊĢęȘė in the Aramaic term ĊĆĕý and in the Hebrew ĊĆĕā.7 J. Bonsirven, too, opts for the Ithp. of this word, i.e. ýċĕėý, as the equivalent of John’s ƊĢģĒǻėċē.8 The difficulty with this word is that, while it does suit the meaning “to be lifted up”, “to be extolled, exalted”, there is no evidence that it was used in the sense of “to be crucified” or “to die”. And John 12:34, we may recall, appears to imply that the Jews took the word underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē as referring to Christ’s death. The Aramaic scholar C. C. Torrey considered that the word underlying the Greek of John 12:32–34 was ĔĉėĎý, the reflexive of ĔĉĎ.9 In the reflexive this word means “to be raised up” (in lofty, literary contexts), and (in more common usage) “to go away”, “to depart”. In John 12:34, then, the Jews would have taken Christ’s words of 12:32 to mean: “When I depart from the land” (i.e. into foreign parts), and would have raised as objection that, according to their beliefs the Messiah was to remain (in Palestine) forever. The first meaning (that is, “to be exalted”) of the Aramaic word chosen by Torrey fits the Johannine context very well. The same can scarcely be said of the second meaning of the term, that is “to go away”. John 12:33 is a major difficulty for this meaning of the word in the preceding verse. The author of the reflection that we find in 12:33 – and we can presume he knew Aramaic and understood the significance of what Christ had said – took the Semitic equivalent of ƊĢģĒǻėċē of 12:32 to refer to Christ’s death, if not to the exact manner of this death. 2

E. A. Abbott, From Letter to Spirit (Diatessarica 3), London 1903, 360, n. 3 to [1003 c]. C. Lattey, “Le verbe ƊĢęȘė dans saint Jean”, RSR 3 (1912), 597–598. 4 C. Lattey, “The Semitisms of the Fourth Gospel”, JTS 20 (1919), 330–336, esp. 335. 5 F. C. Burkitt, “On ‘Lifting up’ and ‘Exalting’”, JTS 20 (1919), 336–338. 6 Ibid., 337. 7 Ibid. 8 J. Bonsirven, “Les aramaïsmes de S. Jean l’Évangéliste?”, Bib 30 (1949) 405–432, esp. 430. 9 C. C. Torrey, “‘When I am Lifted up from the Earth’ John 12,32”, JBL 51 (1932), 320–322. 3

3. The Aramaic Underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē

453

We believe, however, that C. C. Torrey has chosen the right Aramaic word to explain ƊĢģĒǻėċē, but, unfortunately, has stopped short of the meaning that really suits the context, i.e. ĔĉėĎý in the meaning of “to die”. The term ĔĉĎ is a Hebrew and Aramaic word with a rather wide range of meanings.10 According to the lexica, not all the forms of the word in one language correspond exactly to those of the other. It is not easy to say how far, in the spoken language, this was the case, but one may presume that a certain amount of contamination would have taken place, and that the meaning attested for one language may well have been used in the other, though we have no evidence of this in the lexica or written sources. We give here the relevant meanings of the root ĔĉĎ as found in Jastrow’s dictionary, supplemented where necessary by the evidence given by M. Sokoloff. 1. Qal: “to go up; to go away”. Peal: the same, and “to rise”. 2. Piel: (a) “to remove; cause cessation; suspend”. (b) “to lift up; to raise, esp. to tuck up the trail of a garment”; passive participle, “to be lifted up; too short”. Pail: “to remove”. 3. (Hebrew) Hithpa., Nithpa.: “to be dismissed, removed; to rise”: esp. (with or without ĊĉĂďāČċ) “to be called away from this world, to die” (t. agigah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 62; Exod. Rab. 52 and frequently in this sense). (Aram.) Ithpa., Ithpe.: “to remove one’s self, rise, go away; to be removed, taken away; to die”. While Jastrow instances the meaning “to die” for the Ithpa., Ithpe. forms, he gives no example of the Aramaic form bearing the sense “to die” and neither do Levy or Buxtorf. It may be this fact that led C. C. Torrey to omit this meaning of the word in his study. Yet, from the fact that the corresponding Hebrew form is attested in this sense, one could surmise that the Aramaic Ithp. could also bear it. That this is so is, moreover, no question any longer of mere surmise as we find the Aramaic ĔĉėĎý used in the sense of “to die”11 10 For occurrences and the meaning of this word see J. Buxtorf, Lexicon chaldaicum, talmudicum et rabbinicum, edition Basle 1640, cols. 1490–1492; edition Leipzig (Fischer) 1875, 747–748; J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, Leipzig 1867–1868 (repr. Cologne 1959, 1966), 167– 168; idem, Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim, 2nd edition, Berlin & Vienna 1925 (repr. Darmstadt 1963), vol. 3, 536–537; M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York 1950, 997; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 379–380. 11 The sense “to die” is recognised as meaning no. 5 of the Ithpa. of ĔĉĎ by Sokoloff (A Dictionary, 380), instancing Neof. Num 21:1; 11:26; Frg. Tg. Deut 32:1. The bearing of the Palestinian Targum evidence and this Aramaic word on the understanding of John 12:32, 34 was already noted in M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 145–149, and in the essay “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19

454 Chapter 20: The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel in the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch (Frg. Tg. Deut 32:112 and Neof. Num 11:2613 and twice in Num 21:1). This Aramaic word suits John 12:32–34 admirably. Christ told the Jews that when “lifted up” (ƊĢģĒȥ) from the earth he would draw everyone to himself, which the author of the Fourth Gospel (John 12:33) takes to refer to his crucifixion and the crowd (12:34) to refer to his death. If the word used by Christ was ĔĉėĎý, the Greek rendering and the crowd’s question are explained. The fundamental meaning of the Semitic word (ĔĉĎ) is “to go up, to raise”. The Ithpe. would mean “to be raised up, to die”, which is sufficient reason for the question posed by the crowd (12:34) and for the interpretation of 12:33 as well. The Greek word ƊĢģĒǻėċē is a literal rendering of the Semitic, but, of course, does not imply “death” as the Semitic word does. 3.1 Evidence from Luke 9:51 and Other Sources John 12:32–34 is not the sole text indicating that behind ƊĢęȘė, ƊĢģĒǻėċē, in the twofold sense of “death” and “glory”, there stands the Aramaic ĔĉėĎý. The Aramaic Ithp. is the passive of ĔĉĎ, “to go up” and literally means “to be made to go up, to be taken up”. It could equally well be rendered in Greek by ŁėďĕƮĖĠĒđ. This word is frequent in the New Testament and is the usual biblical expression for being taken into heaven (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 11, 22; 10:16; 1 Tim 3:16; see also 1 Macc 2:58; Sir 48:9; 49:14; 2[4] Kgs 2:11). John, using the active voice, has ŁėċČċưėģ (6:2; 20:17; cf. Acts 2:34; Eph 4:8–10). In Ps. Sol. 4:20(18)14 we find death expressed by the strange word ŁėƪĕđĖĢēĜ, “assumption”.15 The receptio of Ass. Mos. 10:12,16 in apposi(Chapter 1 above) and also in the essay, “The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study”, Scrip 18 (1966), 47–56 (Chapter 3 above). 12 An English translation of the Fragment Targum has been made by J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum, 2 vols., London 1862–1865 (vol. 2 for Leviticus to Deuteronomy); reproduced in one volume, New York 1968. All the Fragment Targums have since been critically edited and translated into English: M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their extant Sources, 2 vols., Rome 1980. The relevant sections are translated in the Apparatus to the text of Targum Neofiti in the Aramaic Bible series; see list in Appendix 2 below. 13 Targum Neofiti contains the complete text of the Targum to the Pentateuch. The manuscript Codex Neofiti 1 was recognised for what it really is in 1956. It is in the Vatican Library but was falsely catalogued as the Targum of Onqelos; see further McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 28–29. It has been critically edited and translated into Spanish, French, and into English in the editio princeps and in the Aramaic Bible series. See below Appendices 2 and 3. 14 Greek text with French rendering in J. Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon. Introduction, texte grec et traduction, Paris 1911, 266–267. English translation by G. B. Gray in

3. The Aramaic Underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē

455

tion with “mors”, may also be none other than a synonym for “death”. The Psalms of Solomon are translated from a Semitic original. They contain a number of translation-Greek substantives that are proof of this.17 What is more natural than to assume that ŁėƪĕđĖĢēĜ is another of these, derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic root ĔĉėĎý, “to be taken up”, “to die”? The same is true of Luke 9:51, occurring in a passage which is very probably translated from an Aramaic original.18 ʼnėƪĕđĖĢēĜ of this verse refers to Christ’s death in Jerusalem, but embraces the entire process of Christ’s “exaltation”, that is, his Resurrection and Ascension as well as his Death. In other words, ŁėƪĕđĖĢēĜ of Luke 9:51 has the same twofold meaning of “Death” and “Exaltation” as ƊĢęȘė, ƊĢģĒǻėċē of the Fourth Gospel. The Greek words of both evangelists would then represent a single Aramaic ĔĉėĎý. APOT 2, 637 (“until his removal [by death]”); new translation by R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon (First Century b.c.)”, in OTP 2, 639–670, at 656 (Ps. Sol. 4:18). 15 Outside of Ps. Sol. 4:20(18) and Luke 9:51 the word does not occur in this sense in Greek; see A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. by H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, new rev. edition by H. S. Jones, Oxford 1940, 111, col. a, no. 5, sub verbo. See note m by R. B. Wright to word in OTP 2, 656. 16 English translation by R. H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses, London 1897. This work, (in appendices) has the “Latin Version of the Assumption of Moses critically revised and emended together with the unemended Latin text of the sixth century MS. in the Milan Library”. The Latin text to 10:12 has “a morte receptionem”, emended to “a morte – receptione  – m(ea)” (ibid., 88–89). Receptio is taken as the rendering of ŁėƪĕđĖĢēĜ. Charles, however (ibid., 44), followed by Cart Clemen in E. Kautzsch’s Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, vol. 2, Tübingen 1900, 312, 328, takes receptio as a later insertion – added when the original text was glossed to make the work refer to Moses’ assumption into heaven. Receptio of 10:12 would then mean “assumption into heaven” rather than “death”. Schmidt and Merx (referred to in Kautzsch, ibid., 328, note e), however, took mors and receptio as a double rendering of the same phrase, and probably rightly so. It is possible that we have another instance of “to be taken up” = “to die” in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, Fragment I, 1:19: “And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, my power [= Heli, Heli of Matt 27:46?], thou hast forsaken me. And when he had so said, he was taken up” (in M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1955, 91). See also Chr. Maurer in his introduction to “The Gospel of Peter” in E. Hennecke, The New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by W. Schneemelcher, English translation ed. by R.McL. Wilson, vol. 1, London 1963, 181 (on The Gospel of Peter 5:19): “The statement, ‘He was taken up’ of Jesus on the cross (v. 19) may be simply a turn of expression, of which there are other instances, for ‘to die’, in which case we do not need to think of an ascension from the cross”. An English translation of Ass. Mos. 10:12 can also be seen in APOT 2, 422. (There is a new translation, with introduction and notes by J. Priest, “Testament of Moses (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP 1, 919–934. The text of 10:12 (933) is rendered: “… for from my death and burial until his coming there will pass 250 times”, with note h on burial (receptio): “The word rendered ‘burial’ has sometimes been rendered ‘assumption’ and taken to be an interpolation attempting to relate TMos to AsMos proper. This is unnecessary. See 11:5–6” (an obscure text with possible reference to Moses’ sepulchre). 17 Cf. Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon, 105–125, esp. 109–111; APOT 2, 627. 18 See, for instance, A. Plummer, The Gospel according to S. Luke, 4th edition, Edinburgh 1901 (repr. 1905), 260.

456 Chapter 20: The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel It is possible that behind ƊĢęȘė of John 8:28 there stands the Hebrew or Aramaic intensive form of ĔĉĎ. The Qal or fundamental meaning, “to rise”, would have as intensive (Piel, Pail) meaning “to lift up, to raise”. This we find verified for the Hebrew Piel, but no example of the corresponding Aramaic Pail in this sense is given in the lexica. This, of course, does not mean it did not bear it. We can recall what has just been said of the Ithp. form ĔĉėĎý. However, in Aramaic two of the eleven or so meanings of the causative Afel form of ĔĉĎ registered by Sokoloff are “to lift up, to raise up”. It may be objected that the Semitic word ĔĉĎ or ĔĉėĎý does not, per se, connote crucifixion, which form of death is seen in ƊĢģĒǻėċē and ƊĢęȘė of the Fourth Gospel. This can be granted, but, then, neither do the Greek words, and the Aramaic one, with its natural meaning of (“to lift up”), “to die”, is much more apt for the purpose than the Greek one. 3.2 Play on Aramaic Word in Targum Num 11:26; 21:1 It is worthy of note that the Aramaic word ĔĉėĎý is the subject of word play in two of the three instances in which it occurs in the Palestinian Targum.19 The first is in Neof. Num 11:26 which runs as follows: “Behold, quail ascend (ĔĉĎĆĂĉĎýā) from the sea … Behold, Moses the prophet will be taken up (ĔĉėĎċ) from the camp [i.e. will die] … Gog and Magog ascend (ČĆĔĉĎ) on Jerusalem …”

The same is true of Neof. Num. 21:1 which speaks of the deaths of Aaron and Miriam. “And when the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was living in the south, heard that Aaron, the pious man for whose sake [or: ‘merit’] the clouds of Glory used to lead the Israelites, had died (ĔĉėĎý) and that Miriam, the prophetess, for whose sake [or: ‘merit’] the well used to ascend (ėĔĉĎ) for them, had died (ĔĉėĎý; ‘was taken up’), and that Israel had reached the road by which the spies had come up (ĂĔĆĉĎ) …”

This term, then, was already the subject of word play in Jewish liturgical texts and could very easily be taken over by Christ or St John. 3.3 Aramaic Word Play in John 7:33–35; 8:21–28? The word play on the Aramaic words ĔĉĎ, ĔĉėĎý may well be found outside the three passages of John where ƊĢęȘė, ƊĢģĒǻėċē occur. Two other passages, in large sense parallel, merit consideration. These are 7:33–35; 8:21–28,

19 For this feature of the Palestinian Targum see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd edition, Oxford 1954, 241–244.

4. Origin of the Johannine Usage

457

where Christ’s references to his departure (ƊĚƪčģ) are not fully understood by the Jews and lead to observations, just as ƊĢģĒǻėċē in 12:22–34 did. ƒĚƪčďēė is a favourite verb in the Fourth Gospel where it is often used of Jesus’ departure, of his “going to God” (cf. 7:33; 8:14, 21; 13:3, 33–36; 14:4–5, 28; 16:5, 10, 17). We may recall that “to depart, to go away” is one of the usual meanings of ĔĉėĎý, and that chosen by C. C. Torrey as the Aramaic term underlying ƊĢģĒǻėċē in John 12:32–34. Since the fundamental meaning of the Aramaic word is “to ascend”, it was an appropriate one for Jesus’ withdrawal from men and of his return to the Father. If we take it that John 7:33–35 originally stood in Aramaic we find a series of word play comparable to that of Neof. Num 11:26. “Then Jesus said: ‘I shall be with you a little longer and then I will go (ƊĚƪčģ; ĔĉėĎċ?) to him who sent me …’ The Jews said to one another: ‘Where does this man intend to go (ĚęěďƴďĝĒċē, ýĔĉėĎċĉ?) that we shall not find him? Does he intend to go (ĚęěďƴďĝĒċē, ýĔĉėĎċĉ?) to the Dispersion among the Greeks?’”

The section 8:21–28 merits special attention as, in the final verse, there occurs one of the three references to Christ’s exaltation (ƊĢęȘė). If we accept an Aramaic original,20 we find another series of word play and an explanation of the Jews’ misunderstanding of mysterious words of Christ. This time the Jews’ questioning is different from that of 7:33–35, though Christ’s words which occasioned it are the same. “Again he said to them: ‘I go away (ƊĚƪčģ; ĔĉėĎċ?) and you will seek me and die (ŁĚęĒċėďȉĝĒď; ČĆĔĉėĎċ?) in your sin; where I am going (ƊĚƪčģ, ĔĉėĎċ?) you cannot come’” (8:21). (Christ is, of course, referring to his ascension.)

Christ now answers in mysterious language that his proper home is heaven, implying that, by his departure (ƊĚƪčģ, ĔĉėĎċ), he meant his ascension (ýėĂĔĉėĎċ). They failed to understand him. “Then the Jews said, ‘Will he kill himself (ĔĉėĎċ = ‘to die’), since he says, “where I am going you cannot come”’ (8:22). So Jesus said: ‘When you have lifted up (ƊĢƶĝđĞď; ČĂĔĉĎė?) the Son of Man, then will you know that I am he …’” (8:28).

4. Origin of the Johannine Usage If we accept that behind ƊĢģĒǻėċē of John 12:32–34 there stands the Aramaic ĔĉėĎý we find an explanation of the rich overtones of this Greek word in the Fourth Gospel. The Greek term connotes glory; the same is probably true of the Aramaic one: “to be lifted up”, (“to be exalted”) can easily be 20 On the question of the Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel, see bibliography in McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 145, n. 61.

458 Chapter 20: The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel given this signification. We may have an example of this in Matt 11:23 (par. Luke 10:15) where ƊĢģĒƮĝǹ, in the sense of being “exalted”, “glorified” (“shall you be exalted to heaven”) reflects āĉďý of the Hebrew Text of Isa 14:13. In the Targum this word is rendered by the imperfect of ĔĉĎ. When John chose to express the death of Christ by ƊĢģĒǻėċē (= ĔĉėĎý?) he did so in order to bring out the connection of the death of the Son of Man with his ultimate “exaltation”, his glory. He probably had deeper reasons for using this particular word and for linking the death and glory of Christ. We have seen how the ideas of the Ascension of Christ and his “Exaltation” on the cross are connected in 3:13–14 and, albeit in a less evident manner, in 8:21–28. The reason is clear, in our understanding of the Aramaic background to the passages referring to Christ’s exaltation, namely the Aramaic underlying reference to the Ascension and Exaltation is the same. The Aramaic for “ascend” is ĔĉĎ, and when Christ said he was to ascend (ŁėċČċưėģ) into heaven (3:13) the Aramaic word he used would almost certainly have been from the root ĔĉĎ; it is the term used in the Oriental Aramaic of the Peshitta to render the Greek word in John 3:13; 6:62; 20:17; Rom 10:6; Eph 4:8 etc. In Christian Palestinian Aramaic it is the word used in Rom 10:6.21 In Jewish Aramaic it is the word used for Moses’ ascent to heaven (Tg. Ps 68:18, used in Eph 4:8;22 Pal. Tg. Deut 30:12–14, which may underlie Rom 10:623). As we have noted, outside of John the New Testament uses the passive (ŁėďĕƮĖĠĒđ) when speaking of Christ’s Ascension, that is, he was assumed, taken up, into heaven. This in Aramaic would be expressed by ĔĉėĎý, the passive of ĔĉĎ. It is the word used by the Peshitta and by Christian Palestinian Aramaic texts24 (for instance 1 Tim 3:16) to render the Greek. From this it follows that ĔĉėĎý can mean either the death of Christ or his “assumption in glory” (1 Tim 3:16) to the right hand of God. This being so, it was only natural, even apart from theological reasons, that the death and ascension of Christ should have been conjoined in early Christian theology, expressing its beliefs through the medium of Aramaic. It is this wealth of meaning we find in 3:14; 8:28 and especially in 12:32–34. In the last-mentioned text the Greek has wished to retain the richness of

21

See A. S. Lewis (ed.), A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, London 1897, 5. See M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 79. 23 See ibid., 70–79. 24 See A. S. Lewis (ed.), A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary Containing Lessons from the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Prophets, Acts, and Epistles. With critical notes by Eberhard Nestle, London 1897, 21. 22

4. Origin of the Johannine Usage

459

meaning of the original by rendering the Aramaic ĔĉėĎý by ƊĢģĒǻėċē.25 Luke 9:51 has, apparently, behind it the same Aramaic term, and there, too, as in John, it had the same dual meaning of Death – Assumption-in-Glory. Unlike John, however, Luke or his Greek source rendered the Aramaic by another Greek word. The identity of concepts and the ambivalence of the presumed Aramaic term indicate that both Luke and John are dependent on the same Aramaic tradition.

25 We may note the observation of C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge 1953, 385, n. 1: “The question may be raised, whether even the banal ‘to go up to Jerusalem’ (213; 51; 710.14), though it is an expression that every pilgrim to the temple had occasion to use, may not have had for this writer a suggestion of the ‘going up’ [ascending] of the Son of Man?”

Chapter 21

þƱĎƫ(ŊčƩě)ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼ ʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a): Paul and Petra* 1. Jewish Traditions in the Epistle to the Galatians In a consideration of the relation of Paul to Jewish tradition, the Epistle to the Galatians is a writing that merits special attention. It was written to a Church that had been infiltrated by Jews asserting the superiority of their understanding of the Scriptures over and against Paul’s. It is a letter in which Paul makes rich use of the Old Testament text which he interprets in the light of the Christ event. In it we see Paul the allegorist or midrashist at work.1 A certain amount of work has already been done on the Jewish tradition in this epistle. R. Le Déaut2 thinks that there may well be a reminiscence of the theology of the sacrifice of Isaac in Gal 1:4: “… Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins …”. The same writer observes3 that Tg. Num 20:29 is to be added to the rabbinic texts which Billerbeck brings forward in illustration of Gal 2:9 (“James, Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars”), Rev 3:12 and 1 Tim 3:15. In the targumic text Aaron is called a column or pillar and this because as High Priest he made expiation for Israel each year. According to the same Targum (Num 21:1) the pillar of cloud had been given to Israel because of him. In Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (1961) G. Vermes has studied the Aqedah motif in St Paul, specifically in Rom 8:31–32 and Gal 3:6–29. He writes:4 * First published, under the same title, in Milltown Studies 2 (1978), 24–41. 1 It was not easy to find a suitable term to describe Paul’s use and interpretation of the Old Testament, chiefly because of the many-sided use Paul makes of the Old Testament and also by reason of the lack of precision in the terms used to designate the Jewish interpretation of Scripture. M. Wilcox, “‘Upon the Tree’  – Deut 21:22–23 in the New Testament”, JBL 96 (1977), 85–99, esp. 96–97, speaks of both pesher and midrash, pesher when the interpretation is introduced by ƂĜőĝĞēė. 2 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963, 204. 3 R. Le Déaut, Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament, Rome 1965, 48–49. 4 G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (StPB 4), Leiden 1961, 220–221; M. Wilcox (“‘Upon the Tree’”, 99, n. 59) concurs with Vermes’ findings on the role of the

1. Jewish Traditions in the Epistle to the Galatians

461

“In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul teaches that the blessing of Abraham promised to the Gentiles is available through Jesus, ‘the seed’ of Abraham. The Saviour is Christ, not Isaac. The source of salvation is not the Binding of Isaac, but the Sacrifice of Christ. In Galatians iii. 6–29, Paul uses Genesis xii, xviii and xxii indiscriminately, but in verses 13 and 14 he obviously has Genesis xxii. 18 in mind: ‘Christ redeemed us … so that by Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the nations.’ In developing his theological interpretation of the death of Christ, Paul, in short, followed a traditional Jewish pattern which enabled him, with no very great difficulty, to coordinate within the framework of a coherent synthesis the most profound and anomalous religious concept ever known to the human mind.”

Vermes thinks that in Gal 3:13 (“Cursed be everyone who hangs upon a tree”) Paul has Gen 22:18 in mind. In 1964 A. Díez Macho surmised that Paul’s application of Deut 21:23 to the crucifixion of Christ was probably because in Paul’s day “to hang on a tree” meant the same as “to be crucified”. He notes that in Neof. Gen 40:19; 41:13, the phrase “they shall hang you on a tree” of the Hebrew Text is rendered into Aramaic as “they shall crucify you on a cross”.5 A reference to the introduction of crucifixion among the Jews was seen in 4QPesher Nahum I, on Nah 2:12. The publication of sections of the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) by Y. Yadin6 in 1971 led to new studies on crucifixion among the Jews and to renewed interest in the New Testament and targumic evidence. According to J. M. Ford7 (1976) the Temple Scroll seems to confirm the historicity of the evidence of the Gospels and Acts on the manner of Jesus’ death and also provides the exegetical framework for Gal 3:13 in which Paul places Jesus’ death within the framework of Jewish Law. That same year L. Díez Merino8 published two studies (or rather a longer and a shorter form of the same study) in Aqedah in the substructure of New Testament thought; see also N. A. Dahl, “The Atonement – An Adequate Reward for the Akedah? (Ro 8:32)”, in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 15–29, esp. 24. D. Larch, Isaaks Opferung christlich gedeutet, Tübingen 1950. 5 A. Díez Macho, “Targum y Nuevo Testamento”, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 1 (Studi e Testi 234), Vatican City 1964, 183. 6 Y. Yadin, “Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered”, IEJ 21 (1971), 1–12; see also E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. edition by G. Vermes & F. Miller, vol. 1, Edinburgh 1973, 225. An English translation of the passages of 11QTemple Scroll can be seen in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 2nd edition, Harmondsworth 1975, 251 (4th edition, revised and extended, Sheffield 1995, 151–180, at 179: Temple Scroll LXIV,6–13); see 232 (1975 edition = 4th edition, 336–339, at 337) for 4QpNahum. 7 J. M. Ford, “Crucify him, Crucify him, and the Temple Scroll”, ExpTim 87 (1976), 273–278. 8 L. Díez Merino, “El suplicio de la cruz en la literatura judia intertestamental”, Liber Annuus of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem, 26 (1976), 31–120; idem, “La crucifixión en la antigua literatura judía (Período intertestamental)”, Estudios eclesiásticos 51 (1976), 5–27.

462

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

which he makes a thorough examination of the words for “hanging”, the Hebrew Ćĉė and the Aramaic þĉē, and also of crucifixion in ancient Jewish writings: the Old Testament, Josephus, Qumran and the Targums (and also of John 18:31). From M. Wilcox9 (1977) we have an excellent study of the text form of Deut 21:22–23 in the Temple Scroll and in the New Testament, in which the author also notes how Deut 21:22–23 and Genesis 22 are linked together in Galatians 3. This study of M. Wilcox makes a special examination of Gal 3:1–16.10 Gal 3:16 (ęƉĕƬčďēäĔċƯĞęȉĜĝĚƬěĖċĝēėÞƚĜőĚƯĚęĕĕȥėÞŁĕĕÝƚĜőĠÝ ŒėƲĜäĔċƯĞȦĝĚƬěĖċĞưĝęğÞƂĜőĝĞēėāěēĝĞƲĜ) has received attention from a number of scholars.11 It is a good example of Pauline midrash or pesher. R. Le Déaut believes that in Gal 3:27 (“put on Christ”) there may well be a literary contact with Gen 3:11 (Yahweh clothing Adam and Eve) and that Paul may have known the targumic interpretation of Genesis 3.12 The allegory of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21–31), and the bearing of targumic evidence on its interpretation, has been adverted to by R. Le Déaut in a note to his study of the targumic presentation of the sacrifice of Isaac.13 In another study the same writer has examined the Jewish and targumic tradition which probably stands behind the persecution of Isaac by Ishmael as presented by Paul in Gal 4:29–30.14 In 1967 H. Gese devoted a study to the enigmatic association of Hagar and Sinai in Gal 4:25.15 He claimed that the “missing link” was the Nabataean centre of el- egra (modern Medâin Sâleh) in the He az, which in his view could have been, and in fact was, associated in Jewish exegesis with the name of Hagar. If this understanding of Gal 4:25 could be proved, it would mean that for Paul Mount Sinai was situated in the modern He az, in the north-western part of the Arabian peninsula, in the region around el- egra. Gese advanced two arguments in favour of his contention, the first etymological or linguistic, the second from local traditions of el- egra: through an interchange of gutturals agar (with an initial eth) might have been 9

M. Wilcox, “‘Upon the Tree’” (n. 1 above), 85–99. Ibid., 94–99. 11 See for instance, Wilcox, ibid., 97; Dahl, “The Atonement”, 24. 12 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale, 257. 13 R. Le Déaut, “La présentation targumique du sacrifice d’Isaac et la sotériologie paulinienne”, in Studiorum paulinorum congressus internationalis catholicus 1961 (AnBib 17–18), Rome 1963, vol. 2, 563–574; also paginated separately as 1–12, at 12 (574), note. 14 R. Le Déaut, “Traditions juives dans le corpus paulinien?”, Bib 42 (1961), 28–48 (37–43 for Gal 4:29–30); idem, Liturgie juive, 61. 15 H. Gese, “ĞƱĎƫŊčƩěýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4,25)”, in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. by Fritz Maaß (BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, 81–94; reprinted in idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion (Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie 64), Munich 1974, 49–62. 10

2. Context of Galatians 4:24–25

463

pronounced as Hagar and we know that Jewish and Arab traditions locate some episodes from the life of Hagar at el- egra. G. I. Davies, however, has shown that Gese’s arguments were not convincing.16 I believe, however that Gese was working along the right lines but studied the wrong traditions. It does not appear to me that the Jewish traditions, if any, standing behind the first part of Paul’s allegory on Hagar and Sarah have as yet been identified. The linking of Hagar with Sinai in Arabia, in particular, has received no satisfactory explanation. And yet one would expect that in this section (Gal 4:24–25) in which he is at his highest in allegory or midrash, the Apostle would depend on Jewish tradition. My purpose in the present paper is to ascertain whether Jewish traditions can be identified which would help us to understand Gal 4:24–25, in particular the identification or association of Hagar with Sinai in Arabia.

2. Context of Galatians 4:24–25 In the pericope Gal 4:21–31 Paul’s chief concern is with the situation between his Christian and his Jewish opponents obtaining in the Churches in Galatia. The burning question concerned the identification of the heirs of the promises made to Abraham: whether the heirs were Christians – Paul’s Christians  –, the Jews or Judeo-Christians. The Apostle of the Gentiles saw the current situation concerning the true sons of Abraham and the true heirs at work, or at least being foreshadowed, in Hagar and Sarah, bondwoman and free woman, and in their children Ishmael and Isaac. The current quarrel and persecution over this inheritance was already present in the relationship of Ishmael and Isaac (Gal 4:28–31). The son of the bondwoman was born ĔċĞƩĝƪěĔċ (4:23), without any special divine intervention. The son of the free woman was born ĎēÝ őĚċččďĕưċĜ.17 As elsewhere, Paul rephrases the Old Testament account in the light of the Christian situation. What is written concerning the bondwoman and the free woman are ŁĕĕđčęěęƴĖďėċ. Hagar and Sarah (ċƐĞċē) represent (ďŭĝưė) two dispensations (ĎēċĒǻĔċē). “One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she18 is Hagar” (4:24, rsv), ĖưċĖƫėŁĚƱƁěęğĜýēėǬÞ ďŭĜĎęğĕďưċėčďėėȥĝċÞŢĞēĜőĝĞƯėŊčƪě.

16

G. I. Davies, “Hagar, el-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai, with an Additional Note on Reqem”, VT 22 (1972), 152–163. 17 Paul says to the Galatians: ƊĖďȉĜĎƬÞŁĎďĕĠęưÞĔċĞƩŵĝċƩĔőĚċččďĕưċĜĞƬĔėċőĝĞƬ (Gal 4:28). 18 Or: “such a one”, “such a ĎēċĒƮĔđ”, cf. H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 4th edition, Göttingen 1965, 129, with note: “Solche Diatheke ist Hagar.”

464

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

The continuation of Paul’s text (v. 25a) constitutes a very vexed question both as regards the actual text and its meaning. Manuscript and patristic evidence is divided as to the inclusion or omission of Hagar, and so, too, are present-day translations. The word is retained in such critical editions as Nestle and Aland et al., The Greek New Testament: ĞƱĎƫŊčƩěýēėǬ ƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ. How to interpret this reading is a matter of debate. Some take the neuter “ĞƲ” to refer to Hagar’s name: “For the word [or: ‘name’] Hagar designates [represents] Mount Sinai in Arabia.”19 Others (e.g., M. Zerwick) take the word “ĞƲ” as if introducing a citation (quasi formula citationis).20 With the omission of Hagar the text is translated: “For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia”, “For Mount Sinai is in Arabia”, or such like. Paul’s purpose in making such a statement would be to note that Mount Sinai is in pagan territory, outside the land of promise and the stage of sacred history.21 This explanation seems forced. The “Jerusalem that now is” (ĞǼ ėȘė ŵďěęğĝċĕƮĖ, v. 25b), even though at the very centre of the stage, is put by Paul on the same level as Sinai. Whatever of difficulties of interpretation, ŊčƩě is best retained in v. 25a. Its presence there is already prepared for in v. 24b, where Sinai is identified with, or compared to, Hagar: ĖưċĖƫėŁĚƱƁěęğĜýēėǬ…ŢĞēĜőĝĞƯėŊčƪě. It remains for us to see if we can find some reason for this conjunction of Hagar and Sinai on Paul’s part. An explanation of the connection would seem to lie not so much in the text of v. 25a itself as in the constellation of ideas that we can with some probability presume to have been in Paul’s mind. The words themselves look like an aside on the Apostle’s part, an assertion that was clear to him but is unclear to us due to the lack of the necessary contextual evidence. Paul is thinking both of the situation of Christians and of the children of Isaac and Ishmael. My suggestion is that a study of the biblical texts on Hagar and Ishmael, as understood in Jewish tradition, can help us in understanding the references to Hagar, Sinai and Arabia.

19 For instance Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 220; Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, édition integrale, Nouveau Testament, Paris 1977, 559, note y. 20 M. Zerwick, Analysis philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci, Rome 1953, 423. 21 See for example Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 218–219, with further references. In support of this view see Mekhilta, Ba odesh I, on Exodus 19 (ed. and transl. by Lauterbach, vol. 2, Philadelphia 1949, 198): “They encamped in the wilderness. The Torah was given in public openly in a free place. For had the Torah been given in the land of Israel, the Israelites could have said to the nations of the world: You have no share in it. But now that it was given in the wilderness publicly and openly in a place that is free for all, everyone wishing to accept it could come and accept it.”

3. The Dwelling Places of Hagar, Ishmael and their Descendants

465

3. The Dwelling Places of Hagar, Ishmael and their Descendants In the Bible, Hagar and her descendants are associated with Kadesh, Shur, Bered and the wilderness of Paran. When Hagar first fled from her mistress Sarai, “the angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur” (Gen 16:6–7). “The well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered” (Gen 16:13–14). When Sarah had Hagar and Ishmael driven away after the birth of Isaac and the quarrel between the boys, Hagar departed with Ishmael and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba (Gen 21:14). Hagar lived in the wilderness of Paran and took a wife for Ishmael from the land of Egypt (Gen 21:21). We are later given the names of Ishmael’s sons, with Nabaioth (Hebrew: ėĆþč, nebayot) as firstborn (Gen 25:13). “They dwelt from Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria; he settled over against his people” (Gen 25:18). Josephus (Ant. 1.21.4, §§ 220–221)22 identifies these children of Ishmael with the Nabataeans, which name he derives from that of Ishmael’s firstborn. “And by her twelve sons in all were born to Ishmael Nabaiothes (etc.) … These occupied the whole country extending from the Euphrates to the Red Sea and called it Nabatene (øċČċĞđėƮė); and it is these who conferred their names on the Arabian nation and its tribes.” 3.1 Kadesh; Kadesh-barnea In an extremely well attested Jewish tradition, the Biblical Kadesh is identified with Reqem (that is Petra) and Kadesh-barnea with Reqem di-Gaya.23 This is the manner in which these two words are always rendered in all the Targums (Palestinian Targums, Onqelos, Targum of the Prophets) and in the Peshitta.24 The only difference between them is their manner of writing 22 Text of Josephus cited according to H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, vol. 4: Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV (LCL), London 1930 (repr. 1961). 23 On Petra see J. Starcky, “Petra et la Nabatène”, DBSup 7 (1966), esp. cols. 896–898; see also H. Hildesheimer, Beiträge zur Geographie Palästinas (Jahresbericht des RabbinerSeminars zu Berlin 1884/85), Berlin 1886, 52–55; M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, Shannon, Ireland 1972, 199–200; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 302–304; H. Bar-Deroma, “Kadesh-Barnea”, PEQ 96 (1964), 101–134. 24 See C. Peters, “Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs”, Le Muséon 48 (1935), 1–54, at 26; A. Vööbus, Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs: Neues Licht zur Frage der Herkunft der Peschitta aus dem altpalästinischen Targum (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 9), Stockholm 1958. (On recent studies on the relationship of the Peshitta and the Palestinian Targums’ tradition see above n. 11 to chapter 8, pp. 166–167.)

466

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

Gaya, with an aleph (ýĆÿ, Onqelos, Peshitta, Prophets) or with an ain (ďĆÿ, Palestinian Targums). Although Josephus does not explicitly identify Kadesh with Reqem, his location of Mount Hor, on which Aaron died, at Petra indicates that Kadesh was in the same area. Josephus also informs us that Reqem was the Semitic name for Petra. After his account of the death of Miriam and her burial on a mountain which they (the Jews) called Sin, he goes on to say: “After a purification was held … he [Moses] led his forces away through the desert to a place in Arabia which the Arabs have deemed their metropolis, formerly called Arke [Arken,ōěĔđė; read Arkem?], today named Petra. There Aaron ascended a lofty mountain range that encloses the spot, Moses having revealed to him that he was about to die” (Ant. 4.4.7, §§ 82–83).

Speaking of the killing of Rekem, the Midianite king, Josephus writes: “Rekem; the city which bears his name ranks highest in the land of the Arabs and to this day is called by the whole Arabian nation, after the name of its royal founder, Rekeme; it is the Petra of the Greeks” (Ant. 4.7.1, § 161). The Semitic name of the city (ĊĔĕ) has in recent years been found in a Nabataean inscription at the entrance to Petra.25 The location of the Biblical Kadesh in the area of Petra, or at least to the east of the Arabah, also seems to be presupposed in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 [1QapGen ar]) (XXI 11), according to which Abraham, from the Heights of Ramoth-Hazor (that is Baal Hazor, 2 Sam 13:23, near Bethel), saw “all the land of Gebal as far as Kadesh”.26 Gebal is Seir (1QapGen ar XXI 29, translating Gen 14:6), the land of Esau, south of the Dead Sea towards the Gulf of Aqaba. This must be the Gebal, mentioned together with the Ishmaelites, the Hagrites (ĊĆĕÿā) and Amalek in Ps 83:7. According to Josephus, the sons of Esau occupied the region of Idumea, termed Gobolitis, and that called, after Amalek, Amalekitis (Ant. 11.1.2, § 6). He links the two peoples together again in his description of the Amalekite war (Exod 17:8), after the Exodus and before the Sinai revelation: “The instigators of this movement were the inhabitants of Gobolitis and Petra who are called Amalekites” (Ant. 3.2.2, § 40).

25 See J. Starcky, “Nouvelle épitaphe nabatéenne donnant le nom sémitique de Pétra”, RB 72 (1965), 95–97; also R. Savignac & J. Starcky, “Une inscription nabatéenne provenant du Djôf”, RB 64 (1957), 205; A. Negev, “Nabatean Inscriptions from ‘Avdat (Oboda)”, IEJ 13 (1963), 113–124, at 113–114. 26 See J. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 2nd edition, Rome 1971, 149: “Being associated with the land of Gebal, as it is here, it [i.e. Kadesh] would seem to be somewhere southeast of the Dead Sea”; see also H. Bar-Deroma, “Kadesh-Barnea”, PEQ 96 (1964), 101–134.

3. The Dwelling Places of Hagar, Ishmael and their Descendants

467

Kadesh-barnea is identified as Reqem di-Gaya, “Reqem of the Valley”.27 Gaya is a town situated near Petra according to Eusebius.28 The name is found in three Nabataean inscriptions and is always written with an aleph (ýĆýÿ ,ýĆÿ ,ýýĆÿ), as in Onqelos, the Peshitta and Rabbinic texts. The name is retained in the present-day el- i, better known as Wadi Mûsâ. 3.2 Shur and Bered Already in the biblical narrative (compare Gen 10:7 with 16:14) these two sites seem to be identified. They are clearly so in the targumic tradition, where both are rendered by the same Aramaic word. In the Palestinian Targum tradition they are identified with alu a, that is the Idumean city Elousa of Ptolemy (Geography 16.10; second century c.e.) and of the early Christian Church. The city was a Nabataean emporium on the Petra-Oboda (‘Avdat)-Gaza route, about 45 miles south-east of Gaza. An early Nabataean inscription (probably third century b.c.e.), with the name of Aretas, king of the Nabatene ( /r/tt mlk nb w) has been found there.29 The city must have been in Nabataean hands a long time before the Christian era. All occurrences of the words Shur and Bered (Bered, however, is found only in Gen 16:14) are rendered by agra (with eth) in Onqelos. Shur is also so rendered in Tg. 1 Sam 15:7 and 27:8, where it is said to be the dwelling place of the Amalekites. Following the biblical text, agra is associated with Reqem (Petra) in Onq. Gen 16:14; 20:1. The two places are also mentioned together in the Mishnah (m. Gittin 1:1) in a saying of Rabban Gamaliel (II, 90 c.e.), and are, apparently, contrasted with far distant places (“from beyond the sea”): “If a man brought a bill of divorce from beyond the sea, he must say: ‘It was written in my presence …’ Rabban Gamaliel says: ‘Or even if he brought it from Reqem or agar.’”30 This agra or agar, then, must have been on the borders of Israel, somewhere near Petra with which it was associated. It cannot have been the other Hagra of Jewish tradition, situated near Dedan, present-day Medâin Sâleh,31 which marked 27 Bar-Deroma, “Kadesh-Barnea”, identifies the biblical Kadesh with Petra and Kadeshbarnea with Medâin Saleh in the Hejaz. 28 In Onomasticon; see Starcky, “Petra …”, cols. 897, 900. 29 The inscription was published by A. Cowley in the Palestine Exploration Fund. Annual 3 (1914–1915), 145–146; it is reproduced by J. Cantineau in Le natabéen, vol. 2, Paris 1932, 43–44. On the palaeography and date see F. M. Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran”, JBL 74 (1955), 147–172, at 160, n. 25; Starcky, “Petra …”, cols. 904, 929. On alu a see further M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 294–295. 30 Transl. by H. Danby, The Mishnah, Oxford 1933, 307. 31 In Tosefta, t. Shebiit 4:11 (ed. by Zuckermandel, 66,10–11) mention is made of a ĊĔĕ ýĕÿĄĀ and of a āýĆÿĊĔĕ, both in a list of border towns or sites of Israel. The list begins with Askelon and from there moves northwards, then eastwards, southwards and back to Askelon. The final section is as follows: “Beth Sokat, and Reqem di- agra, Trachon

468

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

the southernmost limit of Nabataean territory, 500 km (312.2 miles) southeast of Petra. Both interpretations on the identification of Bered-Shur seem to be old. That of the Palestinian Targums is found in an early Aramaic rabbinic quotation which seems to depend on the Palestinian Targum.32 The association of agra ( agar) with Reqem, found in Onqelos, is also attested by Rabban Gamaliel. It could well be that it was this latter tradition that was known to Paul. In Paul’s day, then, the descendants of Hagar would have been associated principally with Petra (and possibly also with agra or agar somewhere in the vicinity of Petra). It was from Ishmael (and hence Hagar) that the Arabian nation and its tribes were descended. The Arabs, above all else, were the Nabataeans, with their capital at Petra, the Arab metropolis according to Josephus. Josephus also associates the sons of Esau, Gobolitis and the Amalekites, with Petra.

4. Biblical Traditions Connected with Petra The identification of the biblical Kadesh with Reqem (Petra) had far-reaching effects for Jewish tradition. It meant that the various sites connected with Kadesh were now centred on Petra and that in this way Petra was regarded as the scene of most of the significant episodes of the desert wanwhich is in the territory of Bosra, Heshbon and Jabboka [?], the Zered Valley and Jegar Sekuta, Nimrin, Meliha of Zarwai and Reqem Gay’a (āýĆÿĊĔĕ) and the Gardens of Askelon.” This “tannaitic border list of Palestine”, found in four texts, is notoriously corrupt. It will be noted that Reqem di- agra comes before Trachon and Heshbon, in the Transjordan. Hildesheimer (Beiträge, n. 23 above, 51 ff.) associates it with the cleft of Petra, which the editors of the German translation of the Tosefta consider mistaken (Die Tosefta, Seder 1: Zeraim, 2: Demai – Shebiit, übersetzt und erklärt von P. Freimark & W.-F. Krämer, Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne & Mainz 1971, 204–205). S. Klein (“Das tannaitische Grenzverzeichnis Palästinas”, HUCA 5 [1928], 197–259, at 209) believes that Trachon east of Damascus is intended; J. Press (Erez Yisrael 4 [1951], 885–886, cf. also Tarbiz 3 [1932], 328–336) gives a reference to an Arab village southeast of Amman. While the exact location of this Reqem di- agra is uncertain, it must be located in the north-eastern, eastern, or conceivably south-eastern borders of Israel. It can scarcely have been the agra of Saudia Arabia, present-day Medâin Sâleh as J. Starcky (“Petra …”, col. 898), with Abel (Géographie de la Palestine, vol. 2, 436) would have it; see further Davies, “Hagar, el-Hegra” (n. 16 above), 162. Reqem Ga’a of the Tosefta list is probably the same place as that of the Targums and other texts. (On the Tosefta and related border lists see also M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 285–286; with reference to P. S. Alexander, “The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and the Boundaries of the Land of Israel”, unpublished dissertation, Oxford University, 1974, 218–252.) 32 Gen. Rab. 45:6 (on Gen 16:7): “on the road to Shur, that is on the road to alusa”; cf. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 195; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 295. See also above chapter 8, no. 20.

4. Biblical Traditions Connected with Petra

469

derings and of the further Jewish traditions built around the biblical text.33 This would be further enriched by the association of the traditions concerning the biblical Shur, connected with Kadesh in the Bible and in this later Jewish tradition with Petra. These biblical traditions are found principally in Numbers 20–25. They are as follows: a) The death and burial of Miriam “in the wilderness of Zin, at Kadesh” (cf. Num 20:1). In Jewish tradition the gift of the well that followed the Israelites was regarded as given for the merits of Miriam. It was hidden from them at her death (Pal. Tg. Num 21:1). The Jewish tradition on this well is basically a paraphrase of Num 21:16–20. b) The murmuring of the people against Moses because of the lack of water. These are the Waters of Contention (or Meribah) mentioned in Num 20:13, 24; Deut 33:8; Ps 81:8; 106:22, or the Waters of the Contention of Kadesh (Num 27:14; Deut 32:51; Ezek 48:28) or of the Contentions of Kadesh (Ezek 47:19).34 The event is referred to simply as “the Contention” (Meribah) in Ps 95:8. In Jewish tradition the scene of this contention was Reqem-Petra. c) The striking of the rock and the gift of abundant waters (Num 20:10– 13). It was possibly this miracle that had Jewish tradition identify Kadesh with Petra,35 the Rock par excellence. The perennial source of water at Reqem di-Gaya (Ain or Wadi Mûsâ) was a lasting reminder of God’s gift to his people. d) The death of Aaron and his burial on Mount Hor (Num 20:22–29). Petra would also recall such other events as the brazen serpent (Num 21:4–9), the oracles of Balaam on the plains of Moab (Numbers 22–24), the fornication at Baal-peor and the subsequent death of over twenty-thousand (Num 35:1–9; see 1 Cor 10:8). e) Petra and the wilderness of Zin. In some biblical texts the wilderness of Zin is associated or identified with Kadesh. “And the people of Israel … came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh, and Miriam died there and was buried there” (Num 20:1). “You rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin. … These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin” (Num 27:14). “And they set out from Ezion-geber, and encamped in the wilderness of Zin, that is Kadesh” (Num 33:36). Kadesh of all these texts is identified as Reqem (Petra) in all the Targums and in the Peshitta. f) Petra and the Wilderness of Paran. Only in one text is the wilderness of Paran associated with Kadesh, that is Num 13:26, in which the spies, 33

See Starcky, “Petra …”, col. 898. The murmuring and miracle of water from the rock at Massah and Meribah mentioned in Exod 17:1–7 may have been identified in tradition with that at Kadesh. 35 See Starcky, “Petra …”, col. 898. 34

470

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

sent by Moses from the wilderness of Paran (v. 3) are said to have returned to him and Aaron “and to all the congregation of the children of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh”.36 Elsewhere (Num 10:10; 12:16) the wilderness of Paran is mentioned without any reference to Kadesh. In Jewish tradition it was probably located east of the Arabah. This tradition may well be old. In Deut 33:2 Paran is associated with Sinai and Seir (the home of Esau; later Gabla); in Hab 3:3 it is associated with Teman. It would have been natural to identify the wilderness of Paran with the El Paran of Gen 14:6 where it is associated with Seir (later Gabla, Gebal), the land of Esau, and Kadesh (16:7). In Gen 21:21 Ishmael is said to have lived in the wilderness of Paran. It can be presumed that the wilderness would be identified in the light of Num 13:26, that is, associated with Reqem (Petra) and regarded as lying east of the Arabah. In a paraphrase on Deut 33:2 the Palestinian Targums say that the Lord appeared on the Mount of Paran to give the Law to the children of Ishmael, as he appeared on Mount Gabla to give it to the sons of Esau and on Sinai to give it to Israel.

5. Petra and Mount Sinai We now pass beyond these identifications to inquire whether in Jewish tradition, or at least in one Jewish tradition,37 Sinai (Mount Sinai, the wilderness of Sinai) was located at or near Petra, or at least east of the Arabah. The biblical evidence constitutes a question apart, although not unrelated to a later Jewish tradition, should such have existed. The biblical evidence itself is not decisive nor does it impose any one identification with any high degree of probability. While a location in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula (Jebel Mûsâ or Jebel Serbal) remains the more widely accepted opinion, another view is that it is to be located in the neighbourhood of Kadesh or Petra.38 36

According to Deut 9:23 the spies were sent from Kadesh-barnea. Thus, for instance, in a tradition ascribed to R. Nathan (150 c.e.) in the Mekhilta on Exod 17:1 (ed. by Lauterbach, vol. 2, 136–137). Amalek came from Mount Seir to Rephidim to wage war on Israel, for this purpose crossing 400 parasangs (about 2000 kilometres); same tradition in Ps.-J. Exod 17:8, according to which Amalek traversed 1800 miles in one night. Since Rephidim was presumably believed to have been in the region of Sinai (Exodus 19), this rabbinic tradition must have located the latter far to the west of Petra. 38 On the various identifications of Sinai see for example G. E. Wright, “Sinai, Mount”, IDB 4 (1962), 376–378; G. I. Davies, “Hagar, el-Hegra” (n. 16 above); S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, Cambridge 1911, 177–191. For location in the neighbourhood of Kadesh, see J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, London 1971, 203–207; Driver, The Book of Exodus, 191; for location on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba, J. König, “La localisation du Sinai et les traditions des scribes”, RHPR 43 (1963), 2–31; 44 (1964), 200–235, and H. Gese, “ĞƱĎƫŊčƩě” (n. 15 above); Driver, The Book of Exodus, 189–190. D. Nielsen, “The Site of the Biblical 37

5. Petra and Mount Sinai

471

It could well be that Jewish tradition had no fixed location for Sinai, interest concentrating on the events or content of the revelation rather than on the location. It could also be that there were various locations, according as particular groupings of biblical texts were made. Here I shall consider whether one series of texts could lead to the association of Sinai with Petra or the east of the Arabah. There is much in biblical evidence that connects the Sinai events with Kadesh (Petra) or sites connected with Kadesh. First of all in Exod 15:22 we are told that after the actual crossing of the waters, Moses led Israel onwards from the Red Sea and that they went into the wilderness of Shur and found no water. They then come to the waters of Marah, where a miracle is worked. We have already seen that Shur is generally associated with Kadesh (Petra). As elsewhere, the name is rendered by alu a in the Palestinian Targums and by agra in Onqelos. The next events narrated in Exodus are the miracles of the quails and the manna (Exodus 16). Israel next moves into the wilderness of Sin and Rephidim, where there is further murmuring for lack of water. Moses brings forth water from the rock of Horeb and the place was called Massah and Meribah (Exod 17:1–7). In the parallel passage of Num 21:1–15 the miracle is said to have been worked in Kadesh. Later Jewish tradition might well have associated the two texts with Kadesh (Reqem, Petra). The next event recounted in the Book of Exodus is Amalek’s attack on Israel at Rephidim (Exod 17:8–16). In Gen 36:12 Amalek is given as a son of Esau, while in Gen 14:7 Kadesh is associated with “all the country of the Amalekites”. In 1 Sam 15:7; 27:8 the Amalekites are said to have dwelt in Shur ( alu a, agra), often mentioned in connection with Kadesh. It is not surprising that some modern exegetes believe that this episode occurred at Kadesh.39 It is probably the same evidence that has Josephus situate the Amalekite war in the neighbourhood of Petra. “The fame of the Hebrews being now mightly noised abroad and the talk of them being current everywhere, the inhabitants of the country came to be not a little afraid; and sending embassies to and fro they exhorted each other to repel and endeavour to destroy these upstarts. The instigators of this movement were those inhabitants of Gobolitis40 and Petra who are called Amalekites and were the most warlike people Mount Sinai”, JPOS 7 (1927), 187–208 (cf. RB 39 [1930], 73–83), located Sinai at Petra. B. Mazar was of the view that in monarchical times the site of Mount Sinai was already quite uncertain; see H. Freedman, “Sinai”, EncJud 14 (1972), col. 1599. 39 See B. S. Childs, Exodus, London 1974, 313–314. 40 Gobolitis is also mentioned in relation with Amalek in Ant. 2.1.1, § 6: “Amalekos [son of Esau] was a bastard son to him by a concubine named Thamnae (Gen 36:12). These occupied the region of Idumea termed Gobolitis and that called after Amalek, Amalekitis; for Idumea, formerly extensive, has kept that name for the whole country, and its several provinces preserved the names that were derived from its founders.”

472

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

in these parts. It was their kings who sent messages exhorting one another and their neighbouring peoples to make war on the Hebrews. ‘An army of aliens’, they said, ‘has escaped from bondage in Egypt and is lying in wait to attack us.’ … To Moses, expectant of no hostility, this rising of the nations was a source of perplexity and trouble” (Ant. 3.2.1–2, §§ 39–40, 43).

Josephus, evidently, saw the war at Rephidim connected with the exodus. We may also recall that Josephus (Ant. 3.1.5, § 25) situates the miracle of the quails in the area of the Arabian Gulf (the Gulf of Aqaba). The next episodes in the Book of Exodus (ch. 18) are the meeting of Jethro with Moses, “in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God” (Exod 18:5), and the election of the elders. Josephus identifies Midian as the town of Midian situated by the Red Sea and named after one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah (Ant. 2.2.1, § 257). Although not explicit on the point, Josephus would seem to situate Sinai east of the Gulf of Aqaba. In rabbinic tradition, various meanings of Sinai are given. In some forms of the tradition, Sinai is seen as having six names: the Mount of God (Exod 21:1), Mount of Bashan, Mount of Peaks (ĊĆččþÿĕā, har gabnunnim), Mount of Longing (Ps 68:16–17), Mount Horeb, Mount Sinai. In b. Shabbat 89ab the following tradition is attributed to R. Jose ben Hanina (about 270 c.e.): Sinai has five names: the wilderness of Zin (Sin), the wilderness of Kadesh, the wilderness of Kedomoth (Deut 2:26, “because upon it the Original – that is the pre-existing Torah – was given”), the wilderness of Paran, the wilderness of Sinai. Its proper name, however, is Horeb. The name Sinai is interpreted as āýčô (sin’ah), “hatred”, “because the nations of the world were brought low there” (for not accepting the Torah).41 According to R. Abbahu (third to fourth century c.e.) its proper name is Sinai. It is called Horeb because of the devastation (āþĕĂĄ, ôrebah) that came on the nations of the world – again, presumably for not accepting the Law.42 Kedemoth must have been on the borders of Moab and the kingdom of Sihon. It was from there that Moses sent messengers to Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut 2:26). We have already seen that Zin and Paran are connected with Kadesh in biblical texts and that Kadesh itself is identified with Reqem (Petra). This evidence tends to show that Sinai was at least intimately connected with places identified with Petra or closely associated with it. It may

41 See H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch,, vol. 3, 571–572; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, vol. 3, 8, with notes in vol. 6. The midrash, which is found in b. Shabbat 89ab, is also in Exod. Rab. 2:4 on Exod 3:1 (Soncino translation, Midrash Rabbah. Translated into English, with notes, glossary and indices, ed. by H. Freedman & M. Simon, London 1939, vol. 3: Exodus, 51–52). 42 See Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 3, 80.

6. Paul and Petra

473

be that in one Jewish tradition, at least, Sinai itself was believed to have been in the area of Petra, or at least east of the Arabah. This tradition may well be an old one and in line with Deut 33:2 which speaks of a divine visitation (or revelation) from Sinai, Seir and Mount Paran. In the paraphrase of the Palestinian Targum the revelation on Mount Gabla (Seir) was to offer the Torah to the sons of Esau; that on Mount Paran was to offer it to the sons of Ishmael; see also Hab 3:3.43 Deut 33:2–3 is paraphrased as follows in Targum Neofiti: “The Lord was revealed from Mount Sinai to give his Law to his people, the children of Israel. He shone in his glory on the Mount of Gabla to give the Law to the sons of Esau. … And he appeared in his glory to give his Law on Mount Paran to the sons of Ishmael. He returned and was revealed on Mount Sinai, and with him were myriads of holy angels … and he stretched out his right hand from the midst of the flames of fire and gave the Law to his people. Was it not manifest and known before him that neither the sons of Esau nor the sons of Ishmael were to accept the Law? Yet, all this was to show that he loved his people, the children of Israel; myriads of holy angels descended …”

To sum up we can say that several of the mighty acts of God in favour of Israel during the desert wanderings were believed to have been performed in or near Petra. It is even possible that the revelation of Sinai and the giving of the Law, “ordained through angels by a mediator” (Gal 3:19), “with myriads of holy angels”, were believed by some to have taken place there. It must be conceded, however, that the evidence for the location of Sinai in the Petra area, or east of the Arabah, in Jewish tradition of the New Testament period is not altogether compelling.

6. Paul and Petra We now come to the crucial point of the relevance of the Jewish traditions we have considered for an understanding of Paul and for Gal 4:25a in particular. In the delicate question of the use of Jewish traditions for the interpretation of the New Testament, and in our study specifically of Pauline texts, it is not sufficient to show that in Paul’s day specific Jewish traditions and biblical interpretations existed. We must also show that Paul knew of these, that they were in his mind when he wrote a particular text, and that these have influenced him in his thought and expression. In this regard the determinative factor must be the New Testament text we are considering, the text in its present context, in its present position in the flow of the New 43 Tg. Hab 3:3 renders ČċĆėċ (mittêman, “from Theman”) of the Hebrew as Čėċþ (bemittan, “in giving”): “When giving the Law to his people, God was revealed from the South, and the Holy One from Mount Paran …”

474

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

Testament writer’s thought and argumentation. We must see whether the Jewish tradition makes the New Testament writer’s thought clearer, whether it appears to have been operative in the manner in which he presents the message. Otherwise we may have to do with no more than interesting but irrelevant parallels. The application of what has been said already to the understanding of Gal 4:25a will necessitate a certain amount of repetition. For this I beg the indulgence of the reader. I may be permitted to recall that in the context, Paul is speaking of the bondwoman Hagar and the freewoman Sarah, of their children Ishmael and Isaac and of their descendants. In Paul’s day the children of the bondwoman Hagar were above all else the Arabs, the Nabataeans, with their capital at Petra. More specifically, the children of Hagar would have been the Ishmaelites. Both Hagar and her son Ishmael were associated in particular with Kadesh, Bered and Shur, that is, with Reqem (Petra) and agra or alu a. The larger area around Petra and south of it, and east of the Arabah, could have evoked Hagar’s name for Paul. In the days of king Saul, the Reubenites, Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh made war on the Hagrites (ĊĆýĕÿā, hagra’îm; initial he) east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:10, 19) and with the Ishmaelite tribes of Jetur and Naphish (see Gen 25:15). In Ps 83:7 the Hagrites (ĊĆĕÿā, hagrîm; initial he) are mentioned in connection with Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab, Gebal, Ammon and Amalek. The very name would call to mind the general area east of the Arabah, between Aqaba and Petra. Could the place name agra or agar (with an initial eth) have brought to mind the name of Hagar (with an initial he)? We have seen that the place name agra or agar did exist, generally mentioned in connection with Reqem (Petra), in the vicinity of which it must have lain. And together with the simple agra, we also know of the existence of a composite one, Reqem de agra (t. Shebiit 4:11; Tosephtha, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 66,10), apparently distinct from Reqem itself, and Reqem Gaya mentioned in the same list of towns on the border of Israel.44 The agra to which this Reqem belonged may have been a more or less extended area. There is another Hagra, well known in Jewish literature. It is al-Hidjar of Saudia Arabia, near the small settlement of Medâin Sâleh, and has been identified with the Egra of Strabo and Hegra of Pliny.45 This word is written with an initial he. In some texts, however, the name is written with an initial eth. The same may have been true of the agra or agar of the Petra area. In this case, the very place44

On the question of the boundaries of the Land of Israel see n. 31 above. On this Hagra see E. S. Vidal, “al-Hidjar”, Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, Leiden & London 1971, 365–366; J. Tka , “Egra”, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumwissenschaft, ed. by G. Wissowa, vol.  5/2, Stuttgart 1905, cols. 2005–2006; Hildesheimer, Beiträge (n. 23 above), 51–52; Starcky, “Petra …”, col. 898. 45

6. Paul and Petra

475

name associated in the Targum of Onqelos with Hagar and her sons would recall the name of the bondwoman herself. As has been earlier noted, many of the events of the desert wanderings were believed to have taken place in Petra or its environs. This belief must have been firmly rooted in the Jews of Paul’s day. Petra would call to mind such occurrences as the death of Miriam, Miriam’s well, the water from the rock, the death of Aaron, and these in their turn would have a Jew think of Petra. It is quite possible that for the Jews, at least for some Jews, Mount Sinai was in some way connected with Petra. If this were so, the very heart of the land of the bondwoman Hagar would have been the scene of the greatest event of Israel’s history: the giving of the Law and all that was believed to have gone with this, for instance the glory of Moses’ face. And Mount Sinai in Arabia may not have been unconnected with Mount Moriah and the sacrifice of Isaac. There is a Jewish tradition precisely on this connection in the Midrash on Psalms 68:9 (on Ps 68:17), a tradition that may well be a very old one. The text runs as follows:46 “At the mountain which God had desired for his abode (Ps 68:17). … Lest it be thought, however, that God has dwelt upon Sinai for all generations since, the verse ends by saying But the Lord will dwell in eternity – that is – God returned to his presence in heaven. … Whence did Sinai come? R. Jose taught, out of Mount Moriah, out of the place where our father Isaac had been bound as a sacrifice. Sinai plucked itself as a priest’s portion [see Num 15:20] is plucked out of the bread. For the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Since their father Isaac was bound upon this place, it is fitting that his children receive the Torah upon it.’ And whence do we know that Mount Moriah will be restored to its pre-eminence? Because it is said the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the top of the mountains (Isa 2:2). The mountains (ĊĆĕāā) however, imply five mountains, equalling the number of the books of the Torah.”

At least some sections of Judaism looked forward to a new manifestation of the Lord from Sinai, as is clear from the following text of the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:3–9):47 “Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them, The Holy Great one will come from his dwelling, the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai [and appear from his camp] and appear in the strength of his might from the heaven [of heavens] … There shall be great judgement upon all men but with the righteous he will make peace, and he will protect the elect, and mercy shall be upon them. And behold, He cometh with ten thousand of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly. But for the elect there shall be joy and light and peace and they shall inherit the earth.” 46 In translation of W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 1, New Haven 1959, 543–544. The midrash is attributed in the text to R. Jose, whom Billerbeck (Strack & Billerbeck, Kommentar, vol. 4, 931) identifies as Jose b. Halafta (ca. 150 c.e.). 47 In APOT 1, 188–190; another translation by E. Isaac in OTP 1, 13–14.

476

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

We now turn to the bearing of what has been said on the understanding of Gal 4:25. If we omit the word Hagar and read, ĞƱĎƫýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőė ĞǼʼněċČưǪ, the meaning would be that Mount Sinai lies in the land of the Arabs, in the land of the children of the bondwoman Hagar. In Paul’s day Arabia meant the Nabatene, with its capital at Petra. His words would have a stronger meaning if he believed that Sinai lay in the vicinity of Petra. The other reading, ĞƱ Ďƫ ŊčƩě ýēėǬ ƁěęĜ őĝĞƯė őė ĞǼ ʼněċČưǪ, might mean that Hagar is a designation of Mount Sinai in Arabia. Arabia would still have the connotation of the territory of the bondwoman Hagar.48 Hagar, in fact, would be a very suitable designation for Sinai, and would be all the more appropriate if Sinai were believed to be in the vicinity of Petra, associated in the Jewish interpreted Bible with the dwelling place of Hagar, the bondwoman, and her son Ishmael. There was also a place name agra or agar (with an initial eth) in that area, and this name may also have been read or pronounced as Hagra or Hagar.49 In fact, it is quite conceivable that this very place, Hagar, was regarded in some sections of Jewish tradition as the mount of revelation. Hagar, in fact, may have been a designation for Mount Sinai in the vicinity of Petra and at the heart of Arabia. One may legitimately ask if the Galatians can be expected to have understood such a reference to Jewish tradition. They probably did not. But this would not weaken the strength of the argument, since at times, particularly in moments of heightened tension, Paul seems to have written from the abundance of his own mind rather than from what his readers would be expected to know.50 This would particularly apply with regard to the present text which appears to be an obiter dictum. There remains the question of the place of Petra in Paul’s life and thought. We can presume that he was acquainted with the strongly established Jewish tradition identifying the biblical Kadesh with Reqem, that is Petra. He may also have known a tradition situating Mount Sinai there or in that general area. He may even conceivably have been aware of the tradition linking Mount Sinai with Mount Moriah and the sacrifice of Isaac. Paul may have actually spent some time at Petra. This takes us to the interpretation of Gal 1:17, in which Paul tells the Galatians that after his 48

See text to notes 19–20 above. We know too little on the treatment of the gutturals in first-century Palestine to be categorical on the point; see S. Klein, “Das tannaitische Grenzverzeichnis Palästinas”, HUCA 5 (1928), 197–259, at 200 on Semitic ĄĆđĕ = Greek Raphia. 50 This may well be the case with regard to 2 Cor 3:17; see M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1966, 182–188; idem, Targum and Testament, 10–13; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 171–176; idem, Review of J. F. Collange, Énigmes de la deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens. Revue exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press 1972, TS 33 (1972), 757–758. 49

6. Paul and Petra

477

conversion he did not go up to Jerusalem, to those who were Apostles before him, but went away into Arabia (ŁĚǻĕĒęėďŭĜʼněċČưċė), and again returned to Damascus. Paul probably retired to Arabia ca. 36 c.e. on his conversion. He probably spent about three years there (interpreting “after three years” of Gal 1:18 from his conversion rather than from his return to Damascus). It was seemingly after his return from Arabia to Damascus that the ethnarch of the Nabataean king Aretas (Aretas IV, † about 39 c.e.), and Paul’s enemies, tried to arrest and kill him (2 Cor 11:32–33; Acts 9:23–25). Where was this Arabia to which Paul retired and why did he sojourn there? Commentators in general are satisfied with the generic reply that the Arabia was the Nabataean kingdom south of Damascus. He may have gone there to preach to the pagan Nabataeans. I suggest that Paul actually went to Petra to meditate on the sacred traditions of his people in the light of his recent vision of the risen Christ. Petra was at the very heart of Arabia and many of the events of sacred history were centred there. The Jerusalem with which Paul had broken, Ş ėȘė ŵďěęğĝċĕƮĖ (Gal 4:25) stood for a dispensation, an order of things, contrary to God’s plan. This Jerusalem opposed and persecuted the new people of God. Paul had need to reflect on the old traditions and the claims of that Jerusalem which were the well-spring of his own behaviour before he had left it for Damascus. At Petra, the very centre of Arabia, in the land of Hagar the bondwoman, he could reflect on the new-found truth that Sinai, and Jerusalem, bore children to slavery, not to freedom as Jewish tradition boasted. They were on the same plane as Hagar. Apparently there were some proselytes to Judaism in Petra, and probably some Jews as well.51 Paul may have debated with these and got into trouble both with them and the Nabataean authorities. He would have escaped back to Damascus, only to be pursued by his adversaries. If this reading of Jewish tradition and Paul’s connection with Petra is correct, it might well throw some light on Paul as a Christian midrashist. It could well be that Paul’s Christian midrash was formed basically during his sojourn in Arabia. When faced with the problem of the relationship of faith to Torah, Paul could draw on the fruits of his earlier reflections. These we find in the epistle to the Galatians, and also in part 2 Corinthians, roughly contemporary with it. 51 The existence of proselytes at Petra seems to be implied in the Mishnah, m. Niddah 7:3 (transl. by H. Danby, 753): “All blood-stains that come from Rekem are clean. R. Judah declares them unclean since they are proselytes there and liable to err. Those that come from the gentiles are clean.” On the Jews in Petra, see Mishnah, m. Gittin 1:1 (bills of divorce from Rekem and agar); see also Hildesheimer, Beiträge (n. 23 above), 55–56; Starcky, “Petra …”, col. 898. M. Avi-Jonah writes: “Papyri discovered in the caves of the Judean Desert reveal that Petra … was visited by the Jewish inhabitants of the province; possibly a number of Jews lived there” (“Petra”, EncJud 13 [1972], col. 342).

478

Chapter 21: þƱĎƫŊčƩě ýēėǬƁěęĜőĝĞƯėőėĞǼʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4:25a)

7. Postscript 2010 In 1997 M. Hengel, in conjunction with A. M. Schwemer, published a major work on what may be affirmed with regard to Paul in the years between his conversion and his ministry in Antioch.52 At the outset he gives a helpful chronological table, with the dates generally accepted for the major events: Aretas King of Nabataea 9 b.c.e.–40 c.e.; crucifixion of Jesus 30 c.e.; persecution of the “Hellenists” and execution of Stephen ca. 32/33; conversion of Paul ca. 33; Paul in Damascus and Arabia ca. 33–36; flight of Paul from Damascus ca. 36; visit of Paul to Peter in Jerusalem and journey to Tarsus ca. 36; death of Philip the Tetrarch 34 c.e.; tensions and finally war between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas over Philip’s territory 34–36 (defeat of Herod ca. 36). Hengel devotes chapter 4 to consideration of Arabia and Aretas IV, king of the Nabataeans, with two major sections: 4.1. “The theological occasion and the political circumstances”, 4.2. “Petra, Hegra, Hagar, Sinai and Abraham”. The book’s following chapter is on Paul’s return to Damascus and the flight from the city. Hengel is quite clear that by “Arabia” the Nabataean kingdom is meant. In his view Paul’s sojourn there was quite a lengthy one, lasting eighteen months or even two years.53 Hengel is quite clear as to Paul’s reason for going to Arabia: it was to evangelize. He wanted to proclaim the message which he had received from Christ, as a sole individual, in Arabia. This, in his view, “excludes the possibility that – as E. Meyer puts it – ‘he [Paul] withdrew into the solitude of Arabia to master the effects of the powerful upheaval he had experienced and gain inner clarity’”.54 Hengel agrees, none the less, with Meyers view that in Arabia Paul “will have struggled towards his later teaching, at least in fundamentals; to this degree he is justified in having nothing to do with a conversion through human beings: the view which he arrived at is in fact his very own, and so by his way of thinking stems directly from the Lord himself”. The preaching of Paul the Jew in Nabataea may have aroused the suspicions of Aretas IV, in tension and occasional war with the Jewish Herod Antipas. Aretas’ antipathy to Paul might have continued in Damascus, leading to Paul’s flight from there. Great attention is devoted to the two Nabataean centres Petra and Hegra and the traditions connected with them. Hengel notes the Jewish traditions linking Petra and Hegra with Hagar, Sinai and Abraham. He recalls that the 52

M. Hengel & A. M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, London 1997. Review by the present writer in HeyJ 44 (2003), 496–497. 53 Paul between Damascus and Antioch, 127. 54 Ibid., 109, with reference a little later to E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte und die Anfänge des Christentums, Stuttgart 1923 (repr. Darmstadt 1962), 345.

7. Postscript 2010

479

Targums of Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen 21:1 note that Abraham had early settled in the south (ĊĂĕĀ) between Petra and Hegra (in the Hebrew Text between the þÿč and ĕĂĖ). (Neofiti’s identification of ĕĂĖ as alu a he regards as representing a later stage.) This Hegra he takes as the southern one, not near Petra. With reference to an essay by H. Gese,55 Hengel notes that in Paul’s linking Hagar with Mount Sinai in Gal 4:25, Gese is probably right in recognising an Old Testament-geographical word play. Hagar, the slave and concubine of Abraham, the mother of Ishmael, points towards the Sinai covenant which leads into slavery, because Paul and numerous Jewish contemporaries located Sinai on the east coast of the Dead Sea in “Arabia”, to the south of the Nabataean kingdom in Hagra (Hegra).56 This new detailed examination of the question of Paul and Petra is very welcome, and merits reflection, even if Hengel’s position fails to convince on two points: that Paul’s journey to Arabia / Petra was to evangelize rather than to reflect on the implications of his encounter with the risen Christ and on the mission given him, and, secondly, on the need to identify the Hegra of targumic tradition as that in the south, rather than a location nearer to Petra.

55 56

H. Gese, “ĞƱĎƫŊčƩě” (n. 15 above). Paul between Damascus and Antioch, 113–114.

Chapter 22

Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit* 1. Historical Overview 1.1 The Beginnings Targums, that is Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, of the rabbinic tradition, came to the attention of Christian scholars in the West in the early Renaissance period.1 They were used, among other works, in antiJewish polemic by Raymundus Martinus († 1290) in his Pugio fidei aduersus Mauros et Judaeos. The advent of printing made the Targums more easily available to students. Onqelos was printed in 1492 at Bologna, the Fragment Targums in 1517–1518; Pseudo-Jonathan in 1591. In whole or in part their texts were incorporated into the great Polyglot Bibles (the Complutensian Polyglot 1514–1517; the Antwerp Polyglot or Biblia Polyglotta Regia 1569–1572; the Paris Polyglot 1618–1645, and finally the London Polyglot [1655–1657], under the editorship of Brian Walton), and editions and Latin translations of individual Targums were also made. During the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries scholars examined the importance of the Targums, or rather individual Targum texts, for theological and exegetical purposes, in efforts to elucidate New Testament texts. The dangers inherent in the use of such texts were also adverted to, by reason of the then generally presumed post-New Testament date of origin. Onqelos and the Targum of the Prophets were presumed the earliest, the Targum of the Hagiographa considered too late for use. Serious doubts were also entertained regarding the date of Pseudo-Jonathan. As Brian Walton puts it, the Targums must be used with caution. While many of their texts, even in the late Targum of the Hagiographa (for instance Psalm 45), contain useful texts in the Jewish-Christian debate (he instances the messianic interpretation of * Paper read at the international colloquium “The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature”, Faculty of Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 16th–17th January 2006; first published under the same title in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. by R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P. J. Tomson (JSJSup 136), Leiden & Boston 2010, 387–427. 1 For a brief sketch of targumic studies see M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966, reprint with supplement (AnBib 27A), 1978, 5–33.

1. Historical Overview

481

Gen 49:10; Isa 7:14; Psalm 45), these are, as it were, but fragments from the school of the Prophets inserted by the later targumists in their paraphrases. In the golden age of Jewish studies, a similar position as maintained by E. Schürer in his monumental A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (English translation of the 2nd revised German edition, 1901),2 who on purpose omits consideration of the Targums, considering that they belong to the third or fourth century at the earliest, though they often fall back on older exegetical traditions. Similarly G. F. Moore (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, 1927).3 Attitudes towards Jewish tradition, and the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch in particular, changed during the 1930s and after, thanks in good part to P. Kahle’s publication of the Genizah Fragments of these Targums,4 and later through the discovery of Codex Neofiti 1 in the Vatican Library in 1949, and its identification in 1956 by A. Díez Macho as an almost complete text of the Palestinian Targum. This led to interest in the Aramaic language of the Palestinian Targums which Kahle,5 Díez Macho,6 M. Black,7 and others maintained was the form of the Aramaic spoken by Christ. During the 1960s and 1970s a number of studies were made and published on the contents of the Palestinian Targums and their possible or probable relationship with New Testament texts and theology. I may mention in particular R. Le Déaut’s La Nuit pascale (1963), and his other writings on the subject.8 2 E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in New Testament Times, Edinburgh 1901, 153–154. 3 G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, Cambridge, Mass. 1927, vol. 1, 176. 4 P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930 (repr. Hildesheim 1967); likewise P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (The Schweich Lectures), London 1947; 2nd rev. edition, Oxford 1959. 5 P. Kahle, “Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum und das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäisch”, ZNW 49 (1958), 100–116; likewise in The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edition, 208: “In the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch we have in the main material coming from preChristian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is very similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated.” 6 A. Díez Macho, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 (1963), 95–132. 7 M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd edition, Oxford 1954; 3rd edition, Oxford 1967. 8 R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome 1963. See also his two surveys: “The Current State of Targumic Studies”, BTB 4/1 (Feb. 1974), 3–32; “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”, BTB 4/3 (Oct. 1974), 243–289. See also J. T. Forestell, Targumic Traditions and the New Testament: An Annotated Bibliography with a New Testament Index (SBL Aramaic Studies 4), Chico 1979; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the

482

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

Then in 1947 and later came the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a number of texts in Aramaic dating from the first century of our era or shortly before it. This led to specialist studies of the stages of the Aramaic language, and the bearing of this on targumic Aramaic.9 Clearly, the language of Jesus’ day was that of the Qumran texts, Onqelos and Targum of the Prophets might be dated before 135 c.e. Serious objections were also directed against the use made of targumic material in New Testament studies, in particular the methodology used, and the assertions sometimes made that New Testament texts were dependent on Targums, in particular the Palestinian Targum(s) of the Pentateuch.10 1.2 Targumic Aramaic: Origin of the Palestinian Targum The language of the Palestinian Targums is later than the language of Jesus’ day. How late, and how to be used in the study of first century c.e. texts, were now matters calling for serious study. Fortunately such questions were soon attended to by a leading specialist in the field, S. Kaufman. He published an initial study on the question in 1985.11 Some years later, in 1992, he read an important paper on the topic at an international conference of the Targums (Aramaic Bible) in Dublin: “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966; M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 3–15; D. Muñoz León, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974; idem, Gloria de la Shekina en los targumím del Pentateuco, Madrid 1977. 9 J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Phases of the Aramaic Language”, in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 259), Missoula 1979, 57–84 (reproduced with same pagination in idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, England & Livonia 1997; idem, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501–531 (reproduced in A Wandering Aramean, 29–56); idem, “The Study of the Aramaic Background on the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean, 1–27, a slightly revised form of a lecture published as “Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus’ Sayings in the New Testament”, in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (BETL 40), ed. by J. Dupont et al., Gembloux 1975, 73–102; see also idem, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 5–21; idem, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean, 85–113 (reproduced, with same pagination in idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament). 10 See J. A. Fitzmyer, in his review of M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (1966) in TS 29 (1968), 322–326, and of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967), in CBQ 30 (1968), 417–428. For reaction to Fitzmyer’s position see G. Vermes, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology”, JJS 33 (1982), 361–376, at 364–368. 11 S. A. Kaufman, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology”, JSNT 23 (1985), 117–124.

1. Historical Overview

483

Texts”.12 In his paper Kaufman expresses the view that it is third century at the very earliest.13 In his view, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch as we have it is not a Palestinian Targum, but a composite work – a kind of compote of Onqelos, the Palestinian Targum, midrashim and even the Babylonian Targum, a compote both in terms of language and content, a document, therefore, post-talmudic in date at the very earliest (seventh century?), in spite of the presence of admittedly early traditions within it. Its language is virtually the same as the language found in the canonical Targums of Job and the Psalter.14 Kaufman also believes that from a proper examination of the language of Pseudo-Jonathan we see that the Palestinian text underlying Pseudo-Jonathan is little different from the rest of the witnesses to the Palestinian Targum. In his study of Pseudo-Jonathan he compares the Aramaic text of the Testament of Levi as found in Qumran (4QLevia [4Q213]) with the same Testament as found in the Cairo Genizah. The identity of both texts is clear from the shared vocabulary and syntax. The Genizah text, though the selfsame as the Qumran one, gives every external appearance of being a text more at home in the medieval Jewish literary tradition that gave rise to Pseudo-Jonathan.15 He notes that nothing within the text traditions of the Palestinian Targums demonstrate that there never was a Palestinian Targum text. He has argued strongly that we can and must reconstruct “the” Palestinian Targum. He believes that when his own lines of research have been fully explored they will lead us to the first-century c.e. text of the title of his essay – a proto-Targum from which the Palestinian Targum and Targum Onqelos are separately descended – a text perhaps never committed to writing, but a real text none the less, one that reflects the earliest stages of rabbinical biblical exegesis. P. V. M. Flesher has a related view on the origin of the Pentateuch Targums.16 He believes that Julian’s plan to rebuild the Jerusalem temple in 362 provided 12

S. A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 118–141. 13 S. A. Kaufman, “Dating”, 122: “I think that most Aramaists today would assert that Qumran represents literary Aramaic of roughly the turn of the millennium. According to the growing consensus, the primitive basic texts of both Targums Onqelos and Jonathan of the Prophets are supposed to come from Palestine and from the second century ce. Since both of these dialects are obviously earlier than the dialect of the Palestinian Targum from a linguistic-typological view (even Díez Macho would acknowledge that), such an approach pretty much leaves us with the third century, at the earliest, for the Palestinian Targum tradition.” 14 S. A. Kaufman, “Dating”, 124–125. 15 S. A. Kaufman, “Dating”, 128. 16 P. V. M. Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in the Social and Linguistic Context”, in The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200, ed. by Birger Olsson & Magnus Zetterholm, Stockholm 2003, 467–509.

484

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

the impetus for the composition of Pseudo-Jonathan, a Targum in his view written for priests by priests. After a detailed study he summarizes his conclusions as follows:17 “So we have now come full circle, to the point where we can see that the fate of Proto-Onqelos in Palestine and its dialect Jewish Literary Aramaic was intimately linked to the fate of the priestly class. At the earliest stage, prior to the destruction of the temple, Proto-Onqelos was composed under the auspices of the priestly elite in Jerusalem. Following the defeat of Bar Kokhba, the priestly class, along with other Judeans, moved north into Galilee, taking both their dialect and their Targum with them. The priests and their Targum gained respect, but their dialect did not. So, again under priestly auspices, a new Targum  – which scholars now call the Palestinian Targum – was written with Proto-Onqelos providing its foundation. The Palestinian Targum became quite popular, being rendered into a number of related versions, of which we now know several. At the same time, some priests kept Proto-Onqelos and worked to preserve knowledge of its dialect. They were only partly successful in this, for the dialect acquired grammatical features from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and other dialects of Aramaic and Hebrew. So when Pseudo-Jonathan was composed, its main dialect was not the widely accepted and used Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but a development from Jewish Literary Aramaic which had been preserved within the priestly class, now called Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.”

Flesher’s position on the priestly origins of Pseudo-Jonathan during the reign of the Emperor Julian (361–363 c.e.) has been argued in detail by his student B. P. Mortensen.18 R. Hayward had earlier argued against the prevailing late date and anti-Islamic nature of this Targum. In a study of Gen 21:33 he mentions an early (second-century?) date for the interpretation in Pseudo-Jonathan, as against a later, possibly fourth-century date for the paraphrase of the Palestinian Targums PVNL.19 In a study of the figure of Esau in Genesis 27 he rejects the late date and anti-Islamic character of Pseudo-Jonathan, and believes that the paraphrase of this chapter is preIslamic.20 He has also noted some very old, and Second Temple, elements in Pseudo-Jonathan’s presentation of the priestly blessing.21

17

P. V. M. Flesher, “The Literary Legacy”, 501. B. P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 4), Leiden & Boston 2006. 19 R. Hayward, “Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-Sheba in the Targums of the Pentateuch”, JJS 49 (1998), 24–37. 20 R. Hayward, “The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments”, JJS 40 (1989), 7–30. See also idem, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic”, JSS 34 (1989), 77–93. 21 R. Hayward, “The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”, JSP 19 (1999), 81–101. 18

1. Historical Overview

485

1.3 Nature of Targumic Paraphrases While study of the language, possible origin and transmission history are important, they cannot distract from the chief purpose of the theme of this paper which is the Targums as we now have them, in all their complexity both as translations of the Hebrew Text and works with added midrash and haggadah. Examination of different translations of the same Hebrew words in the Targum of the Minor Prophets, and other evidence led R. Gordon to compare the Targums to a tel, with various strata.22 Gordon remarks that sensitivity to the tel-like character of Targum is required in our investigation since the extant text probably includes stratified elements representing as much as several centuries of targumic development. Gordon, it appears to me, makes a very valid point, but the principle will hold not for any Targum in general, but for specific texts within it. A good part of any Targum consists in plain translation of the Hebrew Text. The tel-like character may be perceived in certain texts that invite reflection and expansion, and this possibly over decades, even centuries, as the passage in question is made to reflect concerns of particular generations. We may instance passages from the Pentateuch such as the first chapters of Genesis and other key passages, such as Gen 15:17 (God’s covenant with Abraham), Genesis 22 (the sacrifice of Isaac), the narrative of Isaac and Esau, Abraham’s behaviour at Beersheba and the nature of the ĉĖý he planted (Gen 21:33), Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Gen 28:10–22), Judah’s confession concerning Tamar (Gen 38:24–26), Jacob’s last words to his sons (Genesis 49), themes from the books of Exodus and Numbers such as the night of Passover (Exod 12:42), the well and water in the wilderness, and similar texts from the Prophets. Such are themes that interest Christian readers. Themes of interest to Jewish readers would concern the law, Moses as example for future judges (Lev 24:12; Num 9:8; 15:34 and 27:5, with almost identical midrash at all four texts) and such like. It should be noted that attention to a tel-like structure will hold in particular for biblical texts with a single translation (such as Targum of Prophets). For the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums, sometimes with multiple texts, it will be more a matter of redaction criticism, with attention to the variants within the tradition. With regard to the tel-like approach to the Targums, a parallel may possibly be found in the history of the formation of the Gospel tradition, in such matters as the relation of Jesus to Jewish law (for instance, Mark 7:1–22; 2:23–28), and indeed many other issues besides.

22 R. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden 1994, 152–153.

486

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

In a number of studies B. Chilton has sought to determine the exegetical context of the Isaiah Targum.23 He is sceptical of the position of Smolar and Aberbach linking it with Rabbi Aqiba. He finds two stages of development in Targum of Isaiah, tannaitic and amoraic, and a pre-70 and a post-70 tannaitic stage. He discovers different levels of meaning in the Targum corresponding to its different phases, and believes that at both phases current interpretations of Isaiah were obviously gathered together. It is impossible to know whether a complete Targum was produced at the tannaitic phase, to be reworked in the amoraic phase, or whether both tannaitic and amoraic phases produced partial Targums, to become a coherent whole when brought together in the amoraic period. He favors this latter position. Not everyone is convinced by Chilton’s analysis and dating of the Isaiah Targum. Similar observations have been made with regard to Targum Neofiti, in which there appears to be more than one level in the text. B. Barry Levy notes that in Neofiti, together with a literal rendition of the text, there are many passages that were added to it in the course of its development and were not part of the original translation, which undoubtedly differed from the present document. The evidence for this claim comes from the literary layering in the text (the seams are, in many cases, still evident) and the linguistic differences evidenced in it. These passages range in size from a word or phrase to a column of text.24 In his view, while Neofiti may be assumed to contain some older ideas, the bulk of it dates well past the first century c.e., and in its final form it appears to be from the Talmudic period. 1.4 Contemporary Approaches to Targums and New Testament: Methodological Considerations25 After the Qumran finds and the objections raised against the use of targumic (or rabbinic) material for New Testament study or the study of first-century c.e. Judaism, many scholars have turned away from the use of the Targums in such studies, although targumic study itself is currently a thriving branch of science. Two notable exceptions to this trend are B. Chilton and G. Vermes. The former has written extensively on the Targums (particularly the 23 See B. D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, Sheffield 1982; idem, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time, Wilmington 1984, esp. 52–56 (part 2, 57–147, is on: “Jesus and the Targum to Isaiah”); idem, The Isaiah Targum, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1987. 24 B. Barry Levy, Targum Neofiti 1: A Textual Study, vol. 1: Introduction, Genesis, Exodus; vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Studies in Judaism), Lanham, New York & London 1986–1987, vol. 1, viii–ix (summary of his position). 25 For a survey of the decade 1983–1993, see R. Hayward, “Major Aspects of Targumic Studies 1983–1993: A Survey”, Currents in Research 2 (1994), 107–122.

1. Historical Overview

487

Targum of Isaiah) and the New Testament, and due to his work the value of targumic evidence even for studies on the historical Jesus is recognised (for instance by C. A. Evans).26 An obvious requirement in a contemporary study of the issue is a clear indication of the methodology being used. All agree that it is not a question of the New Testament being dependent on the Targums (or rabbinic tradition) but rather both being witnesses to an earlier Jewish tradition. Chilton and Vermes each present their understanding of the approach to be taken. Worthy of note in this context is the Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois) Project (1990–1993) under the direction of P. Flesher which treated of the four Palestinian Pentateuchal Targums (Neofiti, Fragment Targum PV, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) as individual texts. It isolated three types of material in each: translation (from the Hebrew into Aramaic), shared expansions (interpretative material that parallels added material in other Targums), and unique expansions (interpretative material added to the biblical translation, that only one Targum contains). Among those four Targums, beside translations the group found two significantly large bodies of material: the shared material, called ProtoPT (= Palestinian Targum), and the unique material of Pseudo-Jonathan, called PJu. (It is to be noted that in this project “Proto-Palestinian Targum” is used in a different sense from that of S. Kaufman: the Targum from which Neofiti and the Fragment Targums derive, rather than the first century postulated Targum, not necessarily written, from which Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum derive.) B. P. Mortensen has produced a detailed study of PJu, with conclusions along the lines of the position of Flesher.27 Under the direction of P. Flesher R. M. Campbell has made a similarly detailed examination on the Palestinian Fragment Targum Vatican manuscript Ebr. 440.28 While these studies do not bear directly on the relation between Targum and the New Testament, detailed studies of individual Targum texts are of importance for an understanding of this relationship.

26 C. A. Evans, “Early Messianic Traditions in the Targums”, in idem, Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU 25), Boston & Leiden 1995, 155–181. Evans’s concluding comments (p. 181) are: “What this survey shows is that whereas much, even most, of the messianic tradition in the Targums derives from times after the New Testament, a fair portion of it reflects interpretive traditions and ways of speaking from the first century and even earlier. Bruce Chilton’s work on the Isaiah Targum has shown how at many points Jesus’ utterances, as well as his general concept of the kingdom of God, cohere with targumic language and themes. Jesus research cannot, therefore, neglect the Targums.” 27 Mortensen, The Priesthood. 28 R. M. Campbell, “A Fragment-Targum without a Purpose? The Raison-d’être of MS. Vatican Ebr. 440”, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 1994.

488

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

In 1994 B. Chilton published an essay with eight theses on the use of Targums in interpreting the New Testament.29 In these he stresses strongly the late, post-New Testament, date of the Targums. In thesis no. 1 he notes that the Targums generally were composed after, and without reference to the paramount concerns of, the New Testament. They are post 135/136 c.e. The destruction of the Temple (definitively, in 135–136 c.e.) and the consequent crisis in eschatological hope in the restoration of Israel caused the Aramaic interpreters, as representatives of rabbinic Judaism, to confront afresh what the choice of Israel, the Davidic promise, the Temple itself, the coming of the Messiah, the predictions of the prophets, and the commands of Torah might mean; (2)  the targumic agenda is essentially rabbinic. Rabbis were concerned with how Scripture was rendered in the synagogues, and were in the end responsible for the Targums as they can be read today, instancing the presentation of Genesis 22 in the Palestinian Targums as providing an instance of exegesis comparable to the rabbinic understanding of the passage; (3) within early and rabbinic Judaism, the provenience and programme of the Targums are variegated (from Onqelos of Targum Esther); (4) there are no “Palestinian”, “pre-Christian” Targums. Elements within the Targums may arguably antedate, or be contemporaneous with, documents of the New Testament, but such a case remains always to be made, and may not be assumed; (5) a targumic approach to the New Testament is to be distinguished from an Aramaic approach. In view of their history, the Targums are of less moment for reconstructing the dialect of Jesus than are the discoveries at Qumran, Na al Hever and Murraba‘at; (6) a Targum of a date later than the New Testament might, on occasion, represent a tradition which was current in the period of the New Testament, albeit not in a targumic context (instancing Ps.-J. Lev 22:18 and Luke 6:36 [“be merciful …”]); (7)  on rare occasions, a Targum might provide us with a tradition which was – at the time of the New Testament – already of an exegetical nature (instancing Tg. Isa 6:9, 10 in relation to Mark 4:12). His final thesis (no. 8) is that the Targums instance, not only traditions which may be reflected in the New Testament, but a process of conveying these traditions which might be illuminating. Once the history of targumic development is reckoned with, it becomes obvious that their greatest use for the student of the New Testament lies in their provision, not of antecedents, but analogies.

29 B. D. Chilton, “Eight Theses on the Use of Targums in Interpreting the New Testament”, in idem, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 2), Atlanta 1994, 305–315; see also idem, “Four Types of Comparison between the Targumim and the New Testament”, Journal for the Aramaic Bible 2 (2000), 163–188.

1. Historical Overview

489

In 1982 G. Vermes contributed a major essay on reflections and methodology regarding Jewish literature and New Testament exegesis.30 In the course of this essay Vermes gives his reaction to Fitzmyer’s contention that Qumran Aramaic (and the Aramaic of first century c.e. tomb and ossuary inscriptions) “must be the latest Aramaic that should be used for philological comparison of the Aramaic substratum of the Gospels and Acts”,31 including consideration of ĔęěČǬė, ĖċĖģėǬĜ, and žğŮƱĜĞęȘŁėĒěƶĚęğ. He then passes on to the question of methodology. G. Vermes outlines four possibilities for explaining the similarities between the New Testament and Jewish literature: (1)  coincidence, (2)  rabbinic borrowing from the New Testament, (3)  New Testament dependence on the Targum or midrash, and (4) a New Testament passage and a targumic / rabbinic text have their source in “Jewish traditional teaching”.32 Vermes prefers the fourth option, namely, that convergences between the New Testament and the Targum reflect a common Jewish tradition. Vermes believes that instead of looking at the New Testament as an independent unit set against a background of Judaism, we have to see it as part of a larger environment of Jewish religious and cultural history.33 1.5 A Continuum: Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Jewish Tradition Other writers express the same idea in slightly different terminology. Thus C. S. Keener in his recent work (2003) on John’s Gospel The Gospel of John: A Commentary, in a discussion of the value of rabbinic texts for Johannine study speaks of a “continuum”. A view expressed by rabbis can be used provided it is a view that the rabbis could have derived from the broader continuum of early Judaism. He notes that in his commentary rabbinic literature is treated as one useful strand of evidence by which we seek to reconstruct the broader cultural and social milieu of early Judaism  – not as if implying that the New Testament borrows from rabbinic tradition, but that notable commonalities probably reflect a common source in early 30

G. Vermes, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology”, JJS 33 (1982), 361–376, at 372–373. I may also mention here the use of Palestinian Targums by F. Lentzen-Deis and D. J. Harrington with regard to the background of the “interpretative vision” at the baptism of Jesus. See F. Lentzen-Deis, “Das Motiv der ‘Himmelsöffnung’ in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments”, Bib 50 (1959), 301–327; idem, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Frankfurt 1970; D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville 1991, 63–65. See further below, section 2.3; pp. 494–496. 31 Vermes, “Jewish Literature”, 364–368. 32 Ibid., 372–373. 33 Ibid., 374–375.

490

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

Judaism or at times in the generally Pharisaic movement of scholars that coalesced into rabbinic Judaism. He also wisely observes that “if sayings or ideas rapidly became the property of the community, their sources could be more ancient than the specific rabbis who first cited them or to whom they were attributed (from whom those reporting them first heard the account)”. It is important to situate the targumic tradition as far as possible in the interpretative, midrashic and haggadic tradition of late Judaism from the time of Ezra (ca. 450 b.c.e.) to ca. 100 or 200 c.e., and as an extension of this tradition. Some of these works, such as Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, continue and develop the earlier wisdom tradition. Others are compositions of a sectarian or semi-sectarian nature (for instance the Book of Jubilees). Others of the many pseudepigraphic works (63 in J. H. Charlesworth’s two-volume edition) represent a great diversity of genres, among them expansions of the “Old Testament” and legends. Many of these works cannot be ascribed to any particular group within Judaism, in part because we know too little of the groups to do so. Possibly they reflect generally held views on the biblical message. Laws governing development of tradition during this period have not yet been worked out, but many expand or retell the biblical text in a variety of ways. From the point of view of targumic tradition, notable among these works is the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, some of whose traditions and interpretations originate in deep reflection on the Bible, linking similar texts to form a new vision of Israel’s past or future. The interpretative tradition of the Greek translations such as the Septuagint, Symmachus34 and others may also be helpful. Such a history of an exegetical tradition can work either for the antiquity of a targumic paraphrase, or against it, as R. Hayward believes is the case for the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Gen 21:33 in which Abraham is presented as a proselytizer, which Hayward regards as fourth century c.e. thinking, rather than that of the Second Temple period.35 1.6 Comparison of Qumran and Targumic Evidence for New Testament Study The vast contribution made by the Qumran finds for many aspects of New Testament study rests beyond doubt, so much so in fact that rabbinic or targumic evidence has in recent decades tended to be neglected or regarded as irrelevant. Certain deficiencies of the Qumran evidence in this field may profitably be borne in mind. There is more to language than lexical 34 On Symmachus see A. Salvesen, “Symmachus and the Dating of Targumic Traditions”, Journal for the Aramaic Bible 2 (2000), 233–245. 35 R. Hayward, “Abraham as Proselytizer”, 24–37.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

491

forms. There is terminology, phraseology, the background matrix to which language gives expression and some other matters besides. Qumran does not have the phraseology of the Gospels, such as merit, good works, this world, world to come, Father in heaven. It may also have lacked some of the Aramaic terms attested in the Gospels. One is vocabulary: ĞċĕēĒƪ(Mark 5:41: ĞċĕēĒƩĔęȘĖ), not in Qumran vocabulary, but surely corresponding to āĆĉą (absolute state), āýėĆĉą found in one branch of the Palestinian Targum texts (in Neofiti margins, 19 times; none of the texts is preserved in any Fragment Targum).36 In these texts Onqelos has ýėċĆĉĂď (as does Targum Pseudo-Jonathan37) which may be presumed to have been the term used in Qumran as well; Neofiti in the main text has ýėĆþĕ. The main text of Neofiti does not have the feminine form ýėĆĉą, but the masculine Ćĉą, ýĆĉą, “child, lamb”, is frequent there. There are a number of ways in which one could study the question of a possible relationship of the Targums to the New Testament. One is through examination of individual themes (for instance, the Binding of Isaac; the Passover Night; Judah’s Confession regarding Tamar). Such an approach would permit detailed examination of relationships, but has the disadvantage of being too limited in scope. In the present essay I propose to take various approaches, examining the question of general phraseology, concepts common in the Gospel, and as well as this going in greater detail into some individual themes and motifs.

2. Vocabulary and Themes 2.1 Good Works and Rewards in the World to Come One of the ways in which the vocabulary of the Qumran texts differs from that of the Gospels (and some other New Testament writings) is in reference to good works and rewards in the world to come. In this the Gospels are in the tradition of rabbinic Judaism and the Targums rather than in that of Qumran. According to Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 5:16) Jesus tells his disciples to let their light shine before others so that they see their good works (ĔċĕƩŕěčċ) and give glory to their Father in heaven. The phrases “good works” or “bad works” are not found in the Hebrew Bible or in Greek Septuagint. The central Pauline epistles, naturally, make no mention of “good works”, but 36 The instances: Gen 24:61; Gen 34 (four instances), Exod 2:5,8; Deuteronomy 22 (twelve instances). 37 In one instance (Exod 2:8), however, Pseudo-Jonathan does have ýėĆĉą.

492

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

the phrase occurs in 2 Thess 2:17 and deuteropauline writings (1 Tim 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:8; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Tit 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; Heb 10:24; 13:21). With good works goes “reward” (ĖŮĝĒƲĜ), something spoken of often by Jesus as his words are recorded in all three Synoptics. Those who suffer for the sake of righteousness should rejoice: their reward is great in heaven (Matt 5:12//Luke 6:23). Those who love their enemies without expecting anything in return will have great reward (Luke 6:35; see Matt 5:46). Whoever gives a cup of water to drink to one because they bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose the reward (Mark 9:41 / /Matt 10:42). Jesus stresses that reward, treasure, must be laid up in heaven (Matt 6:19–21 / / Luke 12:32–34). The reward is from the Father in heaven (Matt 5:4, 6, 15). It is possible that this reward in heaven be lost, especially by those who practice their piety (do their good deeds) to be seen by others, and receive glory on earth. By so doing they forfeit reward before their Father in heaven and have already received their reward on earth (Matt 6:1, 2, 5, 16). This language can be regarded as fundamentally that of Jesus. As H. Preisker has noted: “Mt. 6:19–21 = Lk. 12:33 f. speak in current Jewish imagery.”38 In few places is this Jewish imagery of good works and merit (þąĕÿý) clearer than in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. In these there is frequent mention of good works. Whenever the Hebrew words ĊĉĖ or ĊĆċė refer to persons they are translated in the Targums as “perfect in good works”. The relevance of good and evil deeds and the question of reward and punishment appear to have been a matter of debate in early Judaism. According to an inserted piece in the Aramaic translation of Gen 4:6–8 Cain and Abel argued as to whether the world was governed by God according to the fruits of good works. The good reward is already there, stored up for the just in the world to come, or for the world to come. It is thus expressed in an oracle of Balaam, in a midrashic expansion of the biblical text: “Blessed are you (ČĂĈĆþĂą), just ones! What a good reward is prepared for you before the Lord for [or: ‘in’] the world to come” (Pal. Tg. Num 23:23).39 All observance of the commandments has its reward, but some of the reward can be given by God in this life instead of being reserved for the world to come. In an expansion of the biblical text of Deut 7:10 the Palestinian Targum has Moses say of God: “(7:9) You shall know, then, that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps the covenant and steadfast love for a thousand generations for the just ones who love him and for those who keep the precepts of his law, (10) and who repays in this world the rewards of their good works to those who hate him, in order to take revenge on them in the world to come. And he does not delay the good reward for 38 H. Preisker, “ĖēĝĒƲĜ: The Concept of Reward in the New Testament”, TDNT 4 (1967), 714–728, at 714. 39 Translation by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995, 134.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

493

those who hate him: while they are still in this world, he repays them the reward of the small precepts that are in their hands.”40

Abram expresses this great fear of being rewarded in this life, with no reward stored up for him in the world to come. This is clearly expressed in an expanded introduction to Genesis 15 in the Palestinian Targum, which is as follows (given in Neofiti’s translation; italics denote targumic midrash):41 “(15:1) After these things, after all the kingdoms of the earth had gathered together and had drawn up battle-lines against Abram and had fallen before him, and he had killed four kings from among them and had brought back nine encampments, Abram thought in his heart and said: ‘Woe, now, is me! Perhaps I have received the reward of the precepts42 in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come. Or perhaps the brothers or relatives of those killed, who fell before me, will go and will be in their fortresses and in their cities and many legions will become allied with them and they will come against me and kill me. Or perhaps there were a few meritorious deeds (ČĉĆĉĔČĂĂēċ)43 in my hand the first time they fell before me and they stood in my favour, or perhaps no meritorious deed (āĂēċ) will be found in my hand the second time and the name of the heavens will be profaned in me.’ For this reason there was a word of prophecy from before the Lord upon Abram the just saying: ‘Do not fear, Abram, for although many legions are allied and come against you to kill (you), my Memra will be a shield for you; and it will be a protection for you in this world and although I delivered up your enemies before you in this world, the reward of your good works is prepared for you before me in the world to come.’”

2.2 Eternal Shame for not Confessing God in this Life;44 Measure for Measure In an earlier work45 I noted that the entire paraphrase of Gen 38:25–26 reads somewhat like a page from the New Testament, with some New Testament themes and New Testament vocabulary. For this reason I cite it here in extenso. In the biblical text Judah orders that his daughter-in-law Tamar, who has been accused of being a prostitute, be brought out and burned. Tamar says that she has been made pregnant by the owner of certain items 40

Translation by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1997,

54. 41

Translation by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992, 93–94. Or: “reward for [keeping] the commandments”. 43 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990, 493 (under the headword ĆĉĔ, ĉĆĉĔ), renders the Aramaic words ČĂĂēċ ČĉĆĉĔ of this text as “light commandments” and of the Fragment Targum of the text as “easy commandments” (Dictionary, 325, under the headword āĂĂēċ). 44 See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 135–136; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 202–203; idem, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 138–142. 45 M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 136; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 203. 42

494

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

she produces. Judah acknowledges his guilt saying: “She is more in the right than I am. …” The Palestinian Targums preserve a lengthy midrash on the verses. I here cite the text of Neofiti. “She [Tamar] lifted up her eyes on high and said: ‘I beseech by the mercies from before you, O Lord, you are he who answers the afflicted in the hour of their affliction; answer me in this hour, which is the hour of my distress. O God who answers the distressed, enlighten my eyes and give me the three witnesses …’. And immediately the Lord heard the voice of her supplication, and he said to Michael: ‘Go down and give her his three witnesses.’ And her eyes were enlightened and she saw them and she gave them into the hands of the judges and said: ‘By the very man to whom those things belong am I with child.’”

The midrash goes on to give Judah’s reaction: “Judah immediately stood upon his feet and said: ‘I beg of you brothers, and men of my father’s house, listen to me: It is better for me to burn in this world, with extinguishable fire, that I may not be burned in the world to come whose fire is inextinguishable. It is better I for me to be ashamed in this world that is a passing world, that I may not be ashamed before my just fathers in the world to come. And listen to me, my brothers and house of my father: In the measure in which a man measures it shall be measured to him, whether it be a good measure or a bad measure. Blessed is every man who reveals his works.’”

The similarity in this beautiful midrash to some concepts and phrases in the words of Jesus is noteworthy, for instance, Mark 8:38: “Those who are ashamed of me and my works in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (par. Luke 9:26). See also Matt 7:1–2 (par. Luke 6:37–38): “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Mark 9:43–48 (par. Matt 18:8; 25:41 – to go to hell, the unquenchable fire; where the fire is not quenched). 2.3 The Literary Form of “Interpretative Vision” in the Palestinian Targums and in the New Testament What is accepted as the literary form “interpretative vision” is found in the Palestinian Targums of Gen 22:10 and 28:12.46 The first occurrence is in the targumic account of the sacrifice of Isaac, where the paraphrase says that Isaac willingly presented himself for the sacrifice, even requesting Abraham his father to tie him tightly in case the sacrifice would be invalid. The paraphrase as in Neofiti continues (italics denote paraphrase): 46 F. Lentzen-Deis, Die Taufe Jesu, 200–224; idem, “Das Motiv”, 323–324; D. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 63–64.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

495

“The eyes of Abraham were on the eyes of Isaac, and the eyes of Isaac were scanning the angels on high. Abraham did not see them. In that hour a voice came forth from the heavens and said: Come, behold two singular (ČĆĆĀĆĄĆ) (persons) who are in my world; one sacrifices, and the other is sacrificed; he who sacrifices does not falter and he who is sacrificed stretches forth his neck.”

Another example of an interpretative vision is found in Pal. Tg. Gen 28:12, as part of the account of Jacob’s vision at Bethel. To the translation of the biblical text the Palestinian Targum adds (in Neofiti’s rendering): “Behold, the angels that had accompanied him from the house of his father ascended to bear good tidings (ĆĕĖþċĉ) to the angels on high, saying: Come and see a just man whose image is engraved on the throne of glory, who you desired to see. And, behold, the angels from before the Lord were ascending and descending and observed him.”

D. Harrington cites both texts in his interpretation of the account of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel. He notes that there are serious problems in dating the two Palestinian Targums in which these visions appear, and that it is difficult to know how far back in history any specific passage can be traced. The prudent course in using such targumic material in New Testament study is to talk about parallels and perhaps common traditions, and not assume a relation of direct dependence. He goes on to note that having issued the methodological caution we can look again at the parallels between the targumic interpretative visions and Matt 3:13–17. In all three cases (Isaac, Jacob, Jesus) the hero is at an early point in his public or adult career. Communication between heaven and earth is opened up, by angels in the Targums and by various means (the opening of the heavens, the dovelike descent of the Spirit, the voice) in Matt 3:13–17. The voice from the heavens points out the hero and declares something about his identity: “two singular [= just] (persons) who are in my world” (Abraham and Isaac); “a just man whose image is engraved in the throne of glory” (Jacob) and “my son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (Jesus). Familiarity with the Jewish interpretative vision, Harrington concludes, helps the reader to recognise where the spotlight in the text lies.47 The bearing of the targumic paraphrases of Gen 28:12, 16–17 on John 1:51 (where Jesus says to Nathaniel: “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man”) is much less clear. In his study of the Jewish background to this verse Moloney sees little relevance in the targumic texts.48 Similarly C. S. Keener who notes the contemporary use of rabbinic and Targum texts as background. He comments that while contemporary Jewish backgrounds are welcome and later evidence is sometimes all that we have, this passage 47 48

D. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 63–64. F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, Rome 1978, 26–30.

496

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

(of John 1:50–51) makes more sense against the widely available background in Genesis itself than against the uncertainly dated and possibly not widely available background many scholars have suggested.49 2.4 Father in Heaven In the use of the designation “Father in heaven” the vocabulary of the Gospels is in keeping with that of the Palestinian Targums and rabbinic Judaism rather than that of Qumran. The fatherhood of God is a central theme especially in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus speaks of God some twenty times as “Father who is in the heavens” (“My/thy/our/your Father who is in the heavens”, ĚċĞƮěĖęğ (ĝęğ,ŞĖȥė,ƊĖȥė)žőėĞęȉĜęƉěċėęȉĜ, Matt 5:16, 45, [48 v.l.]; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:[10,] 14, 19; [23:9 v.l.]). As a variant Matthew has also “(your / my) heavenly Father” (žĚċĞƭěƊĖȥė žęƉěƪėēęĜ, 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 23:9; žĚċĞƮěĖęğžęƉěƪėēęĜ, 15:13; 18:35). It seems fairly clear that this is a Greek presentation of an original “Father who is in the heavens”. We may then accept it that “Father who is in the heavens” was current phraseology in the Matthaean community. The expression is also found in Mark 11:25: “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in the heavens (ŲėċĔċƯžĚċĞƭěƊĖȥė žőėĞęȉĜęƉěċėęȉĜ) may also forgive you your trespasses.” The parallel passage to this in Matt 6:14 (in the Sermon on the Mount) has “your heavenly Father” (žĚċĞƭěƊĖȥėž ęƉěƪėēęĜ). This section of Matthew, as already noted, is a secondary formulation. Mark is here a representative of early Palestinian Christian language. Luke does not have the expression, but in 11:13 he has a text from the Q source clearly dependent on the original Palestinian formula. Luke 11:13 has: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father who is from heaven (žĚċĞƭěžőĘ ęƉěċėęȘ) give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” The parallel text from Q in Matt 7:11 reads: “… how much more will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those who ask him!” From all this it is clear that the expression “Father who is in the heavens” was current in the Matthaean community, in the community from which Mark’s Gospel ultimately emerged, and in the original form of the Q source. This eminently Semitic expression was under Greek influence changed in part in Matthew’s Gospel to become “heavenly Father”, and further in Luke’s presentation of the Q source. It is an open question to what extent, if at all, Jesus himself used this expression. It was one of a number of ways of referring to the loving and caring God. 49

C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols., Peabody 2003, vol. 1, 490.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

497

The corresponding Hebrew phrase ĊĆċĖþĖ þý is attested in rabbinic sources for a period from the end of the first century c.e. onwards.50 “Israel and its Father in heaven” is a particularly common form, but even the individual “my Father in heaven” is put on the lips of R. Yochanan b. Zakkai († ca. 80 c.e.). A common phrase is “Before the Father in heaven”. Another favourite expression is: “To direct one’s prayer to the Father in heaven”. “To do the will of the Father in heaven” is a common mode of expression in rabbinic Judaism.51 The phrase ĊĆċĖþĖþý occurs five times in the Mishnah.52 It occurs three times in m. So ah 9:15 in the form “our Father who is in the heavens” (ĂčĆþý ĊĆċĖþĖ), twice on the depression on the destruction of the Temple, once on the turmoil to come “with the footprints of the Messiah”. Thus: “R. Eliezer the Great [ben Hyrcanus; ca. 120 c.e.] said: ‘Since the day the Temple was destroyed the sages began to look like school teachers. … On whom shall we stay ourselves? On our Father who is in the heavens.’”53 In m. Yoma 8:9 we have the form “Your Father who is in heaven”. “R. Aqiba [put to death 135 c.e.] said: Blessed are ye, O Israel. Before whom are you made clean and who makes you clean? Your Father who is in heaven” (citing Ezek 36:25).54 In m. Rosh ha-Shanah 3:8, Exod 17:12 and Num 21:8 are interpreted with the note that victory did not come automatically by Moses raising his hands, nor healing by gazing on the bronze serpent, but rather because “the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their heart in subjection to their Father who is in the heavens (ĊĆċĖþĖĊāĆþýĉ), otherwise they suffered defeat [or: pined away]”.55 As already noted, this designation of God as “your (my) Father in heaven” is attested in rabbinic Judaism from about the end of the first century c.e. It is found neither in the Old Testament nor in the Apocrypha. In the Old Testament Israel is called God’s son (Exod 4:22–23), God’s sons (Deut 30:9; 32:5; Isa 1:4; Hos 2:1; 1 Chr 29:10, etc.). In Jer 3:4, 19 Israel calls God her father; so also in Isa 63:16; 64:7. In Jer 31:8(9) and Mal 1:6 God professes himself Father of Israel. In later Judaism mention is made but rarely of God as Father of Israel. There seems to have been a tendency to avoid the designation. This ten50

See G. Schrenk, “ĚċĞƮě”, TDNT 5 (1967), 974–1022, at 979–981. See G. Schrenk, “ĒƬĕđĖċ”, TDNT 3 (1965), 54. 52 See C. Y. Kosovsky (ed.), Otsar leshon ha-Mishnah: Thesaurus Mishnae: Concordantiae verborum quae in sex Mishnae ordinibus reperiuntur, rev. edition, Tel Aviv 1967, 4. (I wish to express my thanks to Prof. Dr. Liliane Vana, Paris, for indicating its presence in the Mishnah to me.) 53 See the translation in H. Danby (ed.), The Mishnah, Oxford 1933, 306; J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven & London 1988, 465–466. 54 See translation in Danby, The Mishnah, 172; Neusner, The Mishnah, 279. 55 See translation in Danby, The Mishnah, 192; Neusner, The Mishnah, 304–305. 51

498

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

dency is noticeable in the Targum to the Prophets, where the word “father” is replaced by some other word, or the text is made to say that God is as a father. Thus “Thou art our Father” of Isa 63:16 becomes in the Targum: “Thou art he whose compassions towards us are more than those of a father towards his children.” Likewise in Tg. Isa 64:8. In Tg. Jer 3:4, 19 it is replaced by “master”; in Tg. Jer 31:9 and Mal 1:6 it is preceded by “as”, “like” (a father). Things are different in the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. In one text (Neof. Deut 4:30) “the Lord your God” is replaced by “your Father” (ČĂĈĂþý). In the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch alone among the Targums do we find the designation of God as “Father in heaven”. As in the New Testament, it is never found alone, but is always accompanied by a qualifying pronoun, “your”, “their”, “our” (“Father who is in heaven”). Like most of the New Testament occurrences of the expression, in the Targums too it is found chiefly in certain definite contexts, that is, in reference to prayer, merit or divine will. I have found a total of thirteen occurrences of the expression “Father in heaven” in the Palestinian Targums: three in Pseudo-Jonathan, seven in the Fragment Targums and three in Neofiti. The texts are as follows: Gen 21:33 (Frg. Tg. PVNL); Exod 1:19 (Ps.-J. and Frg. Tg. PVB2, Neofiti); Exod 17:11 (Frg. Tg. P; cf. all other texts); Lev 22:28 (Ps.-J. variant); Num 20:21 (Frg. Tg. VB2, Neof.); Num 21:9 (Frg. Tg. VB2); Num 23:23 (Frg. Tg. VB2P); Deut 28:32 (Frg. Tg. VB2P); Deut 32:6 (Frg. Tg. VP); Deut 33:24 (Neofiti). In only one instance (Exod 1:19) do all three representatives of the Palestinian Targum carry this particular designation of God. As in the Gospel evidence, we may ask, in which is it original and in which added? Is its absence or presence due to the date of composition or to later editorial work? Perhaps like “holy spirit”, Shekinah, Dibbera and Bath Qol, “Father in heaven” was another of the expressions which could easily be replaced by a synonym. 2.4.1 Prayer to the Father in Heaven The Hebrew Text of Exod 1:19 “(the Hebrew women) give birth before the midwife comes to them” is rendered in Pseudo-Jonathan: “Before the [Egyptian] midwife comes to them they lift up their eyes in prayer, supplicating mercy before their Father who is in heaven56 and he hears the voice of their prayers and at once they are heard and delivered in peace.” The variants in the other texts are minor: Neofiti: “before their Father in heaven”

56

ýĆĆċĖþĀČĂāĂþýĊĀĔČċ.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

499

(ý]Ć[ċĖþČĂāĂþý); P: “their Father of heaven” (ýĆċĖĀ, possibly with erroneous omission of þ,57 “[who is] in”); B2: “before the Lord” (ĆĆĆĊĀĔ). Exod 17:11, Fragment Targum (P only): “And when Moses had lifted up his hands in prayer to his Father who is in heaven, those of the house of Israel prevailed.” All the other Targum texts here (Ps.-J.; Neof., Frg. Tg. VB2) have the addition “in prayer”, but not “to his Father who is in heaven”. The reading may, then, be suspect as an addition of P alone, but not necessarily so, as this particular ending “to the Father who is in heaven” is implicit in raising the hands in prayer. Association of this particular phrase with this verse is found in the Mishnah, m. Rosh ha-Shanah 3:8 (without ascription), where Exod 17:12 is cited, with the comment: “Could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle! – it is rather to teach us that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father who is in heaven (ĊĆċĖþĖĊāĆþýĉ) they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat.” In the Mishnah the reflection on this verse is followed immediately by an identical reflection on the brazen serpent, citing Num 21:8, which we now consider – Frg. Tg. PVB2 Num 21:8. The relevant section of this verse is missing in Neofiti. Fragment Targum V reads: “And anyone who was bitten by the serpent would raise his face [P: ‘eyes’] in prayer towards his Father who is in heaven, and would look at the bronze serpent and live.” In the Mishnah, m. Rosh ha-Shanah 3:8, Num 21:8 is cited, followed by an unascribed comment: “But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive! – it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father who is in heaven (ĊĆċĖþĖĊāĆþýĉ), they were healed; otherwise they pined away.”58 There is no evidence that the Targum paraphrase depends on the Mishnah, although both reflect a similar interpretative tradition. Pseudo-Jonathan, while having “the name of the Memra of the Lord” instead of “Father in the heaven”, has closer links with the Mishnah text. Pseudo-Jonathan reads: “he gazed upon the brazen serpent, with his heart intent on the name of the Word of the Lord”. At Gen 21:33, Fragment Targum PVNL and Neofiti margin all have our expression, although there are slight differences among the texts, and some difficulties in the reading of N. In the context Abraham is replying to those who wished to give him money for his hospitality. N has: “And our father Abraham used to say to them: (It is) from him who spoke and the world 57 The editions of both A. Díez Macho and M. L. Klein have ýĆċĖĀ: A. Díez Macho (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), vol. 2: Exodus, Madrid 1980, 5; M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, vol. 1, Rome 1980, 70. 58 Translation in Danby, The Mishnah, 192; Neusner, The Mishnah, 304–305.

500

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

came to be by his Memra [or: ‘command’]. Pray before your Father who is in heaven, since it is from his bounty you have eaten and drunk.” P has: “Pray before your Father of the heavens (ýĆċĖĀČĂĈĂþý;59 read [?]: ‘Father who is in heaven’) from whose bounty you have eaten …”; Neof. mg.: “… Pray before your Father who is in heaven.” Pseudo-Jonathan reads: “And he proclaimed to them there: Confess and believe in the name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the world.” Neofiti reads: “You have eaten from him who said and the world was”, without any reference to the “Father in heaven”. At Deut 28:32, the expression is in Pseudo-Jonathan only: “In your hand there will be no good work by which you prevail in prayer before the Lord your Father who is in heaven, that he may save you.” Neither the Fragment Targums nor Neofiti has any reference to the “Father in heaven” in their paraphrase of this verse. 2.4.2 Reward before the Father in Heaven In Frg. Tg. Num 23:23 we read: “At that time it will be said to Jacob and to Israel: ‘What favour and consolations is the Word of the Lord to bring upon you of the house of Jacob!’ He [Balaam] said, too, in his parable of prophecy: ‘Blessed are you, the just ones! How good a reward is prepared for you in the world to come, before your Father who is in heaven (þÿ ýĆċĖþĀČĂĈþý) in the world to come.’”

N and B2 are almost identical with this. Neofiti speaks of reward “before the Lord in the world to come”. The paraphrase of Pseudo-Jonathan is quite different: “How praiseworthy are the signs and wonders which God has done for them.” 2.4.3 “Be You Merciful as Your Father in Heaven”; Ps-J. Lev 22:28 In Matt 5:48, Christ concludes his exhortation to the better righteousness with the words: “You shall therefore be perfect (ĞƬĕďēęē) as your heavenly Father (žĚċĞƭěƊĖȥėžęƉěƪėēęĜ) is perfect.” The form of this logion in Luke (6:36) is: “Be you merciful (ęŭĔĞưěĖęėďĜ) as your Father is merciful.” We have already seen that behind Matthew’s “heavenly Father” there probably stands an original “Father in the heavens”. It is likely that the word “merciful” of Luke, rather than Matthew’s “perfect” is the more original. Matthew’s interest in perfection (cf. Matt 19:21) explains his reading in 5:48. The original reading might thus have been: “You shall therefore be merciful as your Father in the heavens is merciful.”

59 Klein, The Fragment Targums, vol. 2, 16, renders here as: “Before your Father in heaven”.

2. Vocabulary and Themes

501

The words of Christ (especially in the probable original reading) are closely paralleled in the 1593 editio princeps of the Targum of PseudoJonathan of Lev 22:28, reproduced in the London Polyglot. While in the biblical text it is God who speaks, in the text of the editio princeps it may be Moses, who is introduced as speaker at the end of a midrash in v. 27, introducing the translation proper, and may be presumed to be speaker still in v. 28: “My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven (ýĆċĖþČċĄĕČčĂþýýċĆĈā) so shall you be merciful on earth; cow or ewe, itself and its young you shall not kill on the same day.” Unfortunately, we are not sure of the original form of the words in Pseudo-Jonathan. In the London manuscript (British Library Additional 27031) the ending of the midrash of v. 27 is missing, so that we cannot say whether the intended speaker in v. 28 is God or Moses. If God is the intended speaker, “Our Father” in the mouth of God seems strange. And three other variants of the opening words of this translation of Lev 22:28 are known. That of the London manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan reads: “My People, children of Israel, as I am merciful (ýčýĀýċĈĆā) in heaven …”. This, too, with mention of the “Father in heaven”, is the form found in the text of this rendering preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud, y. Berakoth (5,9c), and in the parallel passage of the Jerusalem Talmud, y. Megillah (4,75c), as a rendering censured by R. Jose ben Bun (or b. Abun).60 The background to the rabbi’s censure in the Talmud is the Mishnah to these passages which ordains that a person be put to silence if found reciting prayers such as: “To a bird’s nest do thy mercies extend, (O Lord)”; cf. Deut 22:7. The reason given for the Mishnah text in the Palestinian Gemara is that such a person “makes the ordinances of God to be simply acts of mercy, whereas they are injunctions”. The discussion on the text preserves the view of R. Jose (Palestinian Amora, 5th generation, ca. 350 c.e.) on an Aramaic rendering of Lev 22:28 then current in Palestine. The text in y. Berakoth 5,9c reads: “R. Jose ben Bun said: ‘They do not do well who make the injunctions of the Holy One Blessed Be He (mere axioms of) mercy. And those who translate [Lev 22:28 into Aramaic] as: ‘My people, children of Israel, as I am’ [ýčýĀāċĈ; y. Megillah 4,75c, āċĈ ČčýĀ, ‘As we are’] merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth, cow or ewe, itself and its young, you shall not kill both of them on the same day’; they do not do well, as they make the injunctions of the Holy One Blessed Be He (to be mere axioms of) mercy.”

Whatever of the uncertainty on the opening words, the central message of all texts is clear: God’s mercy as a model for human behaviour. The text of Pseudo-Jonathan may represent the earlier Palestinian Targum rather than 60 See further M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 133–138, at 136–138.

502

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

the two other extant texts, namely Neofiti and the Cairo Genizah (eleventh to twelfth centuries) with the siglum F. In F the translation proper is introduced by the phrase “My people, children of Israel”, without any paraphrase. So too in Neofiti, where the ending of the translation and the two opening words of the verse following (v. 29) are missing. “My people, children of Israel” is a liturgical formula, and is found in the Palestinian Targum very often (but not always) before paraphrases (for instance in the Ten Words in Tg. Exodus 20). It could be that all Palestinian Targum texts once had the paraphrase of Lev 22:28 found now only in Pseudo-Jonathan but that it was omitted in others due to rabbinic censures.61 2.4.4 Other Texts In Deut 32:6 Moses says to Israel: “Is he not your father who created you?” Whereas Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti are content to reproduce the biblical text without addition, the Fragment Targum paraphrases: “Is he not your Father in heaven, who established you?” In his blessing of Asher, Moses in Targum Neofiti says (Deut 33:24): “Blessed above sons may he be, welcomed in the tribes between his brothers and their Father who is in heaven.” The reference to “the Father in heaven” is proper to Neofiti. The Hebrew original has: “Most blessed of sons is Asher; may he be the favourite of his brothers.” According to Frg. Tg. VB2 and Neof. Num 20:21, Israel turned away from Edom “because they were commanded by their Father who is in heaven not to wage war on them”. The Hebrew Text simply has: “So Israel turned away from Edom.” Instead of “by their Father who is in heaven”, Pseudo-Jonathan has: “from before the Memra [or: ‘command’] of the heavens”. This text of the Fragment Targums and Neofiti is to be compared with that of Matthew (7:21; 12:50; 26:42) which speaks of the will of the Father in heaven. 2.4.5 Conclusion “Father in heaven”, as a designation of God, was a well-established expression in the community within which the Gospel of Matthew originated. The same can be said with regard to the Gospel of Mark. We may presume that it formed part of the language of Jesus. It is attested for rabbinic Judaism for the late first century c.e. The question arises whether it was current in Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus, or whether its use in rabbinic Judaism is to be explained through influence from the Christian community. Both existed side by side in Palestine and in theory the influence could have been 61

See further, ibid., 137–138.

3. Resurrection Themes

503

in either direction.62 Given the expression itself in both the Gospels and rabbinic texts, and its combination in other phrases, for instance “before the Father in heaven”, “good will before your / our Father in heaven” and such like, it seems preferable to assume that the expression was basically a Jewish one, pre-dating Christianity, but used by Jesus and the early Christian community, who would have infused new meaning into it by reason of the person and mission of Jesus.

3. Resurrection Themes 3.1 Resurrection Seen in the Torah63 The New Testament and Josephus provide ample information concerning belief in bodily resurrection among the Jews during the first century of the common era. The Sadducees denied it outright. The Pharisees believed in it firmly (Josephus, War 2.8.14, § 163; Ant. 18.1.2, § 14; Acts 4:1–2; 23:6–10). In reply to a question of the Sadducees Jesus strongly espouses the doctrine of the Pharisees on the matter (Mark 12:18–27; Matt 23:23–33; Luke 20:27–28). The Essene position appears to have been belief in an afterlife, without mention of resurrection. In Jesus’ day Jewish belief in an afterlife with rewards and punishments is indicated by texts such as Luke 16:19–31 (Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom; the rich man in Gehenna) and Luke 23:43 (the repentant thief with Jesus in Paradise), while explicit belief in the future resurrection is expressed by Martha (John 11:23). Belief in the resurrection is also expressed in the Life of Adam and Eve (28:4), a work probably written in Palestine in the first century c.e. On being driven out of Paradise and refused access to the tree of life, the Lord tells Adam that when he comes out of Paradise, if he guards himself from all evil, preferring death to it, at the time of the resurrection the Lord will raise him up again, and then there will be given to him from the tree of life, and he will be immortal forever. Somewhat similarly in the Palestinian Targum paraphrase of Gen 3:19: “… to dust you shall return. But from the dust you are to arise again to give an account and a reckoning of all that you have done”. In the Lives of the Prophets (probably representing first century c.e. Palestinian tradition) the doctrine of the resurrection is assumed without argument or polemic (2:15; see also 3:12). Given belief in the resurrection of the body, it was natural that Pharisee scribes and rabbis of the first century should seek a foundation for the doc62

See Schrenk, “ĚċĞƮě”, TDNT 5 (1967), 979–980. See M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983, 180–185; idem, Intertestamental Literature, Wilmington 1983, 233–237. 63

504

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

trine in their Scriptures. We have no evidence that they invoked Exod 3:6, the text referred to by Jesus. The texts called on for this belief by rabbis of the third and fourth centuries are Deut 33:6 (“Let Reuben live …”), Exod 15:1, Ps 84:4 and Gen 3:19.64 The prevailing belief in Palestine in Jesus’ day was probably bodily resurrection at the end of time. As just noted, the Essenes believed in immortality without bodily resurrection, and the commonly accepted view is that this was also the position with the Qumran community, although some on the strength of the text 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521), fragment 2, col. II, 11–13 (a text considered in greater length below) think that they believed in a resurrection. In this text we are told that in the future age of the Messiah “the Lord will perform marvellous acts such as have not existed, just as he sa[id]: For he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live (ĊĆėċ āĆĄĆ), he will proclaim good to the meek, give lavishly [to the need]y, lead the exiled and enrich the hungry”.65 At best, however, the life given back to the dead seems to fall far short of the eschatological resurrection as found in Dan 12:1–3, in rabbinic tradition and in the New Testament. We have a good example of belief in immortality rather than in resurrection in the apocryphal work 4 Maccabees. This is a philosophical work, generally taken as having been composed in the first century c.e. Its original language was Greek. It was composed in the Diaspora, more probably in Antioch of Syria rather than in Egypt. And yet it is closely linked with Palestinian tradition and seeks foundation in the Bible for its belief in eternal life for the just. At the end of the work the mother of the martyrs reminds her sons of the death of their father and of the teaching he gave them, particularly on those who bore witness to their faith in the Bible narrative. “While he was still with you he taught you the law and the prophets” (18:10). She goes on to give examples from the Law, the Prophets and the Writings and concludes (18:16–19): “He recounted to you Solomon’s proverb ‘There is a tree of life for those who do his will’ [see Prov 3:18]. He confirmed the saying of Ezekiel, ‘Shall these dry bones live’ [Ezek 37:2–3]. For he did not forget to teach you the song that Moses taught, which says, ‘I will kill and I will make alive: this is your life and the length of your days’ [Deut 32:39].” We can presume that the pious father also interpreted these as containing the

64

See M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 181–182. See J. Tabor & M. Wise, “4Q521 ‘On Resurrection’ and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition”, in Qumran Questions, ed. by J. Charlesworth, Sheffield 1995, 161–163; E. Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)”, RevQ 15/60 (1992), 475–522; idem, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien, 2 vols. (Études Biblique Nouvelle Série 21–22), Paris 1993, 627–692. 65

3. Resurrection Themes

505

doctrine of immortality. They could as easily have been taken as referring to bodily resurrection. Jesus’ reasoning on the inner meaning of Exod 3:6 may have a parallel in 4 Maccabees. Jesus says that the God in this passage proclaims himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, commenting that he is the God not of the dead but of the living (Mark 12:26; Matt 22:22), to which Luke adds, “For all live to him” (Luke 20:38). In 4 Macc 7:19 the author remarks that the martyrs “since they believe that they, like our patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, do not die to God but live in God”. Likewise in 16:25: “They knew that those who die for God live in God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs.” They further console themselves with the belief that if they die for the commandments they will be welcomed by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (13:14–15, 17–18). 3.2 Consolation and Resurrection on the Third Day66 A strand of Jewish belief and piety different from that of the Essenes and Qumran is preserved in the tradition handed down by rabbinic Judaism. Absence of early written documentation makes it somewhat uncertain what form this took in the early or later part of the first century of our era. One central belief in this tradition, and one absent from Qumran, was belief in the resurrection of the body. An early form of this belief is attested in the Book of Daniel (Dan 12:1–3), from about 165 b.c.e. In this Jewish tradition as represented by the Aramaic Targums, Israel looked forward to the tranquility of Eden (ČĀďĀāėĂĂĉĖ), the determined time of the blessing and consolation (ýėċĈĆčĂýėĈĕþ, Pal. Tg. Gen 49:1),67 resurrection of the dead (Hos 6:2). In Hosea, in the biblical text, “after two days” and “on the third day” are intended to express a short space of time. The targumist paraphrases of 66 See McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 182–185; A. Rodríguez Carmona, Targum y Resurrección, Granada 1978, 148–153; “Resurrection on the Third Day” in H. W. Wolff, Hosea, English translation, Philadelphia 1977, 117–118; L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets [and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by Pinkhos Churgin], New York & Baltimore 1983; original edition New Haven 1927, 181–183; P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1927, 107 (reprinted with Smolar & Aberbach, 335). 67 Unpointed, the words ýėĈĕþ and ýėċĄč can be either singular or plural; here I take them as singulars; Kaufman and Sokoloff take them as plural forms: S. A. Kaufman & M. Sokoloff, A Key-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti, Baltimore & London 1993, 262, no. 044; 978, no. 007. See also Pal. Tg. (Neof.) Num 23:23: “At this time [variant Neof. mg.: ‘At that time’] there shall be announced [lit.: ‘said’] to the house of Israel the good things and the consolations (ýėċĄčĂýėþą) that are to come upon you and (upon) those of the house of Israel.” This is followed by a prophetic macarism by Balaam: “Blessed are you, just ones! (āĆĔĆĀēČĂĈĆþą) What a good reward is prepared for you before the Lord for the world to come.” For the “good things” (ĞƩŁčċĒƪ) in the messianic age see Matt 7:11; Rom 10:15 (= Isa 52:7); Heb 9:11; 10:1.

506

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

the future messianic age of consolation and of the resurrection, rendering thus: “He will give us life in the days of consolations (ýėċĄč, ne mata) that will come; and on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall live before him.”68 In this rendering “after two days” is paraphrased as “in the days of consolations that will come” and “on the third day” as “on the day of the resurrection of the dead”. This eschatological or messianic interpretation of this verse seems to have been current in rabbinic circles.69 The understanding of “on the third day” in relation to the resurrection and salvation must have been helped by the occurrence of the terms “showers”, and “spring rain” in the following verse, terms which recall “dew”, understood in rabbinic tradition as indication of the resurrection (see Isa 26:19), and also by rabbinic reflection on the various occurrences of “third day” in the Bible, all of which are seen to have been salvific.70 Thus Gen 22:4; 42:17; Exod 19:6; Josh 2:16; Hos 6:2; Jonah 2:1; Esth 9:2. With regard to the concept and term “consolations” we may also note Luke’s Infancy Narrative. Symeon was awaiting the consolation of Israel (ĚěęĝĎďġƲĖďėęĜĚċěƪĔĕđĝēėĞęȘŵĝěċƮĕ, Luke 2:25); Anna spoke of the child Jesus to all who awaited the redemption of Jerusalem (ĚǬĝēė ĞęȉĜ ĚěęĝĎďġęĖƬėęēĜ ĕƴĞěģĝēė ŵďěęğĝċĕƮĖ, Luke 2:38). With the crucifixion, the death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and with the coming of the Holy Spirit, the early Christian community felt a need to explain all this in connection with the Scriptures, the Hebrew and Greek texts of which were available to them. In Luke 24:27 in the narrative on the two disciples on the way to Emmaus we are told that Jesus, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures. Next, the risen Christ appeared to the eleven Apostles and their companions, recalling the words he had spoken to them while he was still with them – that everything about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and he said to them: “Thus it is written, that the Messiah (Christ) is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day …” (Luke 24:44–47). This text linking the suffering of Christ and his resurrection from the dead on the third day with Scripture probably represents a very early Jerusalem tradition.71 We find it again in Paul as part of a traditional creed on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:3–4: “For I handed 68

In the translation of Cathcart & Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 41. See b. Sanhedrin 97a; b. Rosh Hashana 31a; Churgin, in L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 335 (original edition 107; see n. 66 above). 70 See Rodríguez Carmona, Targum y Resurrección, 148–153. 71 On “On the third day” (in Luke), see S. V. McCasland, “The Scripture Basis of ‘On the Third Day’”, JBL 48 (1929), 124–137; J. Kloppenborg, “Analysis of the pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b–5 in Light of Some Recent Literature”, CBQ 40 (1978), 350–367, at 363–364 (“on the third day” in Luke 9:22, and Matt 16:21, as a reference to Hos 6:2); see 69

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings

507

on to you as of first importance (nrsv; őėĚěƶĞęēĜ, nbj: ‘in the first place’) what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures …”. Paul, presumably, had received this formulation of the tradition from Antioch, which in turn would have received it from Jerusalem, possibly even at his first visit to Peter ca. 36 or 39 c.e. (Gal 1:18). The Scriptures regarded as prophesying the passion and death of Christ can be presumed to have been principally the passage on the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. It is more difficult to find a Scripture text on the resurrection on the third day. The text in question, as noted, is probably Hos 6:2, but as interpreted midrashically in the Targum, in keeping with rabbinic Judaism.72

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings 4.1 The Well that Followed73 In the biblical narrative of the desert wanderings important incidents are connected with water; thus, the water of Marah, Exod 15:22; the twelve springs at Elim, Exod 15:27; the waters brought forth from the rock at Rephidim, Exod 17:1–7; Num 33:14; the arrival at Kadesh, with the note that Miriam died there, followed immediately by the statement that there was no water for the people, and the account of the miracle of water from the rock, Num 20:1–5. Finally we have the account of the arrival at Beer (in Hebrew meaning “well”) where the Hebrews sang the “Song of the Well” (Num 21:16–20). From this there developed a midrash on a well of water that followed Israel in the desert wanderings, and was known as Miriam’s well. There are strong indications that this was a firmly established tradition in Palestinian Judaism in the first century of our era. We find it mentioned three times in the Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, LAB) of Pseudo-Philo. This work is a Rewritten Bible for the narrative from Adam through David to the death of Saul. It has many haggadic additions and interpretations of biblical texts, some of them also found in the Palestinian Targums and rabbinic literature. It is generally assigned a date of the second half of the first century c.e., probably before the fall of Jerusalem also M. L. Barré, “New Light on the Interpretation of Hos 6:2”, VT 28 (1978), 129–141, esp. 138–140; J. Dupont, Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, Paris 1967, 256. 72 See M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 183–185. 73 See ibid., 241–244; G. Bienaimé, Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et midrash, Rome 1984.

508

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

in 70 c.e. Some scholars, however, prefer a somewhat later date, between 70 c.e. and 150 c.e.74 In the Biblical Antiquities the tradition on the well that followed Israel in its wanderings is first encountered at the narrative of entry into the wilderness, and last at the account of Moses’ death. It is one of the three gifts of God to Israel, the others being the manna and the cloud. The first occurrence is as follows, in LAB 10:7: “Now he led his people out into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail to them from the sea and brought forth a well of water to follow them. Now with a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a pillar of fire he gave them light by night.”75

The tradition occurs again in LAB 11:5 where it is said that the water of Marah “followed them in the wilderness for forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains”. The same three divine gifts are noted together in the final mention of the well, in LAB 20:8, where the well of the water of Marah is said to have been given for Miriam. This tradition as formulated in LAB 11:5 is similar to the tradition as found in the Palestinian Targum of Num 21:16–20. Here the Hebrew Text has reference to a well, followed by a series of place names. In the Aramaic paraphrase the place names are interpreted as common nouns; the Hebrew Text itself is replaced by a coherent midrash on the well. I give the Palestinian Targum text of Num 21:16–20 in the translation of Neofiti.76 (Italics denote targumic paraphrase.) “(16) And from there the well was given to them. This is the well of which the Lord said to Moses: ‘Gather the people together and I will give them water.’ (17) Then Israel sang this song of praise: ‘Spring up, O well’, they sang to it; and it sprang up. (18) It is the well which the princes of the world, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, dug from the beginning; the intelligent ones of the people perfected it, the seventy sages who were distinguished; the scribes of Israel, Moses and Aaron, measured it with their 74 D. J. Harrington (“Pseudo-Philo”, in OTP 2, 299) opts for a date before 70 c.e. See also F. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible, New York 1993, 6; C. Perrot & P. M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques, vol. 2, Paris 1976, 66–74. H. Jacobsen finds the arguments for a pre-70 date unconvincing and prefers a date between 70 c.e. and the middle of the second century (H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum: With Latin Text and English Translation [AGJU 31], Leiden 1996, vol. 1, 199–210). R. Deines believes that the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is best characterised as a book of consolation in the time between the two revolts (70 c.e. and 132–135 c.e.) (R. Deines, “The Pharisees between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism’”, in Justification and Variegated Monism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid, Tübingen & Grand Rapids 2001, 443–504, at 486). 75 In the translation of D. J. Harrington, “Ps.-Philo, Biblical Antiquities”, in OTP 2, 317. 76 Translation by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995, 119– 121.

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings

509

rods; and from the wilderness it was given to them as a gift. (19) And after the well had been given to them as a gift, it went on to become for them swelling torrents. And after it had become swelling torrents, it went on to go up with them to the tops of the mountains and to go down with them to the deep valleys. (20) And after it had gone up with them to the tops of the high mountains and had gone down with them to the deep valleys, it was hidden from them in the valley which is at the boundaries of the Moabites, the top of the height which looks out opposite Beth Jeshimon.”

The text given is that of Neofiti, with which the Fragment Targums agree almost verbatim, and Pseudo-Jonathan differs but little. Onq. Num 2:19 has the same paraphrase: “Now since it was given to them, it went down with them into the valleys, and from the valley it went up with them to the high country.” The paraphrase of Num 21:19 is also found in the Tosefta, t. Sukka 3:11, “travelling with them up the mountains and going down with them to the valleys”, going on to cite Num 21:17–18 and 21:19–20.77 That this tradition was well known in Palestine in Jesus’ day seems highly probable. Paul (1 Cor 10:4) refers to it, possibly in a slightly variant form (a rock following). In the Tosefta text (t. Sukka 3:11) the tradition on the well following is found in conjunction with other biblical references to wells and water. This, and other water marvels, were apparently recalled during the ceremony of the carrying of water at the feast of Tabernacles. 4.2 The “Hour of Distress” in the Palestinian Targums and “the Hour” of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel78 It is agreed that “the hour” (ŞƞěċĖęğ) is a central theme in the Fourth Gospel. At the beginning of the “Book of Signs” (John 2–12), at Cana Jesus told his mother that his hour had not yet come (John 2:4). At the Feast of Tabernacles his enemies tried to arrest him, “but no one laid hands on him for his hour had not yet come” (John 7:30). Towards the end of the Book of Signs, just before his passion Jesus declares: “The hour (Şƞěċ) has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. … Now my soul is troubled and what should I say – ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name” (John 12:23, 27–28). The “Book of Glory” in John’s Gospel (John 13–20) begins (13:1) reminding the reader that “Jesus knew that his hour (ċƉĞęȘŞƞěċ)had come to depart from the world and go to the Father”. Jesus’ “hour” was his death, and 77 Hebrew text in The Tosefta according to the Codex Vienna, ed. by P. Lieberman, 2nd edition, Seder Mo‘ed, Jerusalem 1992, 268–269; English translation by J. Neusner, The Tosefta, transl. from the Hebrew, Second Division: Moed, New York 1981, 220–221. 78 See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972, 143–144; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 215–219; C. E. Morrison, “The ‘Hour of Distress’ in Targum Neofiti and the ‘Hour’ in the Gospel of John”, CBQ 67 (2005), 590–603.

510

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

glorification on the cross, when he committed his mother to the care of the Beloved disciple. “From that hour (ŁĚ’ őĔďưėđĜĞǻĜƞěċĜ) the disciple took her into his own home” (ďŭĜĞƩűĎēċ; John 19:27). Jesus’ “hour” of his passion and death was an hour of distress, although this word is not used in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus’ soul is troubled, and asks whether he should request the Father to save him from “this hour”, and answered his own question: “No, for this purpose I have come to this hour” (John 12:27). In the context of this Johannine theme I believe the similar theme of “the hour of distress” in the Palestinian Targums may be informative and merits consideration. The theme of “the hour of distress” seems to be particularly developed in Targum Neofiti. However, it seems preferable not to begin with Neofiti, but with the texts that seem common to all the witnesses of the Palestinian Targum tradition. For this we have two well developed midrashic expansions, quite independent of one another. One is the Aqedah, the Binding of Isaac in Tg. Genesis 22, particularly in the prayer of Abraham in Gen 22:14 at the end of the midrashic account of the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham’s prayer is given rather briefly in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as follows: “Abraham gave thanks and prayed there in that place and said: ‘I beseech, by the mercy from before you, O Lord! It is manifest before you that there was no deviousness in my heart, and that I sought to perform your decree with joy. Therefore when the children of Isaac my son enter the hour of distress (ĆĔĆčýėďĖĉ), remember them and answer them and redeem them.’”79

It is worth noting that here, and in all the Palestinian Targum texts of Gen 22:14 (except Neofiti with ýĔď, ýėĔď) the word used for distress (ĆĔĆčý) is the Greek loan word ŁėƪčĔđ, used more often in the form ĆĔčĆčý or ĆĔčý. This is also true of the midrash in Pal. Tg. Gen 38:25, to which we shall come later. Targum Neofiti has a more expansive form of the midrash. It reads: “And Abraham worshipped and prayed in the name of the Memra of the Lord and said: ‘I beseech by the mercy that is before you O Lord – everything is manifest and known before you – that there was no division in my heart the first time that you said to me to offer my son Isaac, to make him dust and ashes before you; but I immediately arose early in the morning and diligently put your words into practice with gladness and fulfilled your decree.’ And now, when his sons are in the hour of distress (ýėĔďėďĖþ) you shall remember the Binding of their father Isaac, and listen to the voice of their supplication, and answer them and deliver them from all distress (ýĔď).”

Fragment Targums VNL agree with Neofiti, slight variations apart: “when the children of Isaac enter the hour of distress (ĆĔčýėďĖĉ) and redeem them from every distress (ĆĔččý)”. Similarly Fragment Targum P: “in the hour 79

See translation of M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Collegeville 1993, 80.

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings

511

(ýėďĖþ) that you said … When the children of my son Isaac enter the hour of distress (ĆĔččýėďĖþ) … and save them from every tribulation (ýĔď) …”. A marginal gloss to Neofiti is almost identical with P, including the terms for “distress”, “tribulation” – ĆĔččýýėďĖþ, ýĔď. There is another important occurrence of the theme in a text in no way connected with the Aqedah. It occurs in a lengthy midrashic development in Neof. Gen 38:25 (also verbatim in PVNL; in part in Cairo Genizah [CTg] texts) on Tamar’s discourse as she was being brought out to be burned. The text of Pseudo-Jonathan reads: “She [Tamar] lifted up her eyes to the heavens on high and said: ‘I beseech by the mercies before you, O Lord, answer me in this hour of my distress (ĆĔččýėďĖāĀāþ) and enlighten my eyes that I may find the three witnesses …’”

The relevant section in Targum Neofiti for our purpose reads:80 “She [Tamar] lifted up her eyes on high and said: ‘I beseech by the mercies from before you, O Lord, You are he who answers the afflicted in the hour of their affliction,81 answer me in this hour, which is the hour of my affliction (ĆĔččýėďĖ) …”

The midrash is in Fragment Targums PVNL also, with insignificant variants: P: “in this hour which is the hour of my distress” (as in CTgE);82 VNL similar to CTgE: “You are the God who answers the distressed in the hour of their distress; answer me in this hour which is the hour of distress” (or: “of my distress”).83 The midrash is preserved with slight variations in two Targum manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah, CTgD and CTgE. Thus in CTgD: “… You are the Lord who answers the prayer of the oppressed [or ‘distressed’] in the hour of their oppression [or: ‘distress’];84 answer me in this hour, and I will set up for you three righteous men …”85 The relevant section of CTgE reads: “I beg mercy from before you, O Lord, God; answer me in this hour which is the hour of my distress.”86 The phrase occurs seven times in Targum Neofiti outside of translation texts, “distress” being expressed by one of three synonyms ýĔď, ĆĔčĆčý / ĆĔččý and ĕďē: Gen 22:10, Neof. mg. (not in PVNL). Isaac says to Abraham: “[Father, tie me well, lest] in the hour of my distress, ĆĕēėďĖþ, I move convul80 Translation by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 177. On the midrash see E. M. Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (JSJSup 51), Leiden 1997, 236. 81 ČĂāėĔďėďĖþĆĔĆďĉĆčďĆĀ. 82 ĆĔčĆčýėďĖýĆāĀýėďĖāĀāþ. 83 ĆĔččýėďĖýĆāĀýėďĖāþĆėĆĆčďČĂāėĔďėďĖþýĆĆĔĆĆď. 84 ČĂāėĔďėďĖþý[Ć]ýĔĂď [ėĂ]ĉē. 85 See the edition and translation by M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Cincinnati 1986, vol. 1. 86 ĆĔčĆčýėďĖýĆāĀýėďĖāĀāþ. Edition and translation in M. L. Klein, ibid., vol. 1, 96–97.

512

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

sively …”; Gen 35:3, text in Neofiti only; Lev 22:27, Neofiti only; Deut 20:19, Neofiti only; Deut 32:15, Neofiti only. The fundamental texts are in the midrash of the Binding of Isaac (cited above). This was Isaac’s “hour of distress”, and was intended to serve as a reminder to God to come to the aid of Isaac’s children in their hour of distress. Jacob expresses his intention to build an altar to the Lord at Bethel who answered him in the hour of his affliction … (ĆėĔďėďĖþ) Gen 35:3, Neofiti only). In a lengthy midrashic development on Lev 22:27 (Neofiti only) with mention of a bull or sheep or goat as an offering, the mention of the “sheep” is linked with the lamb Isaac; his Aqedah is recalled, and Isaac’s children are seen as praying in “the hour of their affliction” (ĆĔččýėďĖþ) saying: “Answer us in this hour … and … remember in our favour the Aqedah of Isaac our father.”87 The phrase “hour of his / its trouble” (ýþĔďėďĖþ) is used in Neof. Deut 20:19 (Neofiti only) in relation to a tree under siege, and in Neof. Deut 32:15 (Neofiti only; not in other Palestinian Targum texts) in an additional paraphrase: “they denied the fear of the Strong One who had redeemed them in the hour of their trouble” (ČĂāėĔďėďĖþ). Conclusion. The expression “hour of distress” is found in all texts of the Palestinian Targums in two well-established midrashim: the Binding of Isaac (Gen 22:14) and the prayer of Tamar (Gen 38:25). One can justly presume that it has a long history in Jewish piety. The “hour of distress” is one in which God can be called on to answer and to help, to save the petitioner from the obvious danger. Abraham prayed that God would remember the Sacrifice of Isaac and so answer. It is legitimate to postulate a link between such a tradition and the theme of Jesus’ “hour” in the Fourth Gospel. In the trouble of his soul Jesus asks whether he should ask the Father to save him from this hour. A voice from heaven answers (see John 12:27–28). 4.3 The Second Death This phrase “second death” (ĎďƴĞďěęĜĒƪėċĞęĜ) is used four times in the Apocalypse, but is found nowhere in Jewish literature outside the Targums.88 An expression used four times (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) must have 87

Note that this midrash seems to suppose the destruction of the Temple. As noted in McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 118, n. 74, the expression ĎďƴĞďěęĜ ĒƪėċĞęĜ occurs also in Plutarch, De facie in orbe lunae 27:6 (= Moralia 942F): “Into that field none of the wicked or impure comes; the good are taken there after death. They enjoy a most easy life, which is not, however, blessed or divine until the second death (ŅġěēĞęȘĎďğĞƬěęğĒċėƪĞęğ).” The text has been noted as a parallel to the Apocalypse by H. Almqvist in Plutarch und das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 15), Uppsala 1946, who cites the passage and comments as follows (139): “Die Vorstellung von dem ĎďƴĞďěęĜ ĒƪėċĞęĜ ist bei Plut. wie im N. T. (vgl Apk 20,6.14; 21,8) mit dem 88

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings

513

been current coinage when the Apocalypse was being composed, in certain circles at least. Since we find the designation used in contexts speaking of such Jewish and Christian themes as the resurrection, general judgement and eternal punishment it is evident that its origins are not to be sought in Hellenistic religion. The expression must have come from Judaism, unless it was coined by Christianity. The texts in Revelation of John are as follows: 2:11

(the end of the Letter to the church at Smyrna): “Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death.”

20:4–6

(of the thousand year reign): “Those who had not worshipped the beast or its image … came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.”

20:13–15 (after the judgement): “Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them and all were judged according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” 21:8

(in the vision of the new heaven and the new earth): “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” The vision of the New Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 48:30–35) follows immediately.

The corresponding Jewish expression for “second death” is ĆčĖėĂċ in Hebrew and ýčĆčėýėĂċ in Aramaic. P. Billerbeck89 notes that the Hebrew designation is found only in the late work, the Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 34 (18a). This writing is dated to the beginning of the ninth century, which makes its use as a parallel for the New Testament passages of no great value. The Glauben an Auferstehung und Gericht verbunden.” The coincidence of the expression in Plutarch and in the Apocalypse is purely external; the sense is totally different. In the context (De facie in orbe lunae 28:1 = Moralia 943A) Plutarch considers man as being composed of three elements, body (ĝȥĖċ), soul (ĢğġƮ) and intelligence (ėęȘĜ) and shows how he believes intelligence becomes liberated from body and soul and reaches happiness. The body is supplied by earth and the soul by the moon. The first death on earth liberates the composite from the body; after some time soul and intelligence of the just come to dwell in partial happiness on the moon. (It is to this state the text cited from Moralia 942F refers.) On the moon, which supplied the soul, intelligence becomes liberated from the soul, which dies, and intelligence then goes to perfect bliss on the sun. Pace H. Almqvist, resurrection is as foreign to this text of Plutarch as it is to Greek thought in general. For the notion that souls dwell on the moon after death, cf. P. Capelle, De luna, stellis, lacteo orbe animarum sedibus, Hallis Saxonum 1917, 1–18. 89 Kommentar, vol. 3, 830–831 to Rev 20:6.

514

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

Aramaic expression for “second death” is found only in the Targums, as has been noted by Billerbeck.90 Billerbeck also remarks that although other Jewish writings do not contain the terms they do have the concept of “second death” which bears either of two meanings: (a) exclusion from the resurrection, that is, remaining in the grave; (b) passing to eternal damnation. Billerbeck gives only two examples from the Targums, Tg. Jer 51:39, 57, and both in illustration of meaning (a) of the expression. Both are taken from a chapter containing an oracle against Babylon. There are four other texts, one in Deut 33:6 and three in Targum of Isaiah. We shall take them in order. The text of Deut 33:6 is the only occurrence of the phrase in the entire Pentateuch. It is noteworthy that all Targum texts carry the phrase. This may be because the biblical text was a classical one in rabbinic Judaism for “proving” the “resurrection” (“vivification”) of the dead from the Pentateuch. The Hebrew Text (nrsv) reads: “May Reuben live and not die, even though his numbers are few.” As already noted, this is a classic locus theologicus in rabbinic Judaism for proving the resurrection (or in rabbinic terminology, “vivification”) of the dead from the Pentateuch. In the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 92a) we read: “Rabba [Babylonian Amora, 4th generation, ca. 352 c.e.] said: How do we prove the vivification of the dead from the Torah? He said: May Reuben live and not die (Deut 33:6). May Reuben live – in this world; and not die – in the world to come.”

Targum Onqelos paraphrases this text as: “May Reuben live an everlasting life and not die a second death.”91 Targum Neofiti is more explicit: “May Reuben live in this world, and not die in the second death (āčėĂċþ) in which the wicked die in the world to come.” Similarly in all the other texts of the Palestinian Targum, and in Pseudo-Jonathan, using the term āėĂċþ rather than āčėĂċþ. āčėĂċ means “plague”, “pestilence”, rather than “death”, but may also mean “death”, a sense in which it is to be taken in the Neofiti text.92 We may now turn to the texts from the Targum of the Prophets, first to Tg. Jer 51:39. The Hebrew Text of this passage has: “While they are inflamed I will prepare for them a feast and make them drunk so that they 90

Ibid., 830. In the translation of Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy, 104, with n. 15 containing further targumic and rabbinic texts. See also the note on this text by E. G. Clarke on Ps.-J. Deut 33:6, in E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1998, 98, n. 28. 92 Sokoloff, A Dictionary, 297 for the word ČėĂċ gives the meanings “plague, pestilence, death”, but renders Neof. Deut 33:6 āčĆĆčėāčėĂċþ, as “in the second plague”, although he understands ČėĂċ of Neof. Exod 10:17 as “death” (Hebrew Text has ėĂċ), and likewise the same term in Frg. Tg. P Num 16:1, and (in plural) Frg. Tg. Num 23:10. Kaufman & Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, 878, arrange all occurrences of the word ČėĂċ in Neofiti text and margins (including Deut 33:6) under the two headings of the word “plague, pestilence”. 91

4. Traditions and Themes in Paul and Johannine Writings

515

swoon away and sleep a perpetual sleep and awake not”, says the Lord. The Targum paraphrases as follows:93 “I will bring distress upon them and they shall be like drunken men, so that they shall not be strong and they shall die the second death, and shall not live for the world to come.” The same idea is expressed a little later in Tg. Jer 51:57 in a parallel oracle on the princes and wise men of Babylon, where the Hebrew Text “They shall sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake” is rendered: “They shall die the second death and shall not live for the world to come.” There are three occurrences of the phrase in Targum of Isaiah. The first is Isa 22:14, which is an oracle directed against Epicurean-minded Jews whose motto is: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” (Isa 22:13). To this, in the Hebrew Text, the Lord replies: “Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you till you die” (Isa 22:14). The Targum paraphrases: “This sin will not be forgiven you until you die the second death.” The final two examples are from Tg. Isaiah 65 in which the biblical author is moving towards the end of his composition. In the section 65:1–16 Yahweh has both a speech of judgement and a speech of assurance. Yahweh declares himself near, but some refuse to approach him, one group saying that he is too holy. The Lord responds: “These are a smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all day long (65:5). See, it is written before me: I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will indeed repay into their laps their iniquities and their ancestors’ iniquities together …” The Targum renders Isa 65:5–6: “Their retribution is in Gehenna where the fire burns all the day. See, it is written before me: I will not give them respite during (their) life, for theirs is the retribution of their sins and I will hand over their body to the second death.” In the Hebrew Text the final text to be considered (Tg. Isa 65:15) is in a context in which the divisions of the Jewish community seem quite clear. There are those addressed by Yahweh as “you” (unfaithful ones) and others as “my servants” (Isa 65:13–16). The entire section 65:1–16 is a summons to the community of faith to decide. Those who seek the Lord will be blessed with life; those who reject him have a different destiny. The passage leads on (65:17–25) to God’s promise of a new heaven, a new earth, a new Jerusalem. In Isa 65:15 God addresses his people: “You shall leave your name to my chosen (to use) as a curse and the Lord will slay you; but his servants he will call by a different name.” The Targum renders faithfully, apart from paraphrasing the ending as: “and the Lord will slay you with the second death and his servants the righteous he shall call by a different name.” 93 See note by Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, 187, with reference to McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum; also to Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 4: Deutéronome, 286–287, for further bibliography. Hayward translated the opening Aramaic word (ýėĆý) as an imperative: “bring”.

516

Chapter 22: Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit

As a conclusion to this consideration on the “second death” in the Apocalypse of John and in the Targums, I may be allowed to repeat my earlier observations on the topic.94 “It is not easy to say what precise meaning we are to give to ‘the second death’ in this context [of Tg. Isaiah 65]. It may mean that the impious are excluded from the resurrection and the enjoyment of life in the new creation God is about to bring about. It could also mean eternal damnation, as this too implies exclusion from the life of bliss which is promised in the context.”

Isaiah 65 is referred to a number of times in the New Testament. Paul cites vv. 1–2 as the complement from the Prophets to his texts from the Torah (Deut 32:21) when he shows that Israel’s blindness and culpability in not receiving the Gospel were foreshadowed or predicted in the Old Testament (Rom 10:20–21). When the seer in Rev 2:17 (cf. 3:12) says Christ is to give a new name to his faithful ones he probably refers to Isa 65:15. He is certainly referring to Isa 65:17, 19 when he speaks of the creation of the new heavens and the new earth and the new Jerusalem in Rev 21:1, 4. In Rev 20:14–21:4 John is thinking against the background of Isa 65:15 ff. It appears from this that in 20:14 he has passed from the biblical text of Isa 65:15 to the manner in which this was understood in the liturgical paraphrase which we still find in the Targum to this verse. This would indicate that in this section of the Targum, and probably in the others which we have considered, we are in the presence of pre-Christian paraphrases which have influenced the thought and terminology of the Apocalypse. That the author of the Apocalypse should draw heavily on a liturgical paraphrase is but natural. The liturgical colouring of this work is very pronounced. As E. Stauffer has written on “John’s” relation to priestly tradition: “The Baptist’s disciple John is an apocalyptist cast in a leviticalliturgical mould just as Gamaliel’s disciple Paul is an apocalyptist cast in a rabbinic-dialectical mould.”95

5. General Conclusions For almost four hundred years scholars have made use of the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures (that is Targums) in the study of the New Testament, and from the very beginning of that period questions have been

94

McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 124. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, London 1955, 41–42. (Translation of Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Stuttgart 1948.) 95

5. General Conclusions

517

raised as to the legitimacy of such an approach, given the uncertainty as to the date to be assigned to these writings. In recent decades there has been a decided move away from the use of both Targums and rabbinic literature in New Testament studies due to a variety of circumstances, largely because of the literary criticism of rabbinic literature and the finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Targumic studies are a flourishing branch of research in its own right, even though the bearing of Targums on an understanding of the New Testament tends to be neglected. In more recent times their value in this field tends to becoming more appreciated once again. In this paper I have covered briefly the history of targumic research in relation to New Testament studies over the centuries, stressing the current attempts to arrive at a methodology in this branch of study. I have then given some examples of what I believe are areas in which these paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, in language, vocabulary and themes are not without relevance for an understanding of the Gospels and other New Testament texts. By reason of the constraints of space, the choice was of necessity limited. A fuller treatment would require a full monograph, or at least a volume specifically dedicated to the subject, one which the present writer has attended to in his revisit of his earlier treatment of the matter in Targum and Testament (1972).96

96

See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010.

Chapter 23

Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward? Targums, Tel-like Character, a Continuum 1. Tel-like Character of Targums Over half a century of Targum study and of the possible relevance of this study for New Testament research presents an opportunity of a glance at future developments and at a further refinement of methodology in this field, if such is possible. One such way forward may lie in a point made by R. Gordon, Professor of Old Testament at Cambridge University, that is paying due attention to the tel-like structure of Targums. To this I add in this essay consideration of a certain continuum in targumic tradition on certain themes, despite obvious development in others. In his doctoral dissertation, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets, in the “Prospectus”, after his final summary, R. Gordon takes note of some recent developments and makes suggestions as to possible profitable new approaches.1 The relationship of the Targum of the Twelve Prophets to the remainder of Targum of Prophets, and indeed the relationship of individual books within Targum Twelve Prophets to one another and to other parts of the Targum of the Prophets, may also prove worthy of investigation, the multiple signs of interconnectedness among various Targums notwithstanding. He notes the observations of some scholars on the distinctiveness of Jeremiah and Ezekiel among the Major Prophets. He goes on to remark that some differences between the lexical stock of the Targum of the Former Prophets and that of the Latter Prophets have been observed by A. Tal, while in the very specific case of the targumic rendering of the Hebrew ĎĂč (“flee”) B. Grossfeld has pinpointed a significant difference between these divisions of Targum of the Prophets in that the verb ćđý, which occurs frequently (50 times) in the Targum of the Former Prophets as a translation of ĎĂč, is not found at all in the Targum of the Latter Prophets. Grossfeld’s explanation is that the Targum of the Latter Prophets is older than its stablemate, and that ćđý had not yet begun to replace Ĕĕď (“flee”) by the time of its completion. Gordon notes that while there is definite promise in the lexical 1 R. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden 1994, 151–153.

1. Tel-like Character of Targums

519

approach, a “sensitivity to the tel-like character of Tg is required in such investigation, since the extant text probably includes stratified elements representing as much as several centuries of Targumic development”.2 This is a very important insight with regard to Targums, an acknowledgement that there may be a deeper dimension in a targumic tradition than redactional features, lexical phenomena or others. The principle of tel-like character, one may observe, will probably not hold for any Targum in general, but for specific texts within it, not apparently for sections of targums that are plain translations of the Hebrew Text. In a tell there are layers from various ages, sometimes deposited in chronological sequence but occasionally with disturbed stratification. When applying the principle to Targums it may be best to take each Targum as we now have it. Some elements of this may represent anonymous hermeneutical activity, whose origins can no longer be traced. Other elements will be regarded, at least by some scholars, as due to redactional activity and intentional additions after the basic Aramaic translation has been made. Some of the additions are often regarded as developments from an already expanded targumic paraphrase. In this context it may be well to note that a tel-like character should not be restricted to Targums alone. It can be regarded as applicable to all hermeneutical and exegetical tradition, whether it be oral or written. The targums originated and were given their present form in such a tradition. For good part this tradition continued to develop in rabbinic and other circles, to emerge later in writing in extra-biblical and the rabbinic works. For this reason it may well be that additions made to a completed Targum need not necessarily be later in time than this Targum. They may be early exegetical traditions, even if added later to the targumic work or text. A tel-like character of a Targum need not surprise us. We find it already in the Hebrew Bible, more noticeable in some books than in others. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah is apparently built up of texts and blocks of material dating from the time of the eighth-century prophet to about 400 b.c.e. if not later. A first division (Isaiah 1–39) has material dealing with the named prophet Isaiah; a second (chs. 40–55) is from late exilic times, and a third (chs. 56–66) comprises collections from post-exilic times. And yet the first section has material (ch. 35) that properly would belong to the second, Deutero-Isaiah. And it may well be that the “sealed book” spoken of in Isa 29:11–12 refers to the entire Book of Isaiah itself as a whole, or at least to that book in whatever shape it existed at the time of writing.3

2

Ibid., 152. See J. Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2006, 12. 3

520

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

In a work such as Targum of the Prophets, with only a single text to work on, tel-like texts are less easy to identify. I believe we have one in Tg. Hos 6:2, where the Hebrew Text “After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up that we may live before him” (rendering of nrsv) is translated in the Targum (expansions denoted by italics): “He will give us life in the days of consolation that will come; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall live before him.”

In the text of Hosea “after two days” and “on the third day” are intended to express a short space of time. The targumist paraphrases of the future days of consolation and of the resurrection, rendering “after two days” as “in the days of consolation that will come”, and translating “on the third day” as “on the day of the resurrection of the dead”. In Targum of Hosea the biblical text is simply paraphrased from what must be Jewish tradition. The expected future is referred to as “the determined time of blessing and consolation” in the Palestinian Targums (Gen 49:1). Interpretation of “the third day” as that of the resurrection may have been helped by the immediate context of Hosea with mention of “showers”, “spring rain”, terms which recall “dew”, understood in rabbinic tradition as an indication of the resurrection (see Isa 26:19). It must have also been helped by rabbinic reflection on the various occurrences of the words “third day” in the Bible, all of which were seen to have been salvific: thus Gen 22:4; 42:17; Exod 19:6; Josh 2:16; Hos 6:2; Jonah 2:1; Esth 9:2. In Tg. Hos 6:2 the biblical text has vanished, being replaced by what was most probably reckoned as the original meaning. It may be in this form that it was known and used in New Testament times. This would explain how in the New Testament Christ is said to have been raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3–4). It was written that the Christ was to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day (Luke 24:46).4 There is another Targum text in which the Hebrew Text as known to us completely disappears to be replaced by paraphrase. It is Pal. Tg. Num 21:17–18 where a series of place names is replaced by the midrash of the well said to follow Israel during the desert wanderings. It is a well-attested Jewish tradition, referred to by Paul (1 Cor 10:4), apparently a very early literary artefact preserved in the tell of targumic and early Jewish tradition.5 Returning to the Targum of the Prophets we may well have very early elements in the mention of the “second death” in Tg. Isa 22:14, 65:5–6, 15 4 See further, M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010, 206–208; idem, “Targum and Testament: A Revisit”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. by R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P. J. Tomson (JSJSup 136), Leiden 2009, 385–425, at 412–414 (above, pp. 503–507). 5 M. McNamara, “Targum and Testament: A Revisit”, 414–416 (above, pp. 507–509).

1. Tel-like Character of Targums

521

and in Tg. Jer. 51:39 (and in all the Targums of Deut 33:6). The phrase also occurs in the New Testament: Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8.6 The Targums of the Pentateuch present a greater opportunity for the study of development and redaction of a Targum tradition, by reason of the multiplicity of texts (Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, Fragment Targums, Genizah Palestinian Targum texts, targumic Toseftot). It is not always clear whether with regard to extant Palestinian Targum texts we have to do with the formation of a tradition, the conscious redaction of an earlier written Targum or some other phenomenon. With regard to Targum Neofiti, for instance, there appears to be more than one level in the text. B. Barry Levy notes that in Neofiti, together with a literal rendition of the text, there are many passages that were added to it in the course of its development and were not part of the original translation, which undoubtedly differed from the present document. The evidence for this claim comes from the literary layering in the text (the seams are, in many cases, still evident) and the linguistic differences evidenced in it. These passages range in size from a word or phrase to a column of text. In his view, while Neofiti may be assumed to contain some older ideas, the bulk of it dates well past the first century c.e., and in its final form it appears to be from the Talmudic period (post 200 c.e.).7 The examination of the Palestinian Targum evidence from this point of view will become much easier with the compilation of synoptic presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums, a task now rendered much easier with the completion of the English translation of all the works.8 A few examples will illustrate the tel-like character of these texts. The Aqedah on the “Sacrifice of Isaac” (on Genesis 22) is an old and probably pre-70 tradition. It is found in Pal. Tg. Gen 22:10, 14, ending with a prayer to God to remember Israel in their hour of distress. It is recalled again in Pal. Tg. Lev 22:27 (on an ox, a sheep or a goat as an offering), in a paraphrase introduced with the words: “Recall in our favour our offering which we used to offer and atonement was made for our sins. But now that we have nothing to offer of our flocks of sheep, atonement can be made for our sins … [T]he lamb was chosen to recall the merit of a man, the unique one, who was bound on one of the mountains like a lamb for a burnt offer6

See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 223–237. B. Barry Levy, Targum Neofiti 1: A Textual Study (Studies in Judaism), New York & London, vol. 1: Introduction, Genesis, Exodus, Lanham, 1986; vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1987, vol. 1, viii–ix for a summary of his position. 8 See M. McNamara, “Towards an English Synoptic Presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums”, in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. by P. V. M. Flesher (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 2), Leiden & Boston 2002, 3–27 (Chapter 7 above). 7

522

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

ing upon the altar.” The tradition and prayer as presented here seem to have a definite post-70 c.e. setting. Part of the prayer ending the Aqedah midrash is a plea to God to remember Israel in her “hour of distress”  – the word rendered “distress” translating any of three distinct Aramaic terms. This expression, “hour of distress” is also found in Tamar’s prayer in a midrash in Tg. Gen 38:25. The phrase is found in all texts of the Palestinian Targums in these two passages. It is found in Neofiti alone seven times outside of these midrashim, once (Neof. Deut 20:19) in relation to a tree under siege. These occurrences may represent additions in Targum Neofiti.9 We have a clearer instance of an addition at Gen 38:35 (again in the midrash on Tamar) where all the Palestinian Targum texts simply say that Tamar asked for the three witnesses but could not find them. Two Cairo Genizah Targum texts (mss. X and FF; both manuscripts paper, mid-eleventh to late fourteenth century) add to this: “(She sought the three witnesses but did not find them;) for Samael [= Satan or Angel of Death] had come and concealed them from her.”10 Doubts can immediately be raised as to whether these texts belong to the original Palestinian Targum since Samael is not otherwise mentioned in the Targums of the Pentateuch and does not appear within rabbinic literature until after the fifth century. This particular tradition on Samael is quite similar to that found in b. Sotah 10b, suggesting that this appears to be a later addition to the Palestinian Targum tradition. This becomes all the more probable when it is recognised that the two Genizah manuscripts do not represent Palestinian Targum proper, but rather targumic Toseftot.11 More examples of additions to the Palestinian Targum, whether of single words, phrases, or entire traditions (e.g. the midrash on the tree, ĉóý, ’ešel, Abraham planted at Beersheba, Gen 21:33) could be added, but I believe sufficient texts have been given to illustrate the tel-like character of the targumic tradition.

9 See further, M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 133–135; idem, “Targum and Testament: A Revisit”, 419–420 (above, pp. 509–512). 10 Aramaic texts and English translation in M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1, Cincinnati 1986, 90–91. 11 See Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, xxvi–xxvii; xxxvii for date.

2. A Continuum. Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Judaism

523

2. A Continuum. Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Judaism 2.1 Parallels and Parallelomania In 1961 S. Sandmel gave the Presidential Address at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis on the topic “Parallelomania”. This was duly published under the same title12 and has remained a very influential treatment of the topic and the dangers inherent in drawing parallels between Jewish writings and the New Testament. For his purpose Sandmel defines parallelomania as “that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direection”.13 He confines his observations to the areas of rabbinic literature and the Gospels, Philo and Paul, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. His restrictions with regard to the use of rabbinic parallels have to do in good part with the material assembled by Strack and Billerbeck and its use. In relation to Paul and rabbinic texts Sandmel asks us to assume that at no less than 259 places, Paul’s epistles contain acknowledged parallels to passages in the rabbis, but goes on to deny that this hypothetical situation implies that Paul and the rabbis are in thorough agreement. He acknowledges that it was right for the scholarship of two hundred and a hundred years ago to have gathered the true and the alleged parallels, but today it is a fruitless quest to continue to try to find elusive rabbinic sources for everything which Paul wrote. The points made by Sandmel were well taken when first made, and are still timely. They do not, however, take from the need of pursuing parallels between a Jewish writing and a New Testament text in the interest of seeing how genuine they are, and if genuine seeking an explanation for the parallels, without in any way implying direct influence and without denying due differences between the two bodies of literature. 2.2 Idea of a Continuum We have seen above the approaches of B. Chilton and G. Vermes on the relation of Targum to the New Testament. Other writers express the same idea in slightly different terminology. Thus C. S. Keener in his recent work on John’s Gospel devotes an entire excursus to a discussion of the value

12 13

S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania”, JBL 81 (1962), 1–13. Sandmel, “Parallelomania”, 1.

524

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

of rabbinic texts for Johannine study.14 In a review of the minimalist and maximalist positions he notes that a minimalist position necessarily excludes much data that reflect a general cultural continuum valuable for such studies as those of the Johannine tradition.15 A view expressed by rabbis can be used provided it is a view that the rabbis could have derived from the broader continuum of early Judaism. He notes that in his commentary rabbinic literature is treated as one useful strand of evidence by which we seek to reconstruct the broader cultural and social milieu of early Judaism – not as if implying that the New Testament borrows from rabbinic tradition, but that notable commonalities probably reflect a common source in early Judaism or at times in the generally Pharisaic movement of scholars that coalesced into rabbinic Judaism.16 He also wisely observes that “if sayings or ideas rapidly became the property of the community, their sources could be more ancient than the specific rabbis who first cited them or to whom they were attributed (from whom those reporting them first heard the account)”.17 In what follows I intend to examine some passages in which parallels between New Testament texts and targumic or rabbinic tradition seem best explained through the continuum of tradition we are considering. 2.3 Ephesians 4:8 and Targum Psalms 67(68):1918 In Eph 4:7–8 the author explains to the Christian church in Asia how the unity of the Church is the gift of Christ. Reigning in heaven after his ascension the Risen Saviour grants to the Church the gifts that are necessary for unity in diversity. The author of the letter first cites a text from an unidentified source (“he / it says”, ĕƬčďē) and then proceeds to gloss and to explain it as referring to Christ. “(v. 7) But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (8) Therefore it is said [lit.: ‘it/he says’, ĕƬčďē]: ‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself captive; he gave gifts to men’ (ŕĎģĔďė ĎƲĖċĞċ ĞęȉĜ ŁėĒěƶĚęēĜ). (9) When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but [lit.: ‘what is this but’] that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things. The gifts he gave were that some might be apostles, some prophets …”

14 C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols., Peabody 2003; the excursus vol. 1, 185–194. 15 Ibid., vol. 1, 190. 16 Ibid., vol. 1, 186–187. 17 Ibid., vol. 1, 189. 18 See McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, 78–81; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 234–235; R. Le Déaut, “Targum”, DBSup 13 (2002), cols. 308*–309*.

2. A Continuum. Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Judaism

525

It is clear that the text cited and commented on in this passage is a form of Ps 67(68):19, one, however, which is not that of the Hebrew Text or of the Septuagint. The Hebrew has a very obscure text in v. 17(18)c: literally “The Lord among them Sinai in the holy (place)” (nrsv: “The Lord came from Sinai into the holy place”), rendered in the Greek as: “The Lord is among them, in Sinai into the holy place”. This is followed by words addressed to an unnamed person: “You ascended on high; you took captivity captive; you received [from the root ĄĔĉ] gifts for men” (with the singular / collective “man”, ĊĀýþ; or: “among men”). The ending is rendered more or less literally in the Septuagint: “… you have received gifts for [or: among] man” (ŕĕċČďĜĎƲĖċĞċőėŁėĒěƶĚȣ). The text in Ephesians understands the Psalm passage as “giving, distributing” rather than “receiving”, probably reading a Hebrew root ĔĉĄ (“divide, distribute”) instead of ĄĔĉ. This is the understanding and rendering of the passage we find in the Targum of Psalms, which is also that of the rabbinic commentary on this book. Several of the midrashic and haggadic additions in Targum of Psalms have parallels in Midrash Tehillim. They may draw on a common body of haggadic reflections. In the text that interests us both Targum and midrash seem influenced by the reference to Sinai immediately preceding. The unnamed person addressed (“You ascended”) is Moses. The verse is rendered in Targum of Psalms (italics indicate additional paraphrase):19 “(v. 19) You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses, you took captives, you taught the words of the Law, you gave them as gifts to the sons of man; even among the rebellious who are converted and repent does the Shekinah of the glory of the Lord God dwell.”

As D. Stec has noted: for the tradition represented by this text of Targum of Psalms we can confer the rabbinic commentary on Psalms Midrash Tehillim 68:11: “Thou hast gone up on high, thou hast led the captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men (Ps 68:19). These words are to be read in the light of what Scripture says elsewhere: A wise man goeth up to the city of the mighty, and bringeth down the strength wherein it trusteth (Prov 21:22): This wise man is Moses, of whom it is said, ‘And Moses went up unto God’ (Ex 19:3); the words thou hast received gifts for men refer to the Torah which was bestowed upon Israel as a gift, at no cost.”20

Targum of Psalms is generally regarded as a late composition. Its language is considered by some as virtually the same as that of Targum of Job and Pseudo-Jonathan. It is variously dated from the fourth to the seventh cen19

In the translation of D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004, 131. In the translation of W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols., New Haven 1959 (3rd edition 1976), vol. 1, 545. 20

526

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

tury. The relation of this paraphrase to that of the Epistle to the Ephesians would be a good instance of the continuum in exegetical tradition. 2.4 Zechariah Son of Barachiah: Matt 23:35 (Luke 11:51) and Targum Lam. 2:20.21 Matthew and Luke record condemnation by Jesus of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees, but in different contexts. Both, however, end with a warning that on the current generation would come punishment for their sins and for the infidelity of their forefathers. Matthew’s text runs (Matt 23:34–36): “Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify … (35) so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of the righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (36) Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation.” Luke’s text (Luke 11:49–52) lacks “son of Barachiah”. The Zechariah in question seems clearly to be the Zechariah son of the priest Jehoiada of 2 Chr 24:21–22. During the apostasy of king Joash God sent prophets among the people to bring them back to the Lord, but they would not listen (2 Chr 24:19). “Then the spirit of God took possession of Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest who stood above the people and said to them: ‘Thus says God: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.’ But they conspired against him and by command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the Lord. … As he was dying, he said: ‘May the Lord see and avenge’” (24:20–22). Two differences between the texts of Luke and Matthew and that of 2 Chronicles are to be noted. One is the place of the murder in the Temple (house of the Lord): between the sanctuary and the altar (Matthew), in Luke “between the altar and the house” (ęűĔęğ), the term “house” being variously understood and rendered: “sanctuary” (nrsv), “Temple” (njb), “temple building” (nab), while 2 Chronicles simply has “in the court of the house of the Lord”. Another difference is in the connection in the New Testament between the shedding of the blood of Abel and Zechariah and the punishment for these crimes to come “on this generation” of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees. There is a further difference in Matthew’s text in that Zechariah is called the son of Barachiah. There are three Zechariahs mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures: Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah (Isa 8:2), rendered in the 21 See the earlier treatment in M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1966 (repr. 1978), 160–163; revised in M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 231–234.

2. A Continuum. Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Judaism

527

Septuagint as “son of Barachias”, the person already mentioned in 2 Chr 24:20–22 and, the third the eleventh of the Twelve Minor Prophets, in the Book of Zechariah bearing the full title: “Zechariah the son of Berechiah the son of Iddo” (Zech 1:1). He is nowhere called by the short form “Zechariah son of Berechiah”. He is mentioned three times in the Old Testament, and identified through his grandfather’s name: “Zechariah the son of Iddo”. Matthew’s text is most probably to be explained by the identification of the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles with the Minor Prophet. A text in the Targum of Lamentations (Tg. Lam 2:20c) throws light on Matthew’s text, and on the Jewish setting of both Matthew and Luke. In the Targum, Zechariah of Chronicles is identified with the Minor Prophet, but under his usual name “Zechariah son of Iddo”. When situated in the broader rabbinic context a fuller meaning of both Targum and New Testament texts is revealed. The Hebrew Text of Lam 2:20c says: “Should the priest and the prophet be slain in the temple of the Lord?” This is part of the author of Lamentation’s complaint against the Lord on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the profanation of the Temple. In the preceding portion of the verse the poet complains: “Look, O Lord, and consider! To whom have you done this? Should women eat their offspring, the children they have borne?” The targumist lets the first part of the people’s complaint stand. In the paraphrase of v. 20c he has the Lord (under the designation “The Attribute of Justice”) answer the complaint (italics designate additional paraphrase to the Hebrew Text): “The Attribute of Justice answered, and thus said: ‘Is it fitting to murder in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet, as you murdered Zechariah the son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet, in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the Day of Atonement, because he admonished you not to do that which was evil before the Lord?’”22

The central point of the Targum’s paraphrase is that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan (2 Kgs 25:8–12) is linked with the earlier murder of Zechariah (son of Barachiah) son of Iddo, and the blame for this is laid on the generation of the destruction. There are some differences between the Targum and the account of this in 2 Chronicles. Zechariah is explicitly called “prophet”, which is implicit in Chronicles. He is also called “high priest”, which need not surprise as “priests” of the earlier biblical texts are often described as “high priests” in the targums (Melchizedek, Gen 14:18 and others),23 and in any event Josephus (Ant. 9.8.3, § 166) so designates 22

In the translation of P. S. Alexander, The Targum of Lamentations, Collegeville 2008,

141. 23 See M. McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic Literature and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000), 1–31, at 22–26.

528

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

Zechariah’s father. The murder is also said to have taken place on the Day of Atonement, which adds to the gravity of the crime. The Targum’s link of the Temple’s destruction with the much earlier (252 years earlier!) murder of Zechariah of Chronicles is best understood when set in the context of rabbinic tradition, within which our present text of this Targum originated. As P. S. Alexander puts it in his note to the English translation of chapter 2:20 of this Targum: “The idea that the murder of Zechariah was a major cause of the destruction of the first Temple is an old and deeply embedded element in the tradition. According to a widespread rabbinic aggadah, the murdered Zechariah’s blood never dried, but continued to seethe until Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s general, slaughtered young priests to appease it.”24 The apocryphal Lives of the Prophets (ch. 23: “Zechariah son of Jehoiada”), probably of the first century c.e., of Palestinian origin, and contemporary with Matthew and Luke, does not have the rabbinic legend on this Zechariah, but records the belief of the disastrous consequences of his murder: “From that time visible portents occurred in the Temple, and the priests were not able to see a vision of angels of God or to give oracles from the Dabeir, or to inquire by the Ephod, or to answer the people through Urim as formerly.”25 The targumic and rabbinic traditions seem to illustrate the connection made by Jesus between the murder of Zechariah (and others) and the impending punishment to come on “this generation”. The New Testament, and Matthew’s text, can be taken as indicating an early date for this particular tradition, preserved in rabbinic literature and in the Targum of Lamentations, itself probably to be dated towards the end of the fifth century c.e. The relevance of this text for an understanding of a New Testament passage would be another instance of the continuum – the continuation of a tradition through the centuries. 2.5 The Shekinah (m. Abot 3:3, 6; ARN B, ch. 34, p. 74) and Matt 18:20: “I Am There Among Them” We have already spoken of the Shekinah of the Lord, and noted that a number of scholars believe that its use in the Targums, together with references 24 P. S. Alexander, The Targum of Lamentations, 141, n. 73, with many rabbinic references, including one to Tg. Lam 4:13 where there is mention again of the murder of Zechariah and its consequences for the destruction of the Temple. “The Attribute of Justice answered and thus said: None of this would have happened but for the sins of her prophets … and the iniquities of her priests, … and they are the ones who caused the blood of the righteous to be shed in her midst” (in the translation of Alexander, The Targum of Lamentations, 170). 25 See translation by D. R. A. Hare, “The Lives of the Prophets (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP 2, 398.

2. A Continuum. Targums and Formation of Late Second Temple Judaism

529

to possession of the land, are indications of a post-70 c.e. date for texts. The theme “Shekinah” has been extensively studied. My intention here is not to go over these again but rather to present a slightly different approach to the topic, one in keeping with the theme of this essay.26 The Hebrew noun shekinah (in Aramaic in the emphatic singular shekinta) is an abstract noun from the verb shakan (root in Hebrew and Aramaic ČĈó27), “to dwell, rest”. It is a central term and concept in rabbinic literature, expressing God’s presence in the Temple and with his people. It is also very common in the various targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets, with differences, however, in the manner in which it is used in Onqelos, the Palestinian Targums (in particular Neofiti) and the Targums of the Prophets. Since the present work is not merely on the Targums, but rather on the Targums and the New Testament it is indicated that examination of the matter begin with consideration of the possible early use of the term and concept in Judaism. Whereas the verb šakan and terms from the root ČĈó occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, and while the term shekinah / shekinta is extremely common in rabbinic literature and the targums, no occurrence of it is attested in prerabbinic literature. It is not found in the Qumran texts. This might lead one to believe that the term and concept originated after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., or after New Testament times. However, an indication of its earlier use may be seen in 2 Macc 14:35 (in a work completed before the Roman conquest, 63 b.c.e.). In a prayer for the safety of the Temple the priests remind God: “You were pleased that there should be a temple for your habitation (ėċƱėĞǻĜĝǻĜĝĔđėƶĝďģĜ) among us.” The abstract noun ĝĔƮėģĝēĜ corresponds closely in meaning and form to shekinah, probably indicating that this term was already in liturgical use by 50 b.c.e. There are also early rabbinic texts indicating early use of the concept and term. The term Shekinah occurs only twice in the Mishnah, once in words ascribed to Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon (probably executed 135 c.e.): “If two sit together and the words between them are of the Torah, then the Shekinah is in their midst” (m. Aboth 3:3). Again in m. Aboth 3:6: “R. Halafta b. Dosa [latter half of the second century] said: “If ten men sit together and occupy themselves with the Law, the Shekinah rests among them.” A similar saying, with broader connotation, is attributed to R. Halafta of Sepphoris 26 It is a topic which I treat of elsewhere; see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 148–149. 27 The verb ČĈó with the sense of “inhabit, dwell” occurs in Official Aramaic, in Biblical Aramaic, in Samaritan Aramaic and in Syriac: of birds on trees (Dan 4:8); “the God Iahu who dwells in Yeb” (Brooklyn Papyrus, 12,2); God who made his name dwell there” (words of Darius on the Jerusalem Temple) (Ezra 6:12). The verb ČĈó in this sense is not found in the Targums, where the usual term for “dwell, rest” is ýĕó.

530

Chapter 23: Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?

(R. Hananiah’s contemporary) who speaks of the presence of the Shekinah with any “two or three who sit together in the market place and the words between them are of the Torah” (Abot de-Rabbi Natan B, ch. 34, p. 74). These texts are naturally compared with Matt 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in their midst.” The difference between the two contexts must be borne in mind. Matthew’s text speaks of Jesus, rather than God’s Shekinah, being present, which is in keeping with the New Testament, where Jesus is spoken of as Immanuel. It is recognised that Matt 18:20 may be related to the Jewish traditions, Matthew’s relation to rabbinic tradition being generally accepted. While it is possible that the Jewish tradition depends on Matthew, it is more probable that the Jewish rabbinic theology and terminology on the Shekinah were already a reality in the first century and that Matthew moulded this in keeping with New Testament christology. The foregoing research on the date of the use of the concept Shekinah in Judaism was made by J. Sievers of the Biblical Institute, Rome.28 In his first study in English Sievers notes that the references to the Shekinah in Targum Onqelos as well as in the various recensions of the Palestinian Targum are numerous. Although the Targums contain much earlier material, he continues, they were not redacted in final form before the third century. Therefore, they are of little help in establishing the origin of the term Shekinah. He omits all references to the targums in the revised form of the essay in German. With regard to this one may observe that a concept and term of this nature if current, or used, in rabbinic Judaism of New Testament times (and earlier) can be presumed to have also been used in liturgical, or “popular” Aramaic translations of the Bible. And in point of fact we find it freely used in all the Targums of the Pentateuch (Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums) and of the Prophets. There is a tendency to date the Targums of Onqelos and the Prophets before 135 c.e. The precise manner in which the term Shekinah is used in the various targums differs from one to the other, and there should be no question of trying to ascertain which targumic usage is the oldest. In the use of the concept and term there was probably an inner-targumic development. Here as elsewhere the targumists were not free to introduce the term at will. Their primary purpose was to translate the Hebrew Text. They insert reference to the Shekinah in places where the Hebrew speaks of God “dwelling / resting” in the Temple or with his people. 28 J. Sievers, “‘Where Two or Three …’: The Rabbinic Concept of Shekinah and Matthew 18:20”, in The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy, ed. by E. J. Fisher, New York & Mahwah 1990, 47–61; J. Sievers, “‘Wo zwei oder drei …’: Der rabbinische Begriff der Schechina und Matthäus 18,20”, in Das Prisma: Beiträge zur Pastoral, Katechese & Theologie 17,1 (2005), 18–29 (a revision of his earlier essay “‘Where Two or Three …’”).

3. Conclusion

531

2.6 Other Texts In the texts given above I have adduced some instances where I believe there has been continuity in the targumic tradition before and after the 70 c.e. divide. Other theological themes and phrases could be added to these, some of which are the subject of intense study today: for instance Memra (or Word) of the Lord,29 good works, rewards, merit in heaven, being merciful as Our Father in Heaven is merciful and others besides. I believe that sufficient evidence has been presented to indicate that the theme of continuity in the targumic exegetical tradition merits attention.

3. Conclusion Methodology will continue to remain a concern for scholars wishing to use the targumic evidence in New Testament or first century c.e. studies. My conviction is that sensitivity to the tel-like character of Targum, to which R. Gordon has drawn our attention, together with an awareness of the presence of continuity in the targumic exegetical tradition, can play useful rules in future research in this area. While we identify markers suggesting or proving a post-70 date for a text or tradition, it might be well to examine whether these are limited in number, whereas much in the tradition, or at least traditions within it, are little, if at all, connected with the 70 c.e. disaster.

29 Among the more recent studies on this theme see J. L. Ronning, And the Word was God: The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Peabody 2009.

Appendix 1

A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara in Targumic Studies 1957 “De populi Aramaeorum primordiis”, Verbum Domini 35 (1957), 129–142. 1965 “Novum Testamentum et Targum palaestinense ad Pentateuchum”, Verbum Domini 43 (1965), 288–300. 1966 The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966. “The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study”, Scrip 18 (1966), 47–56 (= Irish Ecclesiastical Record 109 [1968], 158–165). “Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 1–15. “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), 1–19. 1967 “The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel”, Scrip 19 (1967), 65–73. “Jewish Liturgy and the New Testament”, The Bible Today 33 (1967), 2324–2332. “Targums” [sub Bible, IV, 11], New Catholic Encyclopedia 2 (1967), 431–433. 1968 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol.  1: Génesis, Madrid & Barcelona 1968, 497–642. “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242)”, ExpTim 79 (1968), 115–117. 1970 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 2: Éxodo, Madrid & Barcelona 1970, 407–536. “Jewish Law and the Gospels”, The Bible Today 47 (1970), 3237–3743. 1971 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol.  3: Levítico, Madrid & Barcelona 1971, 317–418.

534

Appendix 1: A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

1972 Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972. Review of J. F. Collange, Énigmes de la deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens. Revue exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (Cambridge, England 1972, TS 33 (1972), 757–758. 1973 “Some Considerations on the Form of Aramaic Spoken in New Testament Palestine in the Light of Early Aramaic Evidence”, in a review in ITQ 40 (1973), 281–285. 1974 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 4: Números, Madrid & Barcelona 1974, 493–643. 1976 “Targums”, IDBSup, 856–861. 1977 “The Spoken Aramaic of First Century Palestine”, PIBA 2 (1977), 95–138. Review of J. Weingreen, From Bible to Mishna: The Continuity of Tradition (Manchester 1976), Hermathena 123 (1977), 73–76. 1978 I targum e il Nuovo Testamento (Studi Biblici), Bologna 1978 (= Italian translation of Targum and Testament [1972]). The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (second printing, with Supplement containing additions and corrections; AnBib 27 A), Rome 1978. (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, vol. 5: Deuteronomio, Madrid & Barcelona 1978, 439–573. “to de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en te Arabia (Gal 4,25a): Paul and Petra”, Milltown Studies 2 (1978), 24–41. 1979 “Half a Century of Targum Study”, Irish Bible Studies 1 (1979), 157–168. “‘To Prepare a Resting-Place for You’: A targumic Expression and John 14:2 f.”, Milltown Studies 3 (1979), 100–107. Review of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London & Philadelphia 1977), JSNT 5 (1979), 67–73. 1980 Review of B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, vol.  2 (Cincinnati & New York: Hebrew Union College Press 1977); J. Neusner (translator), The Tosefta: Tohorot (Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House 1977); F. Rosner, Medicine, in the Bible and Talmud: Selections from Classical Jewish Sources (New York 1977); L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York 1976), Scripture Bulletin 10/2 (1980), 39–40.

Appendix 1: A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

535

1981 “Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim”, in Problemi e prospettive di Scienze Bibliche, ed. by R. Fabris, Brescia 1981, 67–109. “Some Recent Books on the Targums”, Scripture Bulletin 12 (1981), 68–70. Review of E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, new edition and translation, vol. 2 (Edinburgh 1979), ITQ 48 (1981), 270–272. 1982 “Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums”, Milltown Studies 9 (1982), 59–101 (= English text of “Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim” [1981]). 1983 Intertestamental Literature (Old Testament Message 23), Wilmington 1983. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983. 1984 “Review of Some Recent Targum Editions”, PIBA 8 (1984), 39–48. 1986 Les écrits de la période intertestamentaire, Montreal 1986 (= French translation of Intertestamental Literature [1983]). “On Englishing the Targums”, in Salvación en la Palabra: Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, ed. by D. Muñoz Leon, Madrid 1986, 447–461. Review of B. D. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Wilmington 1984), CBQ 48 (1986), 329–331. 1987 “Some Issues and Recent Writings on Judaism and the New Testament”, Irish Biblical Studies 9 (1987), 131–150. 1988 “Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”, PIBA 11 (1987; published 1988), 67–87. 1991 “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) Numbers Chapter 21”, SNTU, Ser. A, 16 (1991), 127–149. 1992 Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1A), Collegeville 1992. “The Language Situation in First Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek”, PIBA 15 (1992), 7–36. 1993 “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers Chapter 24”, PIBA 16 (1993), 57–79. 1994 (Editor, with D. R. G. Beattie) The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994.

536

Appendix 1: A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

(with R. Hayward) Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible 2), Collegeville 1994. (with R. Hayward) Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus (The Aramaic Bible 3), Collegeville 1994. “The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 103–115. 1995 Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers (The Aramaic Bible 4), Collegeville 1995. “Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”, Apocrypha 6 (1995), 127–164. 1997 Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 5A), Collegeville 1997. 1998 Reviews of W. F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Oudtestamentische Studien 36) (Leiden 1995); W. F. Smelik, Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of Prophets, vol. 2: Judges (Leiden 1996), JQR 89 (1998), 225–229. 1999 “The Colophon to Codex Neofiti 1”, JSP 19 (1999), 147–157. 2000 “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000), 1–31. 2001 “Some Targum Themes”, being chapter 11 of Justification and Variegated Judaism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid, Tübingen & Grand Rapids 2001, 303–356. Review of B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis (New York 2000), PIBA 24 (2001), 114–118. 2002 “Towards an English Synoptic Presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums”, in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. by P. V. M. Flesher (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 2), Leiden & Boston 2002, 3–27. Review of B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis (New York 2000), JSS 47 (2002), 352–355. 2003 “Reception of the Hebrew Text of Leviticus in the Targums”, in The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Reception, ed. by R. Rendtorff & R. A. Kugler (VTSup 93; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 3), Boston & Leiden 2003, 269–298.

Appendix 1: A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

537

“Interpretation of Scripture in the Targumim”, in A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, ed. by A. J. Hauser & D. Watson, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2003, 167–197. Book Review: M. Hengel & A. M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, London 1997, in HeyJ 44 (2003), 496–497. 2004 “The Colophon of Codex Neofiti I: The Scribe Menahem and the Roman Medical Family of Manuele”, in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart, ed. by C. McCarthy & J. F. Healey (JSOTSup 375), London & New York 2004, 154–167. 2006 Review of B. P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession (Leiden 2006), in the electronic journal Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.sbl-site.org) 12 (2006) (published 12th December 2006, 6 unnumbered pages). 2009 “In Memoriam: Professor Alejandro Díez Macho (1916–1984)”, Henoch 31/2 (2009), 1–3. 2010 “Targum and the New Testament: A Revisit”. Paper read at the international colloquium “The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature”, Faculty of Theology, Katholieke Uiversiteit Leuven, January, 16–17, 2006; published in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. by R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P. J. Tomson (JSJSup 136), Leiden & Boston 2010, 387–427. Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2010. 2011 “Background II: (Some) Literary Documents”, in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols., ed. by T. Holmén & S. E. Porter, Leiden & Boston 2011, vol. 3: The Historical Jesus, Part Two: Fundamentally about Jesus, 2243–2290. “Targumim”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, vol. 2, ed. by M. D. Coogan, New York & Oxford 2011 (forthcoming). “Targum Studies over Six Decades (1949–2009)” (forthcoming). “The Targums: Tel-Like Character and a Continuum” (forthcoming). Review of E. M. Meyers & P. V. M. Flesher (eds.), Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Winona Lake 2010), CBQ 74 (2011) (forthcoming).

Appendix 2

The Aramaic Bible Project Editors: Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, Martin McNamara. M. J. McNamara, Project Director. Publishers: Nos. 6–14, Wilmington: Glazier, & Edinburgh: Clark; the remainder, Collegeville: Liturgical, & Edinburgh: Clark. 1A 1B 2.

Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. M. J. McNamara, 1992. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. M. Maher, 1992. Targum Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. M. J. McNamara, R. Hayward & M. Maher, 1994. 3. Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. M. J. McNamara, R. Hayward & M. Maher, 1994. 4. Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers. M. J. McNamara & E. G. Clarke, 1994. 5A. Targum Neofiti 1. Deuteronomy. M. J. McNamara, 1994. 5B. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. E. G. Clarke, 1995. 6. The Targum Onqelos to the Torah: Genesis. B. Grossfeld, 1988. 7. The Targum Onqelos to the Torah: Exodus. B. Grossfeld, 1988. 8. The Targum Onqelos to the Torah: Leviticus and Numbers. B. Grossfeld, 1988. 9. The Targum Onqelos to the Torah: Deuteronomy. B. Grossfeld, 1988. 10. The Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. D. J. Harrington & A. J. Saldarini, 1987. 11. The Isaiah Targum. B. Chilton, 1987. 12. The Targum of Jeremiah. R. Hayward, 1987. 13. The Targum of Ezekiel. S. H. Levey, 1987. 14. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. K. J. Cathcart & R. P. Gordon, 1989. 15. The Targums of Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet. C. Mangan, J. F. Healey & P. S. Knobel, 1991. 16. The Targum of Psalms. D. M. Stec, 2004. 17A. The Targum of Canticles. P. S. Alexander, 2003. 17B. The Targum of Lamentations. P. S. Alexander, 2008. 18. The Two Targums of Esther. B. Grossfeld, 1991. 19. The Targum of Ruth and The Targum of Chronicles. D. R. G. Beattie & J. Stanley McIvor, 1994.

Appendix 3

Modern Targum Critical Editions, Concordances and Dictionaries 1. All Targums Sperber, A. (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, vol.  1: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos, Leiden 1959 (repr. 1992); vol. 2: Former Prophets, Leiden 1959; vol. 3: Latter Prophets, Leiden 1962.

2. Onqelos Vatican manuscript Ebr. 448 The Pentateuch: With the Masorah Parva and the Masorah Magna and with Targum Onkelos. Ms. Vat. Heb. 448, Jerusalem 1977 (in 5 volumes). Photostatic edition. Introduction in Hebrew by A. Díez Macho.

3. Neofiti 1 Editio princeps of Codex Neofiti 1: Díez Macho, A., Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols., Madrid & Barcelona, vol. 1: Génesis, 1968; vol. 2: Éxodo, 1970: vol. 3: Levítico, 1971; vol. 4: Números, 1974; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978.

4. Palestinian Targum 4.1 All Texts A critical edition of the London manuscript B. M. [now British Library] Additional 27031 of Pseudo-Jonathan was published, together with the critical edition of all texts of the Palestinian Targums, in the Madrid Polyglot 1977–1989, as follows: Díez Macho, A. (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio. Editio critica curante A. Díez Macho, adjuvantibus L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, T. Martínez Saiz. Pseudojonatan hispanica versio: T. Martínez Saiz. Targum Palaestinensis testimonia ex variis fontibus: R. Griño (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), Madrid, vol. 2: Exodus, 1980; vol. 3: Leviticus, 1980; vol. 4: Numeri, 1977; vol. 5: Deuteronomium, 1980; vol. 1: Genesis, 1989.

540 Appendix 3: Modern Targum Critical Editions, Concordances and Dictionaries 4.2 Pseudo-Jonathan, London Manuscript An edition of the same London manuscript was earlier made by Rieder, D., PseudoJonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch copied from the London MS (British Museum Add. 27031), Jerusalem 1974 (repr. with Hebrew translation and notes, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1984–1985). London manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan also published in the Madrid Polyglot.

4.3 Fragment Targums. All Texts Edition of Fragment Targums: Klein, M. L., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (AnBib 76), Rome 1980.

Concordances 1. Neofiti Kaufman, S. A., & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti: A Guide to the Complete Palestinian Aramaic Text of the Torah, Baltimore & London 1993.

2. Pseudo-Jonathan Clarke, E. G., with W. E. Aufrecht, J. C. Hurd & F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, Hoboken 1980.

3. Targum of the Prophets de Moor, J. C. (Project Director), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 vols., Leiden, New York & Cologne 1995–2005.

Dictionary Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990.

Appendix 4

Cumulative Bibliography Abbott, E. A., From Letter to Spirit (Diatessarica 3), London 1903. Abel, F.-M., Géographie de la Palestine, 2 vols., Paris 1938. Aberbach, M., & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text, New York 1982. Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First and Second Series), Cambridge 1917, 1924. Ackroyd, P. R., & V. F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970. Aetheria, Ad Loca sancta peregrinatio, in Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi III–IV, ed. by P. Geyer (CSEL 39), Vienna 1898. Albright, W. F., The Archaeology of Palestine, Harmondsworth 1949 (and later reprints). –, “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation”, BASOR 163 (1961), 36–54. Alexander, P. S., “The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and the Boundaries of the Land of Israel” (unpublished dissertation, Oxford University, 1974). –, “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament”, ZAW 74 (1983), 237–246. –, “Midrash and the Gospels”, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. by C. M. Tuckett, Sheffield 1984, 1–18. –, “Targum, Targumim”, ABD 6 (1992), 320–331. –, The Targum of Lamentations, Collegeville 2008. Allony, N., “Targum Yerushalmi in a splendid edition”, Beth ha-Mikra 21 (1975), 161–169 (in Hebrew). Almqvist, H., Plutarch und das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 15), Uppsala 1946. Argyle, A. W., “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955/56), 92–93, 246. Attridge, H. W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, Missoula 1976. Augustinus Justinianus, Psalterium Octuplum, Genova 1516. Avi-Jonah, M., “Petra”, EncJud 13 (1972), 341–343. Baars, W., “A Targum on Ex. 15:7–21 from the Cairo Geniza”, VT 11 (1961), 340–342. Bacher, W., Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., Strasbourg 1884–1890; 2nd edition 1903. –, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 3 vols., Strasbourg 1892–1899. –, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, Strasbourg 1898; Frankfurt on Main 1913. –, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, vol. 1: Die bibelexegetische Terminologie der Tannaiten, Leipzig 1905.

542

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, “Shem” (in rabbinic literature), JE 11 (1905), 261–262. –, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, Leipzig 1914. Bamberger, B. J., “The Dating of Aggadic Materials”, JBL 68 (1949), 115–123. –, “Halakic Elements in the Neofiti Targum: A Preliminary Statement”, JQR 66 (1975), 27–38. Bar-Deroma, H., “Kadesh-Barnea”, PEQ 96 (1964), 101–134. Baskin, J. R., Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition, Chico 1983. Beattie, D. R. G., & M. J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994. Benoît, P., J. Milik & R. De Vaux (eds.), Les Grottes de Murabba‘at (DJD II), Oxford 1961. Berliner, A., Targum Onkelos, Erster Theil: Text nach Editio Sabioneta v. J. 1557, Zweiter Theil: Noten, Einleitung und Register, Berlin 1884 (repr. Jerusalem 1968). –, Targum Onkelos: Einleitung in das Targum, Berlin 1884 (repr. Jerusalem 1968). Bernstein, A., An Explanatory Commentary on Esther, Edinburgh 1888. Bernstein, M., “The Halakhah in the Marginalia of Targum Neofiti”, in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, June 22–29, 1993, managing editor Advid Assaf, 9 vols., Jerusalem 1994, Division A, 223–230. Bertinelli Angeli, M. G., Nomenclatura pubblica e sacra di Roma nelle epigrafi semitiche, Genova 1970. Beyer, K., Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten, Göttingen 1984; initial section translated into English by J. F. Healey: Klaus Beyer, The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions, Göttingen 1986. Beyers, R., “De nativitate Mariae: Problèmes d’origine”, RTP 122 (1990), 171–188. Beyschlag, W., Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2 vols., Halle 1891–1892; 2nd edition 1896; English translation: New Testament Theology, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1895. Bienaimé, G., Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et midrash, Rome 1984. (Strack, H. L. &) Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vols. 1–4, Munich 1922–1929 (repr. 1961); vols. 5–6: Indexes, 1956–1961. Billerbeck, P., “Der 110. Psalm in der altrabbinischen Literatur: Zu Mt 22, 43 ff. u. Hebr 5,6”, in (Strack &) Billerbeck, Kommentar, vol. 4, 452–465. Bischoff, E., Jesus und die Rabbinen: Jesu Bergpredigt und “Himmelreich” in ihrer Unabhängigkeit vom Rabbinismus, Leipzig 1905. Black, M., “Pharisees”, IDB 3 (1962), 53–74. –, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd edition, Oxford 1954; 3rd edition 1967. Blenkinsopp, J., Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2006. Bloch, R., “Ecriture et tradition dans le judaïsme: Aperçus sur l’origine du Midrash”, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), 9–34. –, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique”, RSR 43 (1955), 194–227; translated into English by William Scott Green with William J. Sullivan (“Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Judaism”) and published in

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

543

Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green (BJS 1), Missoula 1978, 51–75. –, “Midrash”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 1263–1280; translated into English by Mary Howard Callaway (with the assistance of James A. Sanders), “Midrash”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green (BJS 1), Missoula 1978, 29–50. Boccaccini, G., “Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic Analysis”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 254–263. Boccaccio, A., “Integer textus Targum Hierosolymitani primum inventum in Codice Vaticano”, Bib 38 (1957), 237–239. Boesch Gajano, S. (ed.), Aspetti e problemi della presenza ebraica nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XIV e XV) (Quaderni dell’instituto di scienze storiche dell’Università di Roma, 2), Rome 1983. Bogaert, P. M. See under Perrot, C. Boiteux, M., “Les juifs dans le carnaval de la Rome moderne (XVe–XVIIIe siècles)”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Âge, Temps Modernes 88 (1976), 745–787. Bonner, J., “The Conflict of Languages in the Roman World”, CJ 25 (1929–1930), 579–592. Bonsirven, J., Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ, 2 vols., Paris 1934– 1935. –, Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne, Paris 1939. –, “Les aramaïsmes de S. Jean l’Évangéliste?”, Bib 30 (1949), 405–432. –, Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles pour servir à l’intelligence du Nouveau Testament, Rome 1955. Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Berlin 1903; 2nd edition 1906. Bowker, J. W., “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelamedenu Form”, NTS 14 (1968), 96–111. –, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969. –, Jesus and the Pharisees, Cambridge 1973. Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols., New Haven 1959; 3rd edition 1976. Brayer, M. M., “Studies in the Pseudo-Jonathan of the Bible: Book of Genesis”, Ph.D. dissertation, New York, Yeshiva University, 1950. Bright, J., A History of Israel, London 1960. Brock, S. P., “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources”, JJS 30 (1979), 212–232. Broshi, M., “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period”, BASOR 236 (1979), 1–10. Brown, J. Pairman, “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-Words in the Targums”, Bib 70 (1989), 194–216. Brown, F., S. R. Driver & C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament¸ Oxford 1906. Brownlee, W. H., “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, BA 14 (1951), 54–76. –, “The Dead Sea Habaqquq Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan”, dissertation, Duke University 1953. –, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan”, JJS 7 (1956), 169–186.

544

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBL Monograph Series 11), Philadelphia 1959. Bruce, A. B., St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh 1894 (repr. 1896, 1907). Bruce, F. F., “Josephus and Daniel”, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), 148–162. Buber, S. (ed.), Midrasch Tanchuma, Wilna 1885 (repr. Jerusalem 1964). –, Midrash Tehillim, Wilna 1891 (repr. Jerusalem 1966). Buchanan, G. W., The Consequences of the Covenant, Leiden 1970. –, “Midrashim pré-tannaïtes: A propos de Prov., i–ix”, RB 72 (1965), 227–239. –, “The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research”, BTB 7 (1977), 110–122. Bultmann, R., Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen, Zurich 1949; English translation: Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting, London & New York 1956. Burkitt, F. C., “On ‘Lifting up’ and ‘Exalting’”, JTS 20 (1918–1919), 336–338. –, “Jesus and the ‘Pharisees’”, JTS 28 (1927), 392–397. Buxtorf, J., Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum in quo omnes voces chaldaicae … fideliter explicantur, in lucem editum a Johanne Buxtorfio filio, Basle 1649; re-edited in two parts by B. Fischer, Leipzig 1869–1875. Byrne, B., Romans, Collegeville 1996. Campbell, R. M., “A Fragment-Targum without a Purpose? The Raison-d’être of MS. Vatican Ebr. 440”, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 1994. Cantineau, J., Le nabatéen, 2 vols., Paris 1932 (repr. Osnabrück 1978). Capelle, P., De luna stellis, lacteo orbe animarum sedibus, Halis Saxonum (= Halle) 1917. Carozzi, C., “Structure et fonction de la Vision de Tnugdal”, in Faire Croire: Modalités de la diffusion et de la réception des messages religieux du XIIe au XIIIe siècle. Table ronde organisée par l’Ecole française de Rome 22–23 juin 1979, Paris 1981. Cartwright, C., Electa Thargumico-rabbinica, sive annotationes in Exodum: Ex triplici Thargum seu chaldaica paraphrasi, London 1658. Cartwright, C., Mellificium hebraicum, seu observationes diversimodae Hebraeorum, praesertim antiquorum, monumentis desumptae, unde plurima cum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti loca … explicantur, in Critici Sacri, London edition, 1660, vol. 9, cols. 2943–3128; Amsterdam edition, 1698, vol. 8, part 2, cols. 1271–1426. Cashdan, E., “Names and Interpretations of Names in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to the Book of Genesis”, in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by H. J. Zimmels, J. Rabbinowitz & L. Finstein, London 1967. Cassuto, H., Codices Vaticani Hebraici, codices 1–115, Vatican 1956. Cathcart, K. J., & R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Wilmington 1989. Cazelles, H., et al. (eds.), Moïse, l’homme de l’alliance, Paris 1955. Charles, R. H., The Assumption of Moses, London 1897. – (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (APOT), 2 vols., Oxford 1913 (repr. 1963). –, “The Book of Enoch”, in APOT 1, 163–281.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

545

Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (OTP), 2 vols., London 1983–1985. Chester, A., Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, Tübingen 1986. Childs, B. S., Exodus: A Commentary, London 1974. –, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia 1979. Chilton, B. D., “Isaac and the second Night: A Consideration”, Bib 61 (1980), 78–88. –, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, Sheffield 1982. –, “Varieties and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23”, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography, ed. by R. T. France & D. Wenham, vol. 3, Sheffield 1983, 9–32. –, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of his Time, Wilmington 1984. –, The Isaiah Targum, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1987. –, “Eight Theses on the Use of Targums in Interpreting the New Testament”, in B. D. Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels, Atlanta 1994, 305–315. –, “Aramaic and Targumic Antecedents of Pauline ‘Justification’”, in The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup 166), Sheffield 1994, 378– 397. –, “Four Types of Comparison between the Targumim and the New Testament”, Journal for the Aramaic Bible 2 (2000), 163–188. Churgin, P., Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1927 (reprinted with Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, with Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983). –, “The Targum and the Septuagint”, AJSL 50 (1933/34), 41–65. Cinquarbres, J. See under Quinquarboreus. Clarke, E. G., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1998. –, with W. E. Aufrecht, J. C. Hurd & F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, Hoboken 1980. Clines, D. J. A. (ed.), The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Sheffield 2009. Cohen, G. M., “The Hellenistic Military Colony – a Herodian Example”, TAPA 103 (1972), 83–95. Cohn, L., “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria”, JQR 10 (1898), 277–332. Collins, J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, New York 1983. – & G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, Chico 1980. Cothenet, B., “Marie dans les apocryphes”, in Maria: Études sur la Sainte Vierge, vol. 6, ed. by H. DuManoir, Paris 1961, 71–156. –, “Jacques, Protévangile de”, in Catholicisme 6 (1963), cols. 259–262. –, “Protévangile de Jacques”, DBSup 8 (1972), cols. 1374–1384. –, “Le Protévangile de Jacques: Origine, genre et signification d’un premier midrash sur la nativité de Marie”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. by H. Temporini & W. Haase, II: Principat, vol. 25,6, Berlin & New York 1988, 4252–4269.

546

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

Crane, O. T., The Targums on the Books of Ruth and Jonah. Literally translated from the Chaldee, New York 1886. Crown, A. D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989. Cullmann, O., “Infancy Narratives”, in E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. English translation edited by R.McL. Wilson, vol. 1, London 1963, 363–417. –, “Infancy Narratives”, in New Testament Apocrypha: Revised edition of the collection initiated by Edgar Hennecke; ed. by Wilhelm Schneemelcher; English translation ed. by R. McL. Wilson, vol. 1, Cambridge & Louisville 1991, 414–469. Dahl, N. A., “The Atonement – An Adequate Reward for the Akedah? (Ro 8:32)”, in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 15–29. Dalman, G., Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1894; 2nd edition 1905. –, Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig 1898; 2nd edition 1930; English translation, The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh 1902. –, The words of Jesus considered in the light of post-Biblical Jewish writings and the Aramaic language, vol. 1: Introduction and fundamental ideas. Authorised English Version by D. M. Kay, Edinburgh 1902. –, Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels, English translation, London 1929. Daly, R. J., “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac", CBQ 39 (1977), 45–75. –, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, Philadelphia & London 1978. –, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen, Washington 1978. Danby, H. (ed.), The Mishnah, Oxford 1933. Daris, S., Il lessico latino nel greco d’Egitto, Barcelona 1971. Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1956. –, “Paul and Judaism”, in The Bible and Modern Scholarship, ed. by J. P. Hyatt, Nashville 1965, 178–186. Davies, G. A., “Hagar, el-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai, with an Additional Note on Reqem”, VT 22 (1972), 152–163. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (1948); 2nd rev. edition, London 1958; Torchbook edition, New York & Evanston 1967. –, Christian Origins and Judaism, London & Philadelphia 1962. –, “Apocalyptic and Pharisaism”, in W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism, London & Philadelphia 1962, 19–30. –, “Paul and Judaism since Schweitzer”, in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. by J. P. Hyatt, London 1966, 178–186; reproduced as introduction in W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. De Coninck, L., & M.-J. d’Hont (eds.), Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos Iuliano Aeclensi interprete in latinum versae quae supersunt (CCSL 88A), Turnhout 1977. De Lacy, P. H., “Epicureanism and the Epicurean Schools”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York & London 1967, vol. 3, 2–3.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

547

de Lagarde, P. (ed.), S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I. Opera exegetica. Hebraicae quaestiones in Libro Geneseos […] (CCSL 72), Turnhout 1959 (repr. of Hieronymi Questiones hebraicae in libro Geneseos, Leipzig 1868). De Moor, J. C. (Project Director), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 vols., Leiden, New York & Cologne 1995–2005. De Pontac, A. See under Pontacus. De Vaux, R., & J. T. Milik, Qumrân Grotte 4. II. 1. Archéologie, par R. De Vaux (†); 2. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), par J. T. Milik, Oxford 1977. Deines, R., “The Pharisees between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism’”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Tübingen & Grand Rapids 2001, 443–504. Delitzsch, F., Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer: Aus dem Griechischen Urtext … in das Hebräische übersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert, Leipzig 1870. –, “Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae”, Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche 37–39 (1876–1878). Deutsch, C., Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30, Sheffield 1987. Díez Macho, A., “Nuevos fragmentos del Targum Palestinense”, Sefarad 15 (1955), 31–39. –, “Una copia de todo el Targum jerosolomitano en la Vaticana”, EstBíb 16 (1956), 446–447. –, “Descubrimiento del Targum palestinense completo”, Sefarad 17 (1957), 119–121. –, “Onqelos Manuscript with Babylonian Transliterated Vocalization in the Vatican Library (MS. Eb. 448)”, VT 8 (1958), 113–133. –, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relation to the Other Targums”, in Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7), Leiden 1960, 222–245. –, “El Logos y el Esiritu Santo”, Atlantida 1 (1963), 381–396. –, “La lengua hablada por Jesucristo”, OrAnt 2 (1963), 95–132 (and separately as booklet). –, “Targum y Nuevo Testamento”, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 1 (Studi e Testi 234), Vatican 1964, 153–185. –, Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, Series IV: Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum. Adduntur Targum Pseudojonatahan Targum Onkelos et Targum Palaestinensis hispanica versio, vol. 5. Deuteronomium Caput 1. Editio critica, curante Alexandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1965. –, Magister – Minister: Prof. P. E. Kahle through twelve years of correspondence, in Recent Progress in Biblical Scholarship, ed. by The Richard Kronstein Foundation for the Promotion of Jewish and Cognate Studies, Oxford 1965, 13–61. – (ed.), Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols., Madrid & Barcelona, vol. 1: Génesis, 1968; vol. 2: Éxodo; vol. 3: Levítico, 1971; vol. 4: Números, 1974; vol. 5: Deuteronomio, 1978. –, El Targum: Introducción a las traducciones aramaicas de la Biblia, Barcelona 1972. –, “Bibliographia Targumica”, in Neophyti 1: Números, ed. by A. Díez Macho, Madrid & Barcelona 1974, 11*–16*. –, La lengua hablada por Jesucristo, Madrid 1976.

548

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

– (ed.), Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum. Additur Targum Pseudojonathan ejusque hispanica versio. Editio critica curante A. Díez Macho, adjuvantibus L. Díez Merino, E. Martínez Borobio, T. Martínez Saiz. Pseudojonathan hispanica versio: T. Martínez Saiz. Targum Palaestinensis testimonia ex variis fontibus: R. Griño (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), Madrid, vol.  4: Numeri, 1977; vol. 2: Exodus, 1980; vol. 3: Leviticus, 1980; vol. 5: Deuteronomium, 1980; vol. 1: Genesis, 1988. Díez Merino, L., “La crucifixión en la antigua literature judía (Período intertestamental)”, Estudios eclesiásticos 51 (1976) 5–27. –, “El suplicio de la cruz en la literatura judia intertestamental”, Liber Annuus of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem, 26 (1976), 31–120. Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York & London 1987. Di Napoli, G., “Filodemo”, Enciclopedia Filosofica, Venice & Rome 1957, vol. 2, 389. Diodorus of Tarsus. See under Olivier, J.-M. Dobschütz, E. von, “Zum paulinischen Schriftbeweis”, ZNW 24 (1923), 306–307. Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954. Draper, H. M., “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1956), 317; 383. Drazin, I., Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with an Analysis and Commentary, Ktav Publishing House (no place of publication indicated), 1982. –, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary, New York 1994. Drews, A., Die Christusmythe, Jena 1909; English translation by C. Delisle Burns, The Christ Myth, London 1910. Driver, S. R., The Book of Exodus, Cambridge 1911. Drummond, J., The Jewish Messiah: A Critical History of the Messianic Idea among the Jews from the Rise of the Maccabees to the Closing of the Talmud, London 1877. Dunn, J. D. G., Romans 9–16, Dallas 1988. Dupont, J., Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, Paris 1967. Duval, R., La littérature syriaque, Paris 1899. Elbogen, I., Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 3rd edition, Frankfurt 1931. Ellis, E. E., Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh & London 1957. –, “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Citations”, Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. by E. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 61–69. Ephrem: St. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, ed. by R. M. Tonneau, Louvain 1955. Epiphanius. See under Holl, K.. Epstein, I. (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, 18 vols., London 1978. Esposito, A., “Gli ebrei a Roma nella seconda metà del ’400 attraverso i protocolli del notaio Giovanni Angelo Amati”, in Aspetti e problemi della presenza ebraica nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XIV e XV), ed. by S. Boesch Gajano (Quaderni dell’instituto di scienze storiche dell’Università di Roma), Rome 1983, 29–97. Etheridge, J. W., The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum, 2 vols., London 1862–1865 (repr. in one vol., New York 1968).

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

549

Eusebius, Onomasticon: E. Klostermann (ed.), Eusebius Werke, vol. 3/1: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, Leipzig 1904. Féghali, P., “Influence des Targums sur la pensée exégétique d’Ephrem?”, OCA 229 (1984), 71–82. Fiebig, P., Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche übersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen dargeboten, Göttingen 1924. Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 1, Oxford 1875. Finkel, A., The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth, Leiden & Cologne 1964. Finkelstein, L., Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays, New York 1972. Fishbane, M., “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-biblical Exegesis”, JBL 99 (1980), 343–361. –, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985. –, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel”, in Midrash and Literature, ed. by G. H. Hartman & S. Budick, New Haven & London 1986, 19–37 (repr. in idem, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics, Bloomington etc. 1989, 3–18). Fitzmyer, J. A., –, “‘Now this Melchizedek …’ (Heb 7,1)”, CBQ 23 (1963), 309–313. –, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, Rome 1966. –, Review of M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (1966), TS 29 (1968), 322–326. –, Review of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967), in CBQ 30 (1968), 417–428. –, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501–531 (reproduced in J. A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean [see below], 29–56). –, Review of A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense; ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana … Génesis, CBQ 32 (1970), 107–112. –, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, London 1971. –, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament”, NTS 20 (1974), 382–407 (reprinted in A Wandering Aramean [see below], 85–113; reproduced, with same pagination in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [see above]). –, “Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus’ Sayings in the New Testament”, in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (BETL 40), ed. by J. Dupont et al., Gembloux 1975, 73–102. –, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25), Missoula 1979. –, “The Study of the Aramaic Background on the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean (see above), 1–27. –, “The Phases of the Aramaic Language”, in A Wandering Aramean (see above), 57–84. –, “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 5–21. –, Romans, New York & London 1993. –, The Semitic Background of the New Testament, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 1997. Flesher, P. V. M., “Is Targum Onkelos a Palestinian Targum? The Evidence of Genesis 28–50”, JSP 19 (1999), 35–79.

550

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in the Social and Linguistic Context”, in The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200, ed. by B. Olsson & M. Zetterholm, Stockholm 2003, 467–509. – & B. D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Waco 2011. Flower, R., Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 2, London 1926 (repr. Dublin 1992). Ford, J. M., “Crucify him, Crucify him, and the Temple Scroll”, ExpTim 87 (1976), 273–278. Forestell, J. T., Targumic Traditions and the New Testament: An Annotated Bibliography with a New Testament Index, Chico 1979. Fraade, S. D., Enosh and his Generation: Pre-Israeite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation (SBLMS 30), Chico 1984. France, R. T., “Jewish Historiography, Midrash and the Gospels”, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography, ed. by R. T. France & D. Wenham, vol. 3, Sheffield 1983, 99–127. Frankel, Z., Ueber den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851. Freedman, H., “Sinai”, Encyclopedia Judaica, vol.  14, Jerusalem 1972, cols. 1593– 1600. –, Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, 3rd edition, London & New York 1983. – & M. Simon, The Midrash Rabbah, 5 vols., London 1977. Freimark, P., & W.-F. Krämer, Die Tosefta, Seder 1: Zeraim, 2: Demai  – Shebiit, übersetzt and erklärt von P. Freimark & W.-F. Krämer, Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne & Mainz 1971. Freyne, S., Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism, Wilmington & Notre Dame 1980. García Martínez, F., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated from the Spanish by W. G. E. Watson, 2nd edition, Leiden, New York & Cologne 1994. Gard, D. H., The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBL Monograph Series 8), Philadelphia 1952 (repr. 1967). –, “The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job”, JBL 73 (1954), 137–143. Gardiner, A., Egyptian Grammar, 2nd edition, London 1950. Garofalo, A., “I papi ed i medici ebrei di Roma”, Pagine di storia della scienza e della tecnica (Rome) 2 (1948), 1–25. Gehman, H. S., “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15”, JBL 68 (1949), 231–240. Geiger, A., Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Breslau 1857 (repr. Frankfurt on Main 1928). Gerhardsson, B., The Good Samaritan – The Good Shepherd? (ConBNT 16), Lund & Copenhagen 1958. –, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Uppsala 1961 (repr. Grand Rapids 1998). –, The Testing of God’s Son. Mt. 4:1–11 and par: An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash (ConBNT 2), Lund 1968. Gerleman, G., “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic Document”, Oudtestamentische Studien 8 (1950), 15–27.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

551

Gerson, D., “Die Commentarien des Ephraem Syrus im Verhältnis zur jüdischen Exegese: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese”, MGWJ 17 (1868) 15–33, 64–72, 98–109, 141–149. Gertner, M., “Midrashim in the New Testament”, JSS 7 (1962), 267–292. Gese, H., “ĞƱ Ďƫ ŊčƩě ýēėǬ ƁěęĜ őĝĞƯė őė ĞǼ ʼněċČưǪ (Gal 4,25)”,, in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. by Fritz Maaß (BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, 81–94; reprinted in idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion (Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie 64), Munich 1974, 49–62. Geyer, P. (ed.), Ad Loca sancta peregrinatio in Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi III–IV (CSEL 39), Vienna 1898. Gfrörer, A. F., Geschichte des Urchristentums, Stuttgart 1838. Gianotto, C., Melchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C.–sec. III d.C.), Brescia 1984. Gill, J., Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song, 2nd edition, London 1751. Ginsburg, C. D., Song of Songs, London 1857. –, Coheleth, London 1861 (both commentaries repr. in one vol., New York 1970). Ginsburger, M., Das Fragmententhargum, Berlin 1899. –, Pseudo-Jonathan: Thargum-Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch. Nach der Londoner Handschrift (Brit. Mus. Add. 27031), Berlin 1903. –, “Verbotene Thargumim”, MGWJ 44 (1900), 3–5. –, “La traduction de la Bible d’après Hai Gaon”, REJ 42 (1901), 232–236. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., Philadelphia 1909–1938 (repr. 1946– 1964; Baltimore & London 1998). Goldin, J., “The Thinking of the Rabbis”, Judaism 5 (1956), 3–12. Gollancz, H., Translations from Hebrew and Aramaic, London 1908. Golomb, D. M., A Grammar of Targum Neofiti, Chico 1985. –, “Methodological Considerations in Pentateuchal Targumic Research”, JSP 18 (1998), 3–25. Gordon, R., Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51), Leiden 1994. Gordon, T. D., “A Note on paidagogos in Galatians 3:24–25”, NTS 35 (1989), 150– 154. Grabbe, L. L., “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its Date”, JBL 98 (1979), 393–401. Gray, G. B., “Psalms of Solomon”, in APOT 2, 625–652. Green, W. S. (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (BJS 1), Missoula 1978. Greene, J. T., Balaam and his Interpreters: A Hermeneutical History of the Balaam Traditions, Atlanta 1992. Greenfield, J., Review of the republication of Etheridge’s translation of the Targum to the Pentateuch in JBL 89 (1970), 238–239. Greenup, A. W. (transl.), The Targum of the Book of Lamentations, Sheffield 1893. Grelot, P., “De son ventre couleront des fleuves d’eau”, RB 66 (1959), 369–386. –, “A propos de Jean VII, 38”, RB 67 (1960), 224–225. –, “Sagesse 10,21 et le targum de l’Exode”, Bib 42 (1961), 49–60. –, “L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe LXIII, 1–6”, RB 70 (1963), 371–380.

552

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

Griño, R., “Anejo I: Citas del Targum palestinense en diversas fuentes”, in Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum, vol.  1: Genesis (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV), ed. by A. Díez Macho, Madrid 1988, 411–435. Gronemann, S., Die Jonathan’sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Halacha, Leipzig 1870. Grossfield, B., A Bibliography of Targum Literature, Cincinnati & New York 1972. –, The Targums of the Five Megilloth, New York 1973. –, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988. –, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988. –, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988. –, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1988. –, “Targum Onqelos, Halakha and the Halakhic Midrashim”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 228–246. –, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis including full Rabbinic Parallels, New York 2000. Haas, L., “Bibliography on Midrash”, in The Study of Ancient Judaism, ed. by J. Neusner, vol. 1: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, New York 1981, 93–106. Hare, D. R. A., “The Lives of the Prophets (First Century a.d.)”, in OTP 2, 379–399. Harrington, D. J., “Pseudo-Philo (First Century a.d.): A New Translation and Introduction”, in OTP 2, 299–377. –, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1), Collegeville 1991. Harris, R., “Traces of Targumism in the New Testament”, ExpTim 32 (1920/21), 373–376. Hartley, J. E., Leviticus, Dallas 1992. Hartman, G. H., & S. Budick (eds.), Midrash and Literature, New Haven & London 1986. Hayward, R., Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, Totowa 1981. –, The Targum of Jeremiah, Wilmington 1987. –, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1995. –, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic”, JSS 34 (1989), 77–93. –, “The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments”, JJS 40 (1989), 7–30. –, “Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-Sheba in the Targums of the Pentateuch”, JJS 49 (1998), 24–37. –, “The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”, JSP 19 (1999), 81–101. –, “Major Aspects of Targumic Studies 1983–1993: A Survey”, Currents in Research 2 (1994), 107–122. –, in M. McNamara & R. Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus, Collegeville 1994. –, Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 10), Leiden 2010. Hecht, R. D., “Philo and Messiah”, in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. by J. Neusner et al., Cambridge & New York 1987, 139–168. Heinemann, J., “Ancient Exegetical Traditions in the Aggadah and the Targumim” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 35 (1965–1966), 84–89. –, Aggadah and its Development (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1974, 98–102.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

553

Heinrici, G., Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Göttingen 1880. Helvicus (Helvig), C., Tractatus Historicus et Theologicus de Chaldaicis Bibliorum Paraphrasibus, earum Origine, Numero, Autoribus, Antiquitate, Differentiis, Autoritate, & insigni Usu in Controversiis Theologicis, ac Scripturae Interpretationibus, Giessen 1612. –, “Tractatus Historicus et Theologicus de Libris Thargumicis, Thalmudicis et Chaldaicis paraphrasibus adversus Iudaeos”, in L. Tena, Commentaria & disputationes in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Hebraeos, London 1661. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols., London & Philadelphia 1974. –, The Hellenization of Judaism in the First Century after Christ, London & Philadelphia 1989. –, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 a.d., Edinburgh 1989; 2nd edition 1997. Hennecke, E., & W. Schneemelcher (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha, English translation by R.McL. Wilson, vol. 1, London 1963; revised edition, Cambridge, England & Louisville 1991. Herford, R. T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London 1903. –, The Pharisees, New York 1924 (repr. paperback, Boston 1962). Hidal, S., Interpretatio Syriaca: Die Kommentare des hl. Ephräm des Syrers zu Genesis und Exodus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer auslegungsgeschichtlichen Stellung (ConB.OT 6), Lund 1974. Hilberg, I. (ed.), Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, Pars II: Epistulae LXXI–CXX (CSEL 55), 2nd edition, Vienna 1996. Hildesheimer, H., Beiträge zur Geographie Palästinas (Jahresbericht des RabbinerSeminars zu Berlin 1884/85), Berlin 1886. Hirsch, E. G. et al., “Shem”, JE 11 (1905), 261–262. Hoftijzer, J. See under Jean, Ch.F. Holl, K., & J. Dummer (eds.), Epiphanius. Panarion haereseon 34–64, Berlin 21980. Horton, F. L., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cambridge 1976. Hulst, A. R., Old Testament Translation Problems, Leiden 1960. Hyatt, J. P., Exodus, London 1971. – (ed.), The Bible in Modern Scholarship, London 1966. Jacobson, H., A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum. With Latin Text and English Translation, Leiden 1996. James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1953. Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York & London 1903 (repr. New York 1950). Jean, Ch.F., & J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest, Leiden 1965. Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London & Philadelphia 1969; original title: Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, Göttingen 1962. Jerome. See under de Lagarde, P. Joüon, P., “Mots grecs de l’araméen d’Onkelos ou de l’hébreu de la Mishna qui se trouvent aussi dans les Évangiles”, RSR 22 (1932), 462–469. Kadushin, M., Organic Thinking: A Study of Rabbinic Thought, New York 1938.

554

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, The Rabbinic Mind, 2nd edition, New York 1965; 3rd edition, New York 1972. Kahle, P., Masoreten des Westens II: Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum, die palästinische Punktation, der Bibeltext des Ben Naftali, Stuttgart 1930 (repr. Hildesheim 1967). –, “Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum und das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäisch”, ZNW 49 (1958), 100–116. –, The Cairo Geniza (The Schweich Lectures), London 1947; 2nd rev. edition, Oxford 1959. Kasher, M., Torah Shelemah, vol.  24: Aramaic Versions of the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of Onkelos, Jonathan, Jerusalem Targums and the Full Jerusalem Targum of the Vatican Manuscript Neofiti 1, Jerusalem 1974. –, Torah Shelemah, vol. 35 (= Aramaic Versions of the Bible, vol. 2), Jerusalem 1983. –, “āėþĕýėčĂāĈ” (“High Priesthood”), in Torah Shelemah, vol. 35, 170–185. Kaufman, S. A., Akkadian Influences in Aramaic, Chicago 1974. –, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology”, JSNT 23 (1985), 117–124. –, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 118–141. – & M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti: A Guide to the Complete Palestinian Aramaic Text of the Torah, Baltimore & London 1993. – & Yeshayahu Maori, “The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum”, in Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project 16, ed. by M. Goshen-Gottstein, Jerusalem 1991, 13–78. Kautzsch, E., Die Apokryphen mid Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, vol. 2, Tübingen 1900. Kearns, C., “Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach)”, in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, new and fully revised edition, London 1969. Kee, H., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, in OTP 1, 775–828. Keener, C. S., The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols., Peabody 2003. Kisch, G., Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Notre Dame 1949. Klausner, J., From Jesus to Paul (1939), English translation from the Hebrew by W. F. Stinespring, London 1942 (American edition 1944). Klein, M. L., Review of B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, Cincinnati & New York 1972, Bib 55 (1974), 281–285. –, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their extant Sources, 2 vols., Rome 1980. –, “Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics”, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45. –, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim”, in Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, ed. by J. A. Emerton (VTSup 32), Leiden 1981, 162–177. –, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]); published Jerusalem 1982. –, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Cincinnati 1986. Klein, S., “Das tannaitische Grenzverzeichnis Palästinas”, HUCA 5 (1928), 197–259.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

555

Klostermann, E. (ed.), Eusebius Werke, vol. 3/1: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, Leipzig 1904. Knox, R., On Englishing the Bible, London 1949. Koch, K., “Die drei Gerechtigkeiten: Die Umformung einer hebräischen Idee im aramäischen Denken nach dem Jesajatargum”, in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen 1976, 245–267. Kohler, K., “Melchizedek”, JE 8 (1905), 450. Komlosh, Y., “Ha-Aggadah betargumê birkat Ya‘akob”, Annual of Bar-Ilan University: Studies in Judaica and the Humanities, vol. 1: Pinkhos Churgin Memorial Volume, ed. by F. Z. Hirschberg & P. Artzl, Jerusalem 1963, 195–206. Kosmala, H., “Damascus Document 7:9–21”, in Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls: In Memory of E. L. Sukenik, ed. by Ch. Rabin & Y. Yadin, Jerusalem 1961, 183–190. Kosovsky, C. Y. (ed.), Otsar leshon ha-Mishnah. Thesaurus Mishnae: Concordantiae verborum quae in sex Mishnae ordinibus reperiuntur, rev. edition, Tel Aviv 1967. Krauss, S., Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Teil II: Wörterbuch, Berlin 1899 (repr. Hildesheim 1964). Kugel, J. L., “On Hidden hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17”, HTR 80 (1987), 43–61. Kuhn, K. G., “Balaam”, TDNT 1 (1964), 524–525. Kutscher, E. Y., “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon”, in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), Jerusalem 1957, 1–35 (and separately); reproduced in idem, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, ed. by Z. Ben-Hayyim et al., Jerusalem 1977, 90–155. –, “Das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäisch”, ZNW 51 (1960), 46–54. Lacoque, A., The Book of Daniel, London 1979. Lagrange, M.-J., Le messianisme chez les Juifs (150 av. J.-C. à 200 ap. J.-C.), Paris 1909. Larch, D., Isaaks Opferung christlich gedeutet, Tübingen 1950. Lattey, C., “Le verbe ƊĢęȘė dans saint Jean”, RSR 3 (1912), 597–598. –, “The Semitisms of the Fourth Gospel”, JTS 20 (1918–1919), 330–336. Lauterbach, J. Z. (ed.), Mekhilta de-rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols., Philadelphia 1933–1939 (repr. 1949). Leaney, A. R. C., “Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert”, in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by J. K. Elliott (NovTSup 44), Leiden 1976, 283–300. Le Déaut, R., “Traditions juives dans le corpus paulinien?”, Bib 42 (1961), 28–48. –, “Le titre de summus sacerdos donné a Melchisédech est’il d’origine juive?”, RSR 50 (1962), 222–229. –, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Rome 1963. –, “La présentation targumique du sacrifice d’Isaac et la sotériologie paulinienne”, in Studiorum paulinorum congressus internationalis catholicus 1961, 2 vols., vol. 2, Rome 1963, 563–574 (also paginated separately as 1–12). –, Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament, Rome 1965. –, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Rome 1966. –, “Jalons pour une histoire d’un manuscrit du Targum palestinien (Neofiti 1)”, Bib 48 (1967), 509–533.

556

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, “Lévitique XXII 26–XXIII 44 dans le Targum palestinien: De l’importance des gloses du codex Neofiti 1”, VT 18 (1968), 458–471. –, “A propos d’une définition du midrash”, in Bib 50 (1969), 395–413; English translation by Mary C. Howard: “A propos a Definition of Midrash”, in Int 25 (1971), 262–282, with introduction by James A. Sanders (259–261). –, “The Current State of Targumic Studies”, BTB 4 (1974), 3–32. –, “Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”, in BTB 4 (1974), 243– 289. –, “Targum”, DBSup 13 (2002), cols. 308*–309*. – & J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques, 2 vols. (AnBib 51), Rome 1971. – & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions palestiniennes complètes avec introduction, parallèles, notes et index, 4 vols., Paris, vol. 1: Genèse, 1978; vol. 2: Exode et Lévitique, 1979; vol. 3: Nombres, 1979; vol. 4: Deutéronome, 1980. Lehmann, M. R., “1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim”, RevQ 1 (1958), 249–263. Le Moyne, J., & A. Michel, “Pharisiens”, DBSup 7 (1966), cols. 1022–1115. Lentzen-Deis, F., Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Frankfurt 1970. –, “Das Motiv der ‘Himmelsöffnung’ in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments”, in Bib 50 (1959), 301–327. Lerner, M., “Bereshith Rabba: Die Versionen des Akylas, Onkelos, Jonathan und Jeruschalmi”, Magazin 7 (1880), 231–237. Lesêtre, H., “Midrasch”, Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. by E. Vigouroux, vol. 4, Paris 1908, cols. 1077–1079. Levey, S. H., The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targums, New York 1974. –, The Targum of Ezekiel, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1987. Levi, I., “Le sacrifice d’Isaac et la mort de Jésus”, REJ 64 (1912), 161–184. Levi, M., “Ueber Onkelos und seine Uebersetzung des Pentateuch”, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 5 (1844), 175–198. Levine, E., The Aramaic Version of Ruth, Rome 1973. –, The Aramaic Version of Jonah, Jerusalem 1975. –, The Aramaic Version of Lamentations, New York 1976. –, The Aramaic Vension of Qohelet, New York 1978. Levita, Elias, Meturgeman: Lexicon Chaldaicum, Isny 1541. Levy, B. Barry, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, Lanham, New York & London, vol. 1: Introduction, Genesis, Exodus, 1986; vol. 2: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1987. Levy, J., Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums, Leipzig 1867–1868 (repr. Cologne 1959, 1966). –, Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim, 2nd edition, Berlin & Vienna 1925 (repr. Darmstadt 1963). Lewis, A. S. (ed.), A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary Containing Lessons from the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Prophets, Acts, and Epistles. With critical notes by Eberhard Nestle, London 1897. Lewis, D. M., Review of J. N. Sevenster, Do you know Greek?, JTS 20 (1969), 583– 588.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

557

Lieberman, P. (ed.), Hebrew Text in The Tosefta according to the Codex Vienna, 2nd edition, Seder Mo‘ed, Jerusalem 1992. Lightfoot, J., Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, Cambridge, England, Impensae I: In Chorographiam aliquam terrae Israeliticae, II: In Evangelium S. Matthaei, 1658; Impensae in Evangelium Sancti Marci, 1663; Impensae in epistolam primam S. Pauli ad Corinthios, 1664; Impensae in Evangelium S. Lucae, 1674. –, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (in Theologiam Judaeorum dogmaticam antiquam et orthodoxam de Messia). Quibus Horae J. Lightfooti in libris historicis supplentur, Epistolae et Apocalypsis eodem modo illustrantur, 2 vols., Dresden & Leipzig 1733–1742. –, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Impensae in Acta Apostolorum, ed. by Richard Kidder, in M. Simonis Episcopii S. S. Theologiae in academia Leydensi quondam professoris opera theologica, London 1678. Loewe, H., “The Dating of Rabbinic Materials”, in A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. by C. G. Montefiore & H. Loewe, Cleveland, New York & Philadelphia 1963, 709–713. Loewe, R. J., “Apologetic Motifs in the Targums to the Song of Songs”, in Biblical Motifs, ed. by A. Altman, Cambridge, Mass. 1966, 159–196. Longenecker, B. W. “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7”, JETS 25 (1982), 53–61. –, “The Law was our Pedagogue”: A Study of Galatians 3:19–25”, JBL 105 (1986), 481–498. Lyonnet, S., “S. Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps: À propos de Rom., 10,6–8”, in Mélanges bibliques: Rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert, Paris 1957, 494–506. –, Quaestiones in Epistulam ad Romanos, Series altera, Rome 1962. –, “‘Tu ne convoiteras pas’ (Rom vii 7)”, in Neotestamentica et Patristica [Festschrift O. Cullmann] (NovTSup 6), Leiden 1962, 157–165. Maher, M., “The Meturgemanim and Prayer” I, JJS 41 (1990), 226–246; II, JJS 44 (1993), 220–235. –, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Collegeville 1992. –, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, Collegeville 1994. Maire Vigueur, J.-C., “Les juifs à Rome dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle: Information tirée d’un fonds notarié”, in Aspetti e problemi della presenza ebraica nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XIV e XV), ed. by S. Boesch Gajano (Quaderni dell’instituto di scienze storiche dell’Università di Roma 2), Rome 1983, 19–28. Malina, B., “Matthew 2 and Is 41,2–3, a possible Relationship?”, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 17 (1967), 291–303. Mallon, A., Grammaire Copte, Beyrouth 1956. Maneschg, H., Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange (Num 21,4–9) in der Auslegung der frühen jüdischen Literatur: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie, Frankfurt on Main 1981. Marcus, R., “The Pharisees in the Light of Modern Scholarship”, JR 32 (1952), 153–164. Marmorstein, A., The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, London 1920. Marmorstein, M., Studien zum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum. 1. Das Targum und die apokryphe Literatur, Posen 1905.

558

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, “Einige vorläufige Bemerkungen zu den neuentdeckten Fragmenten des jerusalemischen (palästinischen) Targums”, ZAW 49 (1931), 231–242. Martin, F. X., Friar, Reformer, and Renaissance Scholar: Life and Work of Giles of Viterbo 1469–1532, Villanova 1992. Martin, M. F., “The Palaeographical Character of Codex Neofiti 1”, Textus 3 (1963), 1–35. Mason, R. A., “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah ix–xiv: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis”, Ph.D. dissertation, King’s College, London, 1973. Mathews, G., Jr., & J. P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works: Commentary on Genesis …, Washington 1994. Matter, E. A., The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity, Philadelphia 1990. McEleny, N. J., “Orthodoxy in Judaism in the First Christian Century”, JSJ 4 (1973), 19–42. McIvor, J. Stanley, The Targum of Chronicles, Wilmington & Edinburgh 1994. McNamara, M., “Targumic Studies”, CBQ 28 (1966), l–19. –, “The Aramaic Translations: A Newly recognised Aid for New Testament Study”, Scrip 18 (1966), 47–56. –, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27), Rome 1966 (repr. with additions, 1978). –, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament, Shannon, Ireland & Grand Rapids 1972. –, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church, Dublin 1975, 1984 (with corrections). –, “Targums”, IDBSup, 856–861. –, “The Spoken Aramaic of the First Century Palestine”, in Church Ministry, ed. by A. Mayes (PIBA 2), Dublin 1977, 95–138. –, “Half a Century of Targum Study”, Irish Biblical Studies 1 (1979), 157–168. –, “‘To Prepare a Resting-Place for You’: A targumic Expression and John 14:2 f.”, Milltown Studies 3 (1979), 100–107. –, Intertestamental Literature, Wilmington 1983. –, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Wilmington 1983. –, “On Englishing the Targums”, in Salvación en la Palabra: Targum  – Derash  – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, ed. by D. Muñoz León, Madrid 1986, 447–461. –, “Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”, PIBA 11 (1987; published 1988), 67–87. –, “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) Numbers Chapter 21”, SNTU 16 (1991), 127–149. –, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Collegeville 1992. –, “Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers Chapter 24”, PIBA 16 (1993), 57–79. –, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus, Collegeville 1994. –, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Collegeville 1995. –, “Patristic Background to Medieval Irish Ecclesiastical Sources”, in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit, ed. by T. Finan & V. Twomey, Dublin 1995, 253–281. –, “Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology”, Apocrypha 6 (1995), 127–164.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

559

–, “Some Aspects of Early Irish Medieval Eschatology”, in Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: Learning and Literature, ed. by P. Ní Chatháin & M. Richter, Stuttgart 1996, 42–75. –, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Collegeville 1997. –, “The Colophon to Neofiti 1”, JSP 19 (1999), 147–157. –, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic Literature and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000), 1–31. –, “Towards an English Synoptic Presentation of the Pentateuchal Targums”, in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. by P. V. M. Flesher, Leiden & Boston 2002, 3–27. –, “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targums”, in A History of Biblical Interpretation, ed. by A. J. Hauser & D. F. Watson, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, Grand Rapids & Cambridge, England 2003, 167–197. –, Targum and Testament Revisited, Grand Rapids 2010. –, “Targum and Testament: A Revisit”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. by R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P. J. Tomson, Leiden 2010, 387–427. –, & D. R. G. Beattie (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994. –, & R. Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus, Collegeville 1994. Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1: The Root of the Problem and the Person, New York & London, etc. 1991. Menn, E. M., Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (JSJSup 51), Leiden 1997. Mercier, M., Chaldaea Translatio Abdiae et Jonae Prophetarum, Latino Sermone recens donata, cum scholiis haud poenetendis, per Johannem Mercerum, Paris 1550, apud Martinum Iuuenem. –, Chaldaea Translatio Haggaei Prophetae, recens Latinitate donata, cum scholiis haud infrugiferis, per Iohannem Mercerum, Paris 1551, apud Iuuenem. –, Chaldaea Jonathae in sex Prophetas Interpretatio, Michaeam, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophoniam, Zachariam & Malachiam, Latinitate nunc primum donata, & scholiis illustrata, per Iohannem Mercerum, Paris 1559, apud C. Stephanum. –, Ionathae Vzielis filii … Chaldaea Interpretatio sex Prophetarum, Hoseae, Joelis, Amos, Abdiae, Ionae & Haggaei, per Ioann. Mercerum … Latine reddita, Paris 1559, apud C. Moralium. Meuschen, J. G., Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum, Leipzig 1736. Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte und die Anfänge des Christentums, Stuttgart 1923 (repr. Darmstadt 1962). Michel, A., & J. Le Moyne, “Pharisiens”, DBSup 7 (1966), cols. 1022–1115. Michel, O., Paulus und seine Bibel, Gütersloh 1929. Milgrom, J., Leviticus 1–16, New York & London etc. 1991. –, Leviticus 23–27, New York & London etc. 2001. Milik, J. T., “‘Saint-Thomas de Phordesa’ et Gen. 14,17”, Bib 42 (1961), 77–84. Millar, M. P., “ Targum Midrash and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”, JSJ 2 (1971), 29–82. Moloney, F. J., The Johannine Sone of Man, Rome 1978. Montefiore, C. G., Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays, London 1914.

560

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

–, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, London 1930; reproduced with preface by E. Mihaly, New York 1970. Moore, G. F., “Christian Writers on Judaism”, HTR 14 (1921), 197–254. –, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, Cambridge, Mass., vols. 1 and 2, 1927; vol. 3: Notes, 1930. Morrison, C. E., “The ‘Hour of Distress’ in Targum Neofiti and the ‘Hour’ in the Gospel of John”, CBQ 67 (2005), 590–603. Mortensen, B. P., “Pseudo-Jonathan and Economics for Priests”, JSP 20 (1999), 39–71. –, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession, Leiden & Boston 2006. Moule, C. F. D., “Once more, who were the Hellenists?”, ExpTim 70 (1958–1959), 100–102. Muñoz (León), D., “Apéndice sobre el Memra de Yahweh en el MS Neophyti I” (a brief synthesis of his Dios-Palabra), in A. Díez Macho (ed.), Neophyti 1, vol. 3: Levítico, Madrid & Barcelona 1971, Introduction, 70*–83*. –, Dios-Palabra: Memra en los targumín del Pentateuco, Granada 1974. –, Gloria de la Shekina en los targumím del Pentateuco, Madrid 1977. – (ed.), Salvación en la Palabra: Targum – Derash – Berith. En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986. Muntner, S., “Medicine”, EncJud 11 (1972), 1178–1195. Murphy, F., Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible, New York 1993. Murphy-O’Connor, J., review of M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, ITQ 39 (1972), 396–398. Neusner, J., –, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, Leiden 1962; rev. edition 1970. –, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1: The Parthian Period, Leiden 1965. –, The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, 3 vols., Leiden 1971. –, “The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 a.d.: The Problem of Oral Tradition”, Kairos N. F. (1972), 57–70. –, “The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees in Modern Historiography”, Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal 19 (1972), 78–108. –, “Types and Forms in Ancient Jewish Literature: Some Comparisons”, History of Religion 11 (1972), 354–390. – (ed.), The Modern Study of the Mishnah, Leiden 1973. –, From Politics to Piety: The Emergency of Pharisaic Judaism, Englewood Cliffs 1973 (repr. New York 1979). –, First Century Judaism in Crisis: Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of Torah, Nashville 1973. –, “Introduction”, in Understanding Rabbinic Judaism: From Talmud to Modern Times, ed. by J. Neusner, New York 1974, 5–26. –, The Tosefta, 6 vols., Hoboken 1977–1986. –, “The Use of the Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of First-Century Pharisaism”, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. by W. S. Green, Missoula 1978, 215–225. – (ed.), The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 1: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, New York 1981.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

561

–, The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew. Second Division. Moed, New York 1981. –, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Chicago 1982. –, Midrash in Context, Philadelphia 1983. –, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation, 3 vols., Atlanta 1985. –, What is Midrash?, Philadelphia 1987. –, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven & London 1988. Nickels, P., Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography together with a New Testament Index, Rome 1967. Nida, E. A., & C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden 1969. Nöldeke, T., Die alttestamentliche Literatur: In einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt, Leipzig 1868. Nork, F., Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig 1839. Odeberg, H., Grammar of Galilaean Aramaic, Lund & Leipzig 1939. Ogg, G., “The Cultural Setting”, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, revised translation, ed. by G. Vermes et al., vol. 2, Edinburgh 1979, 1–84. Okamoto, H., “The Historical Significance of the Codex Neofiti, with Special Reference to Exodus” (dissertation, Hebrew Union College  – Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, 1974). –, “A Geonic Phrase in MS. Targum Yerushalmi, Codex Neofiti 1”, JQR 66 (1976), 160–167. Olivier, J. M. (ed.), Diodori Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos, vol. 1: Commentarii in Psalmos I–L (CCSG 6), Turnhout 1980. Parkes, J., Jesus, Paul and the Jews, London 1936. Pauli, C. W. H., The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Prophet Isaiah, London 1871. Perez Fernandez, M., Tradiciones mesianicas en el Targum Palestinense: Estudios exegéticos, Valencia & Jerusalem 1981. Perrot, C., “Les récits d’enfance dans la Haggada”, RSR 55 (1967), 481–518. – & P. M. Bogaert (eds.), Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquités Bibliques, vol. 2, Paris 1976. Peters, C., “Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs”, Le Muséon 48 (1935), 1–54. Petuchowski, J. J., “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, HUCA 28 (1957), 127–136. –, “Melchisedech – Urgestalt der Ökumene”, in idem, Melchisedech: Urgestalt der Ökumene. Das Religionskundliche Institut der SOD in Freiburg widmet diese Schrift seinem Förderer Dr. Dr. h.c. Theophil Herder-Dorneich zur Vollendung des 80. Lebensjahres am 31. Dezember 1978, Freiburg, Basel & Wien 1979, 11–37. Pfleiderer, O., Der Paulinismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christliche Theologie, Leipzig 1873; 2nd edition, Berlin 1890. English translation of first German edition: Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology, 2 vols., London 1877. Philippson, P., “Philodemus”, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. by G. Wissowa, vol. 19/2, Stuttgart 1938, cols. 2444–2482. Pinès, J., “Des médecins juifs en service de la papauté du XIIe au XVIIe siècle”, Revue d’histoire de la médicine hébraïque 18 (1965), 123–132. Piovanelli, P., “Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées”, Apocrypha 4 (1993), 25–64.

562

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

Plummer, A., The Gospel according to S. Luke, 4th edition, Edinburgh 1901 (repr. 1905). Pontacus, A. (Arnauld de Pontac), Vaticinationes Abdiae, Jonae, & Sophoniae, Prophetarum, Caldaea expositione, quatenus variat ab Hebraeo, & commentaries trium insignium Rabbinorum Salomonis, Iarhho, Abraham Aben Ezre, & Dauidis Kimhhi illustratae, interprete Ar. Pontaco, Paris 1566, apud Martinum Iuuenem. Porton, G., “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman Period”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, ed. by H. Temporini & W. Haase, II. Principat, vol. 19.2, Berlin & New York 1979, 104–135. –, “Defining Midrash”, in The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 1: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. by J. Neusner, New York 1981, 55–92. –, “Midrash”, ABD 4 (1992), 818–822. Preisker, H., “ĖēĝĒƲĜ, IV: The Concept of Reward in the New Testament”, TDNT 4 (1967), 714–728. Puech, E., “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)”, RevQ 15/60 (1992), 475–522. –, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité¸ résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien, 2 vols., Paris 1993. Quinquarboreus, J. (Cinquarbres), Targum, sive Paraphrasis Caldaica … Jonathanis … in Hoseae, Joelis, et Amosi, gravissimas prophetias, atque etiam in Ruthae et Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae incerto authore Caldaeo, nunc primum latinitate donata, interprete I. Quinquarborei … additae sunt etiam eiusdem Quinquarborei in singula capita annotationes non poenitendae, etc. Rabin, Ch., “Hittite Words in Hebrew”, Or 32 (1963), 134–136. –, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century”, in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai & M. Stern, vol. 2, Philadelphia 1976, 1007–1039. Raphael, D., “Geographic Names and Names for Nations in Targum Onqelos”, Beth Miqra 96 (1983), 73 (in Hebrew). Rappoport, S., Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Frankfurt on Main 1930. Rendtorff, R., Leviticus, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985. Rivkin, E., “Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources”, HUCA 40–41 (1969– 1970), 234–238. –, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees’ Search for the Kingdom Within, Nashville 1978. –, “Pharisees”, IDBSup, 567–663. Robert, A., “Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. i–ix”, RB 43 (1934), 42–68, 172–204, 374–384; 44 (1935), 344–365. –, “Le genre littéraire du Cantique des Cantiques”, Vivre et penser: Recherches d’exégèse et d’histoire 3 (1943/44), 192–213. –, “Littéraires, genres”, DBSup 5 (1957), cols. 405–421. Robert, J., see under Le Déaut. Rocchi, V., “Gli ebrei e l’esercizio della medicina di fronte alle leggi della Chiesa e del governo di Roma papale”, Rivista di storia critica delle scienze mediche e naturali 1 (1910), 32–39. Rodríguez Carmona, A., Targum y Resurrección: Estudios de los textos del Targum Palestinense sobre la resurrección, Granada 1978. –, “La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targúmica”, EstBíb 37 (1978), 79–102. Ronning, J. L., “The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature”, WTJ 69 (2007), 247–278.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

563

–, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Peabody 2010. Rosenthal, E., Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldekes Veröffentlichungen, Leiden 1939. Russell, J. K., “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 67 (1955–1956), 246. Saarisalo, A., “The Targum to the Book of Ruth”, Studia Orientalia (Helsinki) 2 (1928), 88–104. Saldarini, A. J., “The End of the Rabbinic Chain of Tradition”, JBL 93 (1974), 97–106. Salvesen, A., “Symmachus and the Dating of Targumic Traditions”, Journal for the Aramaic Bible 2 (2000), 233–245. Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patterns of Religion, London 1977. Sanders, J., Torah and Canon, Philadelphia 1972. –, “Hermeneutics”, IDBSup, 402–407. –, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, Philadelphia 1984. Sandmel, S., The Genius of Paul, New York 1958. –, “Parallelomania”, JBL 81 (1962), 1–13. –, The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainties, New York 1969. –, Judaism and Christian Beginnings, New York & Oxford 1978. –, Philo of Alexandria. An Introduction, New York & Oxford 1979. Schechter, S., Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, London 1909; new edition, New York 1961, with introduction by Louis Finkelstein. Scheckenhofer, J., Die Bevölkerung Palästinas um die Wende der Zeiten: Versuch einer Statistik, Munich 1978. Schelbert, G., “Exodus XXII 4 im palästinischen Targum”, VT 8 (1958), 253–263. Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater, 4th edition, Göttingen 1965. Schoeps, H. J., “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology”, JBL 65 (1946), 385–392. –, “Symmachus und der Midrasch”, Bib 29 (1947), 31–51. –, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Tübingen 1950. –, “Paulus als rabbinischer Exeget”, in idem, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit, 221–238. –, Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Licht der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen 1959 (repr. Darmstadt 1972); English translation, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, London 1961 (repr. Philadelphia 1979). Schoettgen, C., Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum, 2 vols., Dresden & Leipzig 1733–1742. Scholem, G. G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 1941; London 1955 (repr. 1961). –, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, New York 1965. –, “Pharisees”, IDBSup, 657–663. Schrenk, G., “ĒƬĕđĖċ”, TDNT 3 (1965), 54. –, “ĚċĞƮě”, TDNT 5 (1967), 974–1022. Schürer, E., Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, Leipzig 1874. –, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd rev. edition, Leipzig 1890; English translation of 2nd German edition: A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh 1885–1891; revised English translation and edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar & M. Black, The History of the Jewish People in

564

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

the Time of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), Edinburgh, vol. 1, 1973; vol. 2, 1979; vol. 3,1, 1986; vol. 3,2, 1987. Schwarz, I., Jesus Thargumicus, 2 parts, Torgau 1758–1759. Schweitzer, A., Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, Tübingen 1911; English translation: Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History, London 1912. Séd, N., “R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42”, REJ 123 (1964), 529–533. Seeligmann, I. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden 1948. Sevenster, J. N., Do you know Greek? How much Greek could the first Jewish Christians have known?, Leiden 1968. Shatzmiller, J., Jews, Medicine and Medieval Society, Berkeley & London 1994. Shiloh, Y., “The Population of Iron Age Palestine”, BASOR 239 (1980), 25–35. Shinan, A., The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1979 (Hebrew, with an abstract in English). –, “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations”, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. by D. R. G. Beattie & M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 203–217. Siegfried, C., “Analecta Rabbinica ad Novum Testamentum et Patres Ecclesiasticos spectantia”, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 2 (1876), 476–480. Sievers, J., “‘Where Two or Three …’: The Rabbinic Concept of Shekinah and Matthew 18:20”, in The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy, ed.by E. J. Fisher, New York & Mahwah 1990, 47–61. Silverstein, Th., Visio Sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin together with Nine Texts, London 1935. Silverstone, A. E., Aquila and Onkelos, Manchester 1931. Simon, M., “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la légende”, RHPR 17 (1937), 58–93. –, Recherches d’Histoire Judéo-Chrétienne, Paris 1962. Simonsohn, S., The Apostolic See and the Jews, 8 vols. (continuous pagination), Turnhout 1988–1991, vol. 1: Documents: 492–1404, 1988; vol. 2: Documents: 1394– 1464, 1989, vol. 3: Documents: 1454–1521, 1990; vol. 4: Documents: 1522–1538, 1990; vol. 5: Documents: 1539–1545, 1990; vol. 6: Documents: 1546–1555, 1990; vol. 7: History, 1991; vol. 8: Addenda, corrigenda, bibliography and indexes, 1991. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. Smith, M., “A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Traditions”, JBL 82 (1963), 169–176. –, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels, corrected reprint, Philadelphia 1968. –, “On the Problem of Method in the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, JBL 92 (1973), 112–113. Smolar, L., & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets [and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by P. Churgin], New York & Baltimore 1983. Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat Gan 1990. Speier, R., “The Relationship between the Arukh and the Palestinian Targum, Neofiti 1”, Leshonenu 31 (1966–67), 23–32, 189–198; 34 (1969–70), 172–179 (in Hebrew).

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

565

Sperber, A. (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, 3 vols., Leiden, vol. 1: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos, 1959 (repr. 1992); vol. 2: Former Prophets, 1959; vol. 3: Latter Prophets, 1962. Sperber, D., Roman Palestine 200–400: Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974. –, Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, Jerusalem 1982. –, Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, Ramat Gan 1984. –, Nautica, Ramat Gan 1986. Starcky, J., “Petra et la Nabatène”, DBSup 7 (1966), cols. 886–1017. Stauffer, E., Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Stuttgart 1948; English translation, New Testament Theology, London 1955. Stec, D. M., The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004. Stemberger, G., “Le recherche rabbinique depuis Strack”, RHPR 55 (1975), 543–574. Stenning, J., The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford 1949. Stokes, W., & J. Strachan (eds.), Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus: A Collection of OldIrish Glosses, Scholia, Prose and Verse, 2 vols., Cambridge, England 1901–1903 (repr. Dublin 1975). Strack, H. L., Einleitung in Talmud und Midraš, 5th edition, Munich 1920; English translation of 5th edition: Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, Philadelphia 1931, 1959. – & G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1991. – & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols., Munich, 1922–1928 (repr. 1961); vols. 5–6: Indexes, 1956–1961. Stummer, F., “Beiträge zur Lexikographie der lateinischen Bibel”, Bib 18 (1937), 23–50. –, “Beiträge zu dem Problem ‘Hieronymus und die Targumim’”, Bib 18 (1937), 174–181. Syrén, R., The Blessings in the Targums: A Study of the Targumic Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986. Tabor, J. D., & M. O. Wise, “4Q521 ‘On Resurrection’ and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: A Preliminary Study”, in Qumran Questions, ed. by J. Charlesworth, Sheffield 1995, 151–163. Tal (Rosenthal), A., The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects, Tel Aviv 1975 (Hebrew, with an English summary, vii–xii). –, The Samaritan Targum of the Torah: A Critical Edition, 3 vols., Tel Aviv 1980– 1983 (in Hebrew). –, “Samaritan Literature”, in The Samaritans, ed. by A. D. Crown, Tübingen 1989, 444–449. Taylor (Taylerus), F., Targum hierosolymitanum in quinque libros Legis, London 1649. Teicher, J. L., “A Sixth Century Fragment of the Palestinian Targum”, VT 1 (1951), 125–129. Thackeray, H.St.J., The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London 1900. –, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV (LCL), Cambridge, Mass. 1930 (repr. 1961).

566

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

Theodor, J., & Ch. Albeck (eds.), Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, Jerusalem 1965 (repr. of Berlin 1912–1936 edition, with corrections). Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos Iuliano Aeclensi interprete in latinum versae quae supersunt, ed. by L. De Coninck & M. J. D’Hont (CCSL 88A), Turnhout 1977. Tonneau, R. M. (ed.), Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (CSCO 152), Louvain 1955. –, “Moïse dans la tradition syrienne”, in Moïse, l’homme de l’alliance, ed. by H. Cazelles et al., Paris 1955, 242–254. Torrey, C. C., “‘When I am Lifted up from the Earth’ John 12,32”, JBL 51 (1932), 320–322. Towner, W. S., “Form-Criticism of Rabbinic Literature”, JJS 24 (1973), 101–118. Tremellius, J., Jonathan, filii Uzielis Chaldaea paraphrasis in XII Minores Prophetas latine reddita, Heidelberg 1556. Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1975. Van der Ploeg, J., Le Targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran (11 QtgJob): Première communication (Mededelingen der koninklijke nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen XXV,9), Amsterdam 1962. Vermes, G., “Deux traditions sur Balaam: Nombres xxii. 2–21 et ses interprétations midrashiques”, Cahiers Sioniens 9 (1955), 289–302. –, “A propos des commentaires bibliques découverts à Qumrân”, RHPR 33 (1955), 95–102. –, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4), Leiden 1961; 2nd rev. edition 1973. –, “Lion  – Damascus  – Me o e ”, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Leiden 1961, 40–66; 2nd rev. edition 1973. –, “The Story of Balaam”, in idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Leiden 1961, 127–177; 2nd revised edition 1973. –, “Redemption and Genesis 22”, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (StPB 4), 2nd rev. edition, Leiden 1973, 193–227. –, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum”, JJS 8 (1963), 159–169. Reprint in Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (StJLA 8), Leiden 1975, 127–138. –, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”, in Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd & V. F. Evans, vol. 1, Cambridge 1970, 199–231. –, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Harmondsworth 1975; 3rd edition, Sheffield 1987. –, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, rev. edition, London 1981. –, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology”, JJS 33 (1982), 361–376. Vidal, E. S., “al-Hidjar”, Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, Leiden & London 1971, 365–366. Visotzky, B. L., “Text, Translation, Targum”, in Fathers of the World, ed. by B. L. Visotzky, Tübingen 1995, 106–112. Viteau, J., Les Psaumes de Salomon: Introduction, texte grec et traduction, Paris 1911. Vööbus, A., Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs: Neues Licht zur Frage der Herkunft der Peschitta aus dem altpalästinischen Targum, Stockholm 1958. –, “Syriac Versions”, IDBSup, 848–849.

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

567

Walton, B., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta … cum Apparatu, Appendicibus … etc., edidit Brianus Walton, S. T. D., London 1657. Weber, F. W., System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud, Leipzig 1880; 2nd edition under the title: Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften, Berlin 1897. Wellhausen, J., Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (several editions), 6th edition, Berlin 1907. Wenham, D., “Postscript – Where have we got to, and where do we go from here?”, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography, ed. by R. T. France & D. Wenham, vol. 3, Sheffield 1983, 289–299. Wernberg-Möller, F., “Some Observations on the Relationship of the Peshitta Version of the Book of Genesis to the Palestinian Targum Fragments Published by Professor Kahle, and to Targum Onkelos”, ST 15 (1961), 128–180. –, “Prolegomena to a Re-examination of the Palestinian Targum Fragments of the Book of Genesis Published by P. Kahle, and their Relationship to the Peshitta”, JSS 7 (1962), 253–266. Westcott, B. F., Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament, London 1898. Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1751–1752. White, E., “A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer Generated Text of Books I and II” (dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, 1988). Wieder, H., “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum”, JJS 4 (1953), 14–18. Wikgren, A., “The Targums and the New Testament”, JR 24 (1944), 89–95. Wilcox, M., “‘Upon the Tree’  – Deut. 21:22–23 in the New Testament”, JBL 96 (1977), 85–99. Williamson, H. G. M., Ezra, Nehemiah, Waco 1985. Wilson, R.McL., “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, ExpTim 68 (1957), 121–122. Windfuhr, D., “Paulus als Haggadist”, ZAW N. F. 3 (1926), 327–330. –, Paulus und seine Bibel, Gütersloh 1929. Windisch H., Paulus und das Judentum, Stuttgart 1935. Winter, P., “Note on Salem-Jerusalem”, NovT 2 (1957), 151–152. –, “Political Institutions: Hellenistic Cities”, in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, revised translation, ed. by G. Vermes et al., vol. 2, Edinburgh 1979, 85–183. Wohl, S., Das palästinische Pentateuch-Targum: Untersuchungen zu den GenizaFragmenten und ihrem Verhältnis zu den übrigen Targumen und der Peschitta (dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Philosophische Fakultät), Zwickau i. Sa. 1935. Wolff, H. W., “Resurrection on the Third Day”, in H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Philadelphia 1977, 148–153. Wolfson, H. A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass. 1948; 4th printing, revised 1968. Wright, A. G., “The Literary Genre Midrash”, CBQ 28 (1966), 105–138, 417–458. –, The Literary Genre Midrash, Staten Island, New York 1967. Wright, G. E., “Sinai, Mount”, IDB 4 (1962), 376–378. Wright, R. B., “Psalms of Solomon”, in OTP 2, 639–670. Yadin, Y., “The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1960: Expedition D”, IEJ 11 (1961), 36–52. –, “Pesher Nahum (4Qp Nahum) Reconsidered”, IEJ 21 (1971), 1–12.

568

Appendix 4: Cumulative Bibliography

York A. D., “The Dating of Targumic Literature”, JSJ 5 (1974), 49–62. –, “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School”, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86. Young, N. H., “Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor”, NovT 29 (1987), 150–176. –, “The Figure of the Paidagogos in Art and Literature”, BA 53 (1990), 80–86. Zeitlin, S., “The Halaka in the Gospels and its Relation to the Jewish Law at the Time of Jesus”, HUCA 1 (1924), 357–373. Zerwick, M., Analysis philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci, Rome 1953. Zuckermandel, M. S. (ed.), Tosephtha, based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Parallels and Variants, Pasewalk 1880; Jerusalem 1983. Zunz, L., Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin 1845. –, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 2nd edition, Frankfurt on Main 1892.

Index of Modern Authors Abbott, Edwin A. 452 Abel, Felix-Marie 184n9, 468n31 Aberbach, Moses 124, 217–218, 219n15–220n16, 221n20, 222n22, 226n24, 228n25, 241n11, 257–258, 277–278, 281n71, 282n75, 315n63, 486, 505n66 Abrahams, I. 87, 103 Aland, Kurt 464 Albeck, Chanoch 81, 170n24, 311n54 Albright, William F. 63, 187, 297n13 Alexander, Philip S. 10–11, 15, 109, 126, 148n2, 234n1, 421–424, 468n31, 527n22, 528 Almqvist, Helge 512–513n88 Altschüler, Moritz 121 Amar, Joseph P. 299n20, 302n25 Angeli Bertinelli, M. Gabriella 196n40 Argyle, A. W. 200, 206n80 Arias, Juan 3, 118 Attridge, Harold W. 373n28, 374n30 Aufrecht, W. E. 67n12 Avi-Jonah, Michael 477n51 Bacher, W. 34, 42, 81, 177 Bamberger, B. J. 103, 337 Bar-Deroma, H. 465n23, 466n26 Barré, M. L. 507n71 Barrett, C. K. 20 Barth, Karl 432 Baskin, Judith R. 369n13, 375n32, 384 Baumstark, Anton 166n11 Beattie, Derek Robert George 9n15, 10, 13, 15, 109, 114, 126 Beck, Matthias F. 30, 50n8 Beit Arié, Malachi 312n56 Berliner, Abraham 50n8, 127, 176n32 Bern, Florence 112 Bernstein, A. 106nn6&10, 122

Bernstein, M. J. 337 Betz, Otto 15 Beyer, Klaus 186n11, 187n15, 191–192, 203n62 Beyers, Rita 434n68 Beyschlag, Willibald 73 Bienaimé, Germain 507n73 Bieringer, R. 19n28, 480n* Billerbeck, Paul 27, 42, 60, 62, 70–71, 78, 91, 103, 267n47, 304, 307, 354, 368n10, 369n13, 460, 472n41, 475n46, 513–514, 523 Bischoff, Erich 90 Black, Matthew 3, 8, 14n19, 45, 62, 76n44, 84, 103, 172n26, 321n9, 456n19, 481, 482n10 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 519n3 Bloch, Renee 40, 42–43, 45, 53, 60–62, 79–80, 82, 91, 94, 97, 103, 355, 412–414, 416, 424, 427–428 Boccaccini, Gabriele 15, 21, 322–323 Boccaccio, A. 43n93 Bogaert, P. M. 84n83, 508n74 Boiteaux, M. 397n12 Bomberg, David 30, 307, 337 Bonner, R. J. 196n40 Bonsirven, Joseph 36–37, 62, 74, 77, 93, 103, 452 Bousset, Wilhelm 76–78, 89 Bowker, John W. 82, 84, 85n85, 103, 122, 298n18 Braude, William G. 307n45, 475n46, 525n20 Brayer, M. M. 157nn21–23 Briggs, Charles Augustus 315n61, 445 Bright, John 181n4 Broch, Sebastian P. 302n24 Broshi, Magen 192n30 Brown, Francis 315n61, 445

570

Index of Modern Authors

Brown, John Pairman 195n38, 196–197 Buber, Salomon 307n45 Bruce, A. B. 72–73 Bruce, F. F. 373n28 Buchanan, George W. 76, 82, 85n85, 86n88, 87–89, 92, 99, 103 Bultmann, Rudolf 77–78 Burkill, T. Alec 204n64 Burkitt, Francis Crawford 86, 90, 452 Burns, C. Delisle 90n103 Buxtorf, Johannes 32, 453 Byrne, Brendan 321n9

Cohn, Leopold 41 Collange, J. F. 476n50 Collins, J. J. 115, 372n21, 428–429 Conklin, B. W. 23 Cook, Edward M. 15, 193, 195n37, 322 Cothenet, E. 434n67 Cowley, Arthur E. 467n29 Crane, O. T. 106n7, 121–122 Credner, Karl A. 200 Cross, Frank M. 467n29 Cullmann, Oscar 434 Czertkowsky, N. 34n27

Callaway, Mary Howard 61n3, 79n55, 103, 355n26, 412n7, 415n17 Campbell, R. M. 487 Cantineau, J. 467n29 Capelle, P. 513n88 Carbajosa, I. 7n8 Charlesworth, James H. 18 Carozzi, C. 437n74 Carson, D. 17 Cashdan, Eli 157n22 Cassel, Paulus S. 106n10, 121, 122 Casson, Lionel 390n54 Cassuto, Humberto 164n4, 410–411 Cathcart, Kevin J. 10, 13, 20, 109, 112, 115, 123, 125–126, 126, 216n9, 219n15, 249n18, 278n62, 280n68, 392 Cartwright, Christopher 33, 69 Charles, Robert H. 455n16 Charlesworth, James H. 490 Chayoth, Z. W. 327n28 Chester, Andrew 269nn49–50, 275n60 Chevalier, Anthony 31, 120 Childs, Brevard S. 417, 427, 471n39 Chilton, Bruce D. 10, 15, 23, 100, 109, 112, 125, 241n10, 252n22, 264n41, 275n60, 278n63, 280nn68–69, 421n40, 486–488, 523 Churgin, Pinkhos 39, 168n17, 241n10, 505n66, 506n69 Clarke, Ernest G. 10, 13, 16, 67n12. 109, 113–114, 132–133, 217n10, 387, 514n91 Clemen, Cart 455n16 Clines, D. J. A. 328n29 Cohen, G. M. 184n9

Dahl, Nils A. 461n4 Dalman, Gustav H. 35–36, 50, 61, 93, 188–189, 195, 200, 202 Daly, R. J. 100 Danby, Herbert 108, 122, 467n30, 477n51, 497nn53–55 Daris, S. 196n40 Daube, David 71, 103 David, E. 121 Davies, Graham I. 463, 468n31, 470n38 Davies, Philip R. 100 Davies, W. D. 75, 87n90, 103 Deines, Roland 508n74 De Lacy, Philip H. 204n64 de Legarde, Paul 50n8, 128, 294n9 Delitzsch, Franz 70–71, 72, 82 de Moor, Johannes C. 67 de Rossi, Gianbernardo 200 Deutsch, C. 346n4 De Vaux, R. 329n33 Díaz, José Ramón 62 Díez Macho, Alejandro 1–6, 8, 21, 40n77, 43, 44n100–101, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54n17, 62–63, 64n6, 65, 67, 97, 103, 106, 109, 115–116, 118, 124, 127–128, 130, 163n2, 171n25, 176n33, 179, 200n50, 236n8, 311n55, 314n59, 345, 382, 386, 393n1, 442nn8–9, 447n4, 449, 461, 481, 483n13, 499n57 Díez Merino, Luis 1n1, 4, 15, 47, 116, 119, 124, 307, 461–462 Di Lella, A. A. 242, 426n55 Di Napoli, G. 204n64 Diodati, Domenico 200 Dodd, Charles H. 459n25

Index of Modern Authors

Doeve, Jan Willem 69n1, 71n12, 79, 81, 89n99, 91, 103 Draper, H. M. 200 Drazin, Israel 258–259, 331n37, 332–336 Drews, A. 90 Driver, Samuel Rolles 315n61, 445, 470n38 Drummond, J. 89 Dunn, James D. G. 321n9 Dupont, Jacques 14n18, 507n71 Duval, Rubens 166n11 Ego, Beate 15 Elbogen, Ismar 172n28 Ellens, J. Harold 21 Ellis, E. E. 75–76, 81 Emerton, John A. 281n72 Epstein, Isidore 108, 123 Esposito, Anna 19–20, 396–398, 403 Etheridge, John Wesley 50n8, 62–63, 107, 121, 236n8, 454n12 Evans, Craig A. 487 Fang Che-Yong, M. 426n55 Féghali, P. 302n24 Fernandez Vallina, F. J. 128 Field, Frederick 167n14 Finkel, A. 103 Finkelstein, Louis 75n33, 87, 103 Fishbane, M. 414n14, 425–426, 427n58, 428n60, 431n64 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 13n18–14n19, 17, 99n129, 103, 125, 151, 186, 187nn14–15, 189–190, 194,195n36, 202, 203n60–61, 205n72, 206, 207n82, 236n8, 293, 296n11, 321n9, 345n2, 466n26, 482nn9–10, 489 Flesher, Paul V. M. 15, 22n38, 23, 160n28, 483–484, 487 Flower, R. 435 Ford, J. Massyngberde 461 Forestell, J. T. 481n8 Fraade, S. D. 346n3 France, R. T. 421 Frankel, Z. 39 Freedman, H. 108, 123, 159n27, 311n54, 471n38

571

Freimark, P. 468n31 Frey, Jörg 21 Freyne, Sean 13, 183n8 Garcia Martinez, F. 17, 19, 480n* Gard, D. H. 83n74 Gardiner, A. 181nn2–3 Garofalo, Fausto 397 Gaster, Moses 64 Gehman, H. S. 83n74 Geiger, A. 34–35, 100 Génébrard, G. 31 Gerhardsson, B 42n85, 81, 91, 169n18 Gerleman, G. 83n75 Gerson, D. 302n24 Gertner, Meir 81, 417 Gese, H. 462–463, 470n38, 479 Gfrörer, A. F. 89 Gianotto, Claudio 151n6, 289n1, 293n5, 297nn12–13, 298n17, 300n23, 308n46, 313n57 Gignac, Francis Thomas 390n53 Gilbert, Maurice 6, 17n23 Gill, J. 106n2, 121 Ginsberg, Harold Louis 82n71 Ginsburg, C. D. 87, 106nn3,5&10, 121, 122 Ginsburger, M. 43, 64–65, 164n4, 165nn6&8, 166n9, 169nn18&20, 170n24, 172n27, 174n30, 176n32, 337 Ginzberg, Louis 42, 168n16, 304, 341n64, 472nn41–42 Goldin, J. 103 Goldingay, J. 12 Gollancz, H. 106nn4&10, 122 Golomb, D. M. 55n17, 317n64, 323, 384n33 Gordon, T. D. 198n47 Gordon, R. P. 10, 15, 109, 112, 126, 216n9, 219n15, 236n5, 249n18, 278n62, 280n68, 317n64, 323, 485, 518–519, 531 Grabbe, L. L. 99n130, 100–101 Gray, G. Buchanan 12, 454n14 Green, W. S. 42n89–90, 103 Greene, J. T. 369n13 Greenfield, J. 236n8 Greenup, A. W. 106n10, 122

572

Index of Modern Authors

Grelot, P. 53, 62, 190, 279n66 Griño, Raimundo 47, 55n17, 171n25, 179, 290n2, 294n8 Gronemann, S. 165n8 Grossfeld, Bernard 10, 15, 48, 94, 106, 109, 112, 114, 120, 122, 124, 126–127, 133, 211n1, 218n12–219n14, 222n21, 230n28, 249n18, 274n59, 293n5, 315n63, 320n7, 321, 325n19–326n21, 327, 336, 365, 385n41, 389n51, 518 Haas, L. 414n14 Hare, D. R. A. 528n25 Harrington, Daniel J. 10, 109, 112, 115, 124–125, 229n26, 262n39–263n40, 350–353, 367n2, 370n15, 489n30, 494n46, 495, 508nn74–75 Harrington, W. 9–10, 108, 123 Harris, R. 38–39, 51 Hartley, J. E. 327n26 Hastings, James 38 Hauser, A. J. 17 Hayward, C. T. Robert 10, 12, 15, 23, 94n117, 109, 112–114, 125, 150n3, 154n12, 156, 269n51, 282n73, 294n9, 300n22, 314n59, 322n13, 326, 331nn36–37, 337nn55–56, 340n62– 341n63, 484, 490, 515n93 Healey, John F. 10, 20n30, 109, 114, 126, 186n11, 192n30 Hecht, R. D. 372n21 Heinemann, Joseph 304n33, 340n62 Heinrici, G. 72 Helvicus, Christopher 33 Hengel, M. 15, 116, 204n65, 348n8, 350nn12–13, 354n24, 367n4, 368nn8– 10, 369, 389n49, 478–479 Hennecke, E. 455n16 Herford, R. Travers 87, 103, 304 Hidal, S. 302nn24–25 Hildesheimer, H. 465n23, 468n31, 477n31 Hoftijzer, J. 195n39 Holmén, T. 18 Horton, F. L. 289n1, 300n23 Howard, M. 104 Hug, L. 200 Hulst, A. R. 116n29

Hurd, J. C. 67n12 Hutchinson, D. 13 Huxley, E. 14–16 Hyatt, J. P. 75n34, 470n38 Isaac, E. 475n47 Jacobsen, H. 508n74 James, M. R. 455n16 Jastrow, Marcus 174n31, 197, 253n26, 293n5, 362, 380, 384, 387, 410, 453 Jean, C.-F. 195n39 Jeremias, Joachim 71, 86 Jones, Henry Stuart 455n15 Joüon, P. 195n38, 197n44 Justinianus, Augustinus 31 Kadushin, M. 103 Kahle, Paul Ernst 1n1, 3, 8, 34n27, 39–41, 45–46, 51, 53, 61–62, 93, 95, 163nn1–3, 166nn9&11, 188–189, 345, 481 Kasher, Menehem 55, 63, 97, 178, 311n55, 320, 329–330, 333n42, 442n8 Kaufman, Stephen A. 14–15, 67n11, 155, 191–193, 208n83, 214n4, 235n3, 245n15, 251, 269n53, 290n3, 321n8, 322, 482–483, 487, 505n67, 514n92 Kautzsch, E. 455n16 Kisch, Guido 41 Kittel, Gerhard 74, 78 Kearns, C. 426 Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 15 Kee, H. 370n19 Keener, C. S. 489, 495–496, 523–524 Klausner, J. 74 Klein, Michael L. 15, 47, 48, 67, 107, 127, 130, 163n2, 179, 281n72, 311, 312n56, 338n58, 387n46, 454n12, 499n57, 500n59, 511n85, 522nn10–11 Klein, Samuel 201, 468n31, 476n49 Kloppenborg, John 506n71 Knobel, Peter S. 10, 109, 114, 126, 128 Knox, Ronald 116n29, 129–130 Koch, K. 252n22, 254n27 Komlosh, Y. 272n56 König, J. 470n38 Kosmala, H. 370n16

Index of Modern Authors

Kosovsky, C. Y. 497n52 Krämer, W.-F. 468n31 Krauss, S. 196n41, 207n82 Kugel, J. L. 338 Kuhn, K. G. 369n13, 374n29, 375n31 Kutscher, Edward Y. 44n100, 186nn10&12, 188–189, 214n4 Lacoque, A. 82n71 Lagrange, M.-J. 373n26 Larch, D. 461n4 Lattey, C. 452 Lauterbach, Jacob Z. 464n21 Leaney, A. R. C. 204nn63&65, 205nn70–71 Le Déaut, Roger 1, 6–8, 15, 45, 48, 53, 62, 80, 94, 97, 100, 102n141, 104, 107, 124, 130, 231, 278n63, 293n5, 296n11, 298n18, 309nn47–49, 339n61, 340n62–341n63, 382, 398n14, 415–417, 441n6, 442n9, 445n2, 449, 460, 462, 481, 515n93, 524n18 Lee, Kyong-Jim 23 Lehmann, M. R. 41n81 Le Moyne, J. 84n84, 104 Lentzen-Deis, F. 489n30, 494n46 Lerner, M. 177n41 Lesêtre, H. 410 Levey, Samson H. 10, 109, 112, 125, 221, 258, 278n63, 280n68 Levi, I , 100 Levi, M. 170n23 Levine, Etan 107, 122, 130 Levita, Elias 30, 32, 133n1, 167n13, 171n25, 179, 290, 375, 384, 405 Levy, B. Barry 261n36, 317n64, 322, 341n63, 355n25, 359–363, 365, 384n37, 386nn44–45, 388, 486, 521 Levy, Jacob 168n17, 253n26, 293n5, 378, 384, 387, 410, 453 Lewis, A. S. 458nn21&24 Lewis, D. M. 202n53, 206 Liddell, Henry George 455n15 Lieberman, Saul 207n82, 417 Lifshitz, B. 207n82 Lightfoot, John 33, 69–71, 79 Loewe, R. J. 102 Longenecker, R. 198n47

573

Lyonnet, Stanislas 1, 5–7, 9, 46, 53, 62, 95 McCaffrey, James 448–449 McCarthy, Carmel 20n30 McCasland, S. V. 506n71 McCool, F. 5 McIvor, J. Stanley 10, 13, 109, 114, 127, 216n9–217n10, 309n48 McNamara, Martin J. 1, 5–11, 13–22, 32n18, 34n26, 45, 49, 58n21, 62n4, 66, 92n112, 93n113, 94n117, 95, 99n131, 100, 107–109, 114, 122–124, 133, 148n2, 154nn11&13, 172n26, 176n32, 200n48, 204nn66&69, 205n70, 214n3, 215n6–216n8, 225n23, 226n24, 234n1, 236nn7–8, 246n15, 247n17, 262nn38–39, 264n42–265n43, 267n47, 272n56, 274n58, 275n60, 278n64, 279n66, 282n73, 290n2, 321n9, 326n24, 332n39, 333n42, 339n61, 345n2, 349n9, 365, 366n1, 367n3, 385, 387–388, 389nn50–51, 393, 395n4, 398nn14–15, 409, 418n31, 429n61– 430n63, 433n65, 442n7, 443n12, 444, 450n1, 453n11, 454n13, 458n22, 465n23, 467n29, 468nn31–32, 476n50, 478n52, 480n1, 481n8, 482n10, 493, 501n60–502n61, 503n63–504n64, 507n72, 509n78, 512n58, 515n93, 816–517, 520n4–521n6, 521n8–522n9, 524n18, 527n23 McVey, Kathleen 299n20 Maher, Michael 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 66, 107, 109, 114–115, 122–124, 133, 151n6, 156n18, 157nn20&22, 158, 228n25, 282n75, 293n5, 332n40, 338n58, 510n79 Malina, B. J. 81–82, 359 Malloon, A. 181n2 Maneschg, Hans 353n22, 359 Mangan, Céline 10, 13, 15, 109, 114, 126 Maori, Y. 192–193 Marcus, R. 104 Marmorstein, Arthur 39, 314n60 Martin, Francis Xavier 396n5, 404n27– 405n33

574

Index of Modern Authors

Martin, M. 167n13 Martínez Borobio, Emiliano 47, 55n17 Martínez Saiz, T. 47, 55n17 Mason, R. A. 82n70 Mathews, G., Jr. 299n20, 302nn24–25 Matter, E. A. 434n68 Maurer, Christian 455n16 Mayes, A. 13, 104 Mazar, B. 471n38 Meier, John P. 187 Melamed, Raphael H. 128 Menn, E. M. 511n80 Mercier (Mercer), Johannes 31, 120 Merx, Adalbert 455n16 Meuschen, J. C. 71 Meyer, E. 478 Meyers, E. M. 22n38 Michel, A. 84n84, 104 Milgrom, Jacob 319, 327n26, 330n34, 339n60 Milik, J. T. 151–152, 195n35, 294, 329–330 Millar, Fergus 76n44, 84 Miller, Merrill P. 79–80, 104 Millás Vallicrosa, J. M. 2 Mollat, D. 46 Moloney, F. J. 495 Morrison, C. E. 509n78 Montefiore, C. G. 71, 74–75, 104 Mortensen, B. P. 322n13, 484, 487 Moore, G. F. 30n6, 37–38, 69n1, 77, 83–84, 87, 93, 104, 177, 481 Moule, C. F. D. 205n72 Muñoz León, Domingo 1n1, 6, 9n15, 106n1, 118n*, 282n73, 314n59, 331nn36–37, 332n38, 482n8 Muntner, A. Suesseman 395n3 Murphy, Frederick J. 508n74 Murray, Robert 16 Negev, A. 466n25 Neri, U. 121 Nestle, Eberhard 458n24, 464 Neumann, W. A. 121 Neusner, Jacob 87, 104, 108, 123, 184n9, 311n54, 315n62, 418–421 Nickels, Peter 48, 94 Nickelsberg, G. W. E. 428–429

Nida, Eugene A. 116n29 Nielsen, D. 470n38 Nober, P. 49 Nolan, B. 13 Nöldeke, T. 35, 189 Nork, F. 70 Norton, G. J. 15 O’Brian, P. T. 17n25 O’Connor, J. Murphy 99 Odeberg, H. 44n101 Ogg, George 182, 184n9, 196n41, 202, 206–207 Okamoto, A. O. H. 311n55 O’Kane, M. 13 Olds, L. Calista 204n67 Olivier, J.-M. 305n36 Panciera, Silvio 390n55 Parkes, J. 74, 104 Pauli, C. W. H. 106n11, 121 Paulus, H. E. G 200 Payne, D. 12 Perez Fernandez, M. 278n63 Perrot, Charles 84n83, 416, 508n74 Peters, C. 166n11, 465n24 Petuchowski, Jakob J. 289n1, 303n27, 304 Pfleiderer, O. 72–73 Philippson, R. 204n64 Pinès, J. 397n13 Piovanelli, R. 436n73 Plummer, A. 455n18 Pollefeyt, D. 19n28, 480n* Pontacus, Arnauld 31 Porton, Gary G. 414n14, 417–420 Pratensis, Felix 30, 32 Preisker, H. 267n47, 268n48, 492 Press, J. 468n31 Priest, J. 455n16 Prümm, K. 7 Puech, E. 504n65 Quinquarboreous, Johannes 31 Rabin, Ch. 105, 234n2 Raphael, D 365 Rappaport, Solomon 39

Index of Modern Authors

Reader, W. 22 Reif, S. C. 15 Rendtorff, R. 318n*, 339n60 Ribera, J. 15, 116 Rieder, D. 47 Rivkin, E. 84n84, 105 Robert, André 40, 79, 82, 413, 424 Robert, Jacques 107, 130, 309n48, 339n61 Rocchi, V. 397n13 Rodriguez Carmona, Antonio 289n1, 505n66, 506n70 Ronning, John L. 8, 20, 443, 531n29 Rosenthal, F. 186 Russel, E. (Ted) 13 Russell, J. K. 200 Saarisalo, A. 106n10, 122 Saldarini, Anthony J. 10, 105, 109, 112, 125 Salvesen, Alison 490n34 Salzbach, A. 121 Sanders, E. P. 17–18, 76, 78, 84, 86n88, 87, 105, 236, 250n19, 283, 286–287, 346n4 Sanders, James A. 42n89, 61n3, 355n26, 412n7, 415n17, 417, 427 Sandmel, S. 75, 91, 372n22, 523 Savignac, R. 466n25 Schechter, S. 75 Scheckenhofer, J. 192n30 Schelbert, G. 166n9 Schlier, H. 463n18, 464nn19&21 Schmidt, Moritz 455n16 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 455n16 Schoeps, Hans-Joachim 75, 100, 105, 168n14 Schoettgen, C. 33, 70, 89 Schofield, J. N. 12 Scholem, G. G. 87n90, 105 Schrenk, G. 497nn50–51, 503n62 Schürer, Emil 36, 76–78, 84, 89–90, 105, 182, 203n58, 461n6, 481 Schwabe, M. 207n82 Schwarz, Immanuel 33 Schweitzer, A. 72nn15&17, 74, 90 Schwemer, A. M. 478 Scott, Robert 455n15

575

Séd, Nicholas 441n6 Seeligmann, I. L. 83n73, 416 Seifrid, M. A. 17n25 Senior, D. 9, 109, 123 Sevenster, J. N. 202, 203nn58–59, 205–206 Shatzmiller, J. 396 Shiloh, Y. 192n30 Shinan, Avigdor 15, 258, 341n64 Sichardus, John 41 Siegfried, C. 70 Sievers, Joseph 20, 398, 530 Silverstein, Th. 436 Silverstone, A. E. 165n7, 177n41 Simon, Maurice 108, 123, 289n1, 303–304, 311n54 Simonsohn, S. 398, 399n16–402n23, 402n25 Skehan, P. W. 242n12 Slotki, J. J. 159n26 Smelik, W. F. 15 Smend, R. 242 Smith, M. 71, 91–92, 105 Smolar, Leivy 217–218, 219n15– 220n16, 221n20, 222n22, 226n24, 228n25, 241n10, 257–258, 277–278, 281n71, 486, 505n66 Sokoloff, M. 67n11, 155, 186, 197, 198n47, 208n84, 245, 251, 253n26, 259n33, 260, 266n44, 267n46, 269n53, 279n65, 361–362, 384–387, 453, 456, 493n43, 505n67, 514n92 Speier, Solomon 178 Sperber, Alexander Sullivan 43–44, 63, 127–128, 313n58 Sperber, Daniel 196n41, 197nn43&46, 390nn52&54 Spitzer, F. 67n12 Starcky, Jean 465n23, 4666n25, 467nn28–29, 468n31, 469nn33&35, 474n45, 477n51 Stauffer, Ethelbert 443, 516 Stec, David M. 109, 307, 525 Stemberger, Günter 16, 34n31, 69n1, 83, 105, 311n53 Stenning, John F. 122, 241n10 Stinespring, W. F. 74n31 Stokes, W. 306n39

576

Index of Modern Authors

Stone, M. E. 15 Strachan, J. 306n39 Strack, Hermann L. 27, 34, 69n1, 70, 83, 91, 103, 105, 267n47, 311n53, 354, 368n10, 472n41, 523 Stuhlmueller, Carroll 9, 109, 123 Stummer, Friedrich 170n23 Sullivan, William J. 42n90, 103 Syrén, Roger 8, 15, 272n56 Taber, C. R. 116n29 Tabor, J. 504n64 Tal (Rosenthal), Abraham 57, 190, 193, 196n41, 214n5, 319, 447 Taylor, Francis 31, 120 Teicher, J. L. 163n2 Tena, Ludovico 33 Thackeray, Henry St.John 36, 73–74, 105, 465n22 Theodor, Julius 170n23, 311n54 Thomson, P. J. 19n28 Tka , J. 474n45 Tomson, P. J. 19n28, 480n* Tonneau, R. M. 299n20 Torrey, C. C. 452–453, 457 Towner, W. S. 105 Tremellius, John Immanuel 31 Urbach, E. E. 105 Vallarsi, D. 294n9 Vana, Liliane 497n52 van der Heide, A. 128 van der Ploeg, John P. M. 40, 176n33 Vatablus, Franciscus 31 Venture, M. 121 Vermes, Geza 14n19, 36n41, 41n79, 43, 53, 56, 62, 76n44, 80–81, 84, 94, 97–98, 100, 105, 108, 211n2, 338n58, 340n62, 347n5–348n7, 362–363, 369n12, 370nn15,16&18, 371n20, 372–373, 379, 384n36, 385n40, 387n47, 388, 391n56, 417, 460–461, 482n10, 486–487, 489, 523 Vidal, E. S. 474n45 Vigouroux, Fulcran 61, 410 Vigueur, J.-C. Maire 402 Visotzky, B. L. 237n9

Viteau, J. 454n14, 455n17 von Dobschütz, E. 74 Vööbus, A. 166n11, 465n24 Vossius, J. 200 Vulliaud, P. 121 Wacholder, Ben Zion. 236n8 Walker , Thomas 38 Walton, Brian 28–29, 31, 33, 50n8, 62–63, 93, 344, 441, 480 Watson, D. F. 17 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 329n33 Weber, Ferdinand W. 72, 76–78, 90 Weingreen, Jacob 5, 15 Wellhausen, Julius 73–74 Werenfels, Samuel 432 Wernberg-Møller, Preben 166n11 Westcott, Brooke Foss 116n29 Wettstein, J. J. 70–71 White, E. 307 Wieder, G. 41n80 Wikgren, A. 44–45 Wilcox, M. 10, 15, 109, 126, 128, 460n1&4, 462 Wilkins, David 30, 50n8 Williamson, Hugh G. M. 12, 320n6 Wilson, R. McL. 200, 434n66, 455n16 Windisch, H. 74, 105 Winfuhr, D. 74 Winter, Paul 184n9, 202n56, 297n15 Wise, Michael 504n65 Wissowa, G. 474n45 Wohl, S. 166n11 Wolff, Hans Walter 505n66 Wolfson, H. A. 439 Wright, Addison G. 80, 105, 414–417 Wright, G. Ernest 470n38 Wright, Robert B. 454n14–15 Wünsche, A. 71, 121 Yadin, Yigael 44n100, 461 York, Anthony D. 98, 105, 234n1, 236n8, 345n2, 346n4 Young, N. H. 198n47 Zamora, Alphonso de 119 Zeitlin, S. 86, 90 Zimels, A. 179

Index of Modern Authors

Zerwick, M. 6, 464 Zuckermandel, M. S. 467n31 Zunz, Leopold 30n6, 33–34, 311n53, 416–417

577

Index of Subjects and Persons Aaron 261, 328 – death of 229, 352, 466, 469 Abraham 138–147, 157, 303, 499–500, 505 – ovenant with 270–271, 351–352 – merits of 146, 259, 261, 285 – servant of 197, 306 afterlife 226–227, 266, 274–278, 434–437, 491–494 allegory/Alexandrian interpretive tradition 73, 420, 432 anthropomorphism, avoidance of 221– 224, 281–283, 335 Antiochene interpretive tradition 305– 306, 432 Apocalyptic 76–77, 89, 284, 434–437. See also Irish apocrypha Aqedah 100, 263, 351, 460–461, 475, 521–522. See also Isaac Aramaic 13–14, 184–186, 192–193, 199–200, 482. See also individual dialects: language of Targumim: Eastern, Galilean, Nabataean, Samaritan, Syriac, vernacular (Aramaic) Aramaic grammars 44, 93, 96–97 Aramaic of Jesus 13–14, 36, 53 & 95, 191–192, 199–200, 488. See also Palestinian Aramaic; Qumran Aramaic; vernacular art 338 Artaxerxes 213, 238, 323–324 ascend 524–525 ascension of Christ 451, 455, 458 Atonement, Day of 327–329, 527 Balaam 369–370, 374–375, 388, 390 Bar Cochba Letters 44, 187, 194, 195, 202 before/from before 131, 222, 246

bibliographies 48, 103–105 binding of Isaac. See Aqedah birds 271, 275. See also quail blessing 8 – in Genesis fourteen 142, 292, 314–315 – of Gad 251–252 – of mourners 232, 283 – of priests 164–165 buffer words 99, 249, 328. See also divine transcendence Cairo Genizah 40–41, 163, 235 Cairo Genizah Fragments 51, 93–94, 163 censor 364, 382–383, 398 censured translations 169–170, 172–173, 382–383, 501–502. See also forbidden Targumim citations, rabbis of targumim 35, 164–177 cloud 228–229, 508 commandments 243–245 concordances to targumim 67, 128, 132 confessing God 493–494, 500 consolation 272–273, 505–507, 520 covenant 197, 263, 268–271, 286–287, 347 – breaking 269–270 – diath ke 197 – new 270–271 converse translations 219–221, 256 crucifixion 450, 456, 461 dabar/dibbera 224, 332, 440 darshan 423–424 date of Targumim 50, 98–101, 163, 175–176, 236

Index of Subjects and Persons

– relative 35–36, 321–322. See also origins dating Targumim 28, 36–37, 55, 99 Deborah. See Rebekah’s nurse Dead Sea Scrolls 13, 59, 206. See also Qumran derash 410 derogatory translation 221 re Melchizedek 303–304. See also Balaam; euphemistic translation devotional use of scripture 213, 227–228, 411 dew. See rain diath ke 197 distress 263, 509–512, 522 divine name 125, 130, 223–224, 329–330. See also buffer words divine transcendence 95, 223–224. See also buffer words d ron 198–199 doublets, targumic 216 Eastern Aramaic 184–186, 193, 445 election 255–257, 263–264, 284–285 English translations of targumim 67, 50n8, 106–108, 121–123, 160, 307 Esau 219, 244–245, 273, 466, 470, 473, 484 eschatology 272–278, 284, 367–369, 426. See also afterlife; hidden things; judgment; resurrection; second death euphemistic translations 168–169, 219–220. See also derogatory translations exalt(ation). See hypsoun, hyps th nai exegesis 343, 346–347, 411, 419 – inner-Biblical 82 – 424–428 – Irish 317 – rabbinic 41, 73–74, 76, 240, 424, 519. See also interpretive tradition; midrash Ezra 238, 320, 323–325 Father in Heaven 96, 224–225, 496–503 fire 157, 165, 243, 271, 326–328, 358, 494

579

forbidden targumim 164–167, 220. See also censored translations forget 248, 270 four nights 231–232, 441 Fragment Targums 47, 212, 235, 289 French translations of targumim 67, 107 fruit 226, 229, 243, 325 Galilee 183, 201, 445 Galilean Aramaic 56, 63, 97–98, 189, 200 geographical identifications 126, 148–156, 217, 293–294 – for dating 63. See also Petra, Sinai gifts 524–525 – in wilderness 228–231, 262, 508 Giles (Aegidius) of Viterbo 30, 32, 63, 395–396 Glazier, Michael 9–13, 15, 114–115, 123–127 glory 223–224, 332 golden calf 164–165 good works (deeds) 225–226, 264–268, 285, 491–493 grace 262. See also mercy grammar/philology 49, 213, 447. See also Aramaic grammars Greek influence 59, 182–183 Greek language 61, 180–181, 200–207 Greek loanwords 174, 194–199, 510. See also liburna; loan words Hagar 459–479 haggadah 34–35, 42, 338–343, 411–412 halakhah 86, 217–219, 287, 336–338, 411 Hasmoneans 304, 316 Herod the Great 184, 293 Hezekiah 306 hidden things 272–273, 385. See also afterlife; judgment; resurrection high priest 309–313, 310–312, 328, 527 hour (of distress) 509–512, 522 house 447–448 – school house 301, 386 hypsoun, hyps th nai 46, 450–459

580

Index of Subjects and Persons

idealized figures 428–429. See also Moses as judge idols 273, 338, 346, 349 imitation 232 immortality of the soul 430, 503–504 instruction 242, 245–247, 249 interpreter 164, 370 interpretive tradition 68–69, 82–83, 194, 237–239, 366, 490, 519. See also exegetical tradition; tradition; origin of targumim International Organization for Targumic Studies 16–17, 19, 24, 116–117, 132, 160 Irish apocrypha 5, 21, 409, 434–437 Irish scholarship 13–16, 116, 305–306, 317 Isaac 75, 244, 273, 301, 463–464, 511–512. See also Aqedah, Rebekah Ishmael 223, 273, 463–465, 470, 474, 476 Islamic, anti- 484 Jacob 272–274, 279, 283, 500. See also star Judah 494 Judas Maccabee 349, 367 judgment 435–436, 494 – intermediate state 433. See also afterlife; resurrection; reward kingdom of God 274–278 korban 198–199, 326 language of targumim 32, 36, 52, 97–98, 191–192, 194, 482–484 Latin language 194–196. See also liburna; loan words Latin translations of targumim 31–32, 50n8, 93, 119–120 law 225–226, 240–250, 470. See also halakah; Torah Leah 168–169, 220 liburna 383, 390 life to come 491–493 lifted up. See slq – hypsoun, hyps th nai

literary Aramaic 56, 98, 187–188, 191, 193–194, 199–200 liturgical language 172, 334, 456, 529 liturgical texts 100, 329, 339, 516 liturgy & targum 60, 175, 214–215, 440–443, 516 loan words 111, 150, 364, 383, 390. See also Latin; Greek logos 20–21, 439–443 love 247, 249, 283 Maccabean period 182–183, 348–350, 367–369 manna 352–353. See also gifts in wilderness manuscripts 2–4, 289–291, 307, 317–318. See also Neophyti – text of targumim Mariology 430, 433–434 Melchizedek 17, 141–142, 159, 291–292, 296, 303–304 meturgeman. See interpreter memra 125, 223–224, 331–332, 439–443 – examples of usage 147, 253–254 memorial 254, 263 Menahem the Scribe 19–20, 393–395, 398–399 mercy, merciful 172, 280, 500–502 – for mourners 232 merit(s) 253, 255–264, 359 – in NT 262–264 merit(s) of ancestors 257–262, 285, 340–341, 352–353, 521. See also individual ancestors methodology 33–35, 39–40, 58, 70, 87–92, 239–240, 486–489 Messiah 32–33, 125, 226–227, 278–280, 441–442, 451, 487n26 messianic interpretations 244, 276, 430. See also star; Zealots midrash 45, 55, 80–81, 355, 411, 422 – in NT 78–82, 413–416, 421, 424, 462 – patristic 432–434. See also darshan; exegesis; pesher midrash, definition of 81, 412, 417, 419–420, 424, 432–434 midrash, examples of 39, 51, 232–233, 413, 436

Index of Subjects and Persons

midrash, characteristics of 412–413, 415, 422, 428–430 Miriam 230–231, 352–354 – death 469, 507 – merits of 261–262, 356, 469 Mohammed/Muhammad 28, 61, 217, 322 Moses 46, 232–233, 252, 341 – covenant with 269, 282 – as judge 232–233, 341 – merits of 262 Nabatea(n) 153, 185, 462, 465–468, 477 Neofyti 6, 19–20, 175, 375, 395–396 – characteristics 2, 164, 178–179, 337, 394 – date & composition 19–20, 63, 176, 395–396, 403–405, 486 – discovery 2–5, 52, 118 – publication & translation of 4–5, 8–9, 66–67 Neofyti glosses & margins 4, 133–147, 260, 291–296, 375, 440 Nimrod 148, 157 obedience 280, 287–288 offerings 266, 326, 339–340. See also sacrifice Official Aramaic 180, 185, 191, 205 Onqelos 127, 177n41, 211, 218, 334–336 – characteristics 49–50, 196–197, 248–249, 331 – date & composition of 23, 49–50 – publication & translation of 30, 127 oral tradition 69, 79, 176, 330, 422, 425 – written 194, 215 origins of targumim 60–61, 68, 99, 163, 213–215, 238–239, 320–323. See also oral tradition; Palestinian Targum, origin; proto-targumim; written targumim paidagogos 198 paideia 242, 249 Palestinian Aramaic 44, 98, 185, 189, 191, 199–200, 207, 445

581

Palestinian Pentateuch Targum 45, 61–62, 163, 211–212, 375–376, 487 Palestinian Targum 43–44, 55, 240f, 318, 346 – date of 28–29, 40, 95, 175–177 – origin of 176–177, 482–484. See also proto-targum Palmyra/Palmarene 187, 193 patristic midrash 432–434 patristic parallels to rabbis 102, 309n47 Pentateuch Targumim 322, 326, 521 Paul 17–18, 72–76, 96, 236, 477–478 Pauline midrash 462, 477–478. See also parallels, targum & NT parallels, rabbis & NT 60, 69–71, 74, 78–79, 87–92, 102, 523 – overused 91–92 parallels, targum & NT 28, 45–47, 53–54, 60, 102, 321. See also targumic phrases parallels, targum & NT, examples 285, 491ff – John 439, 440–443, 456, 516 – Paul 46, 262–264, 462 parashah 177 Passover 218, 258. See also four nights perfect 265, 492, 500 peshat 334–336 pesher 40–41, 347–348, 462 Peshitta 445, 447 Petra 153–154, 217, 364, 465, 468–470, 476–477 Pharisees 72, 84–88, 218, 304, 411 philology/grammar 49, 213, 447. See also Aramaic grammars pillar of cloud 228–229, 508 polyglots 4, 28–31, 64–65, 119–120. See also publication of targumim Pontifical Biblical Institute 6–7, 17, 49, 398 prayer 228, 263, 282, 285, 332–333, 498–500 prayers 340, 521, 529 priests 333, 484, 527. See also high priest priesthood 303–304, 316, 333, 418 proto-targum 23, 192–193, 290, 483, 487. See also origins

582

Index of Subjects and Persons

Pseudo-Jonathon 156–159, 212–213, 240, 321–322, 328–329 publication of Targumim 43, 47, 62–66, 112–114, 123–128, 307. See also polyglots purpose of Targumim 60, 342–343 quail 228, 353 qrbn/qrbnyh 198–199, 326 Qumran 27, 51–52, 347–348. See also Dead Sea Scrolls Qumran Aramaic 51–52, 56, 97–98, 187–192, 234 R Akiba 299, 321, 326, 388, 486, 497 R. Gamaliel 85, 214, 443 R. Ishmael 299, 303–304, 308, 316, 326 R. Johanan ben Zakkai 86–87, 90–91, 168–169 rabbis 84–85. See also parallels, rabbis & NT rabbinic doctrine 68, 76–78 rabbinic exegesis 41, 73–74, 76, 240, 424, 519 rabbinic Judaism 38, 77, 287, 374–375 rabbinic literature 41, 60, 72–76, 89, 354, 421, 424 rabbinic schools 68, 86, 241, 411 rabbinic studies 33–36, 78–82, 87–92, 322–323 rabbinic tradition 69, 77, 83–84, 238–239 rain 253, 429, 506 Rebekah 301–302, 306 Rebekah’s nurse 198, 232, 283 redaction/revision 45, 215, 237, 521 respect for God. See anthropomorphism – reverential translations respect for patriarchs. See euphemistic translations – merits of ancestors repent (return) 248–249, 280–281 resurrection 430, 433, 435–436, 503–507, 520. See also afterlife; eschatology; second death reverential translations 331–332, 335. See also euphemistic translations

reward 225–226, 243–244, 264–268, 491–493, 500, 520 revolt (66–70 C.E.) 279, 348–350, 367–368 righteousness. See merits; addiq; zkr sacrifice 271, 328, 341, 351–352. See also offerings addiq, addiqah 252–253, 250–257, 296 Salem 296–298 Samaritan 188, 192, 300, 318–319 Sarah 159, 259, 340 scribes 8, 394. See also Menahem scholarly language 36, 61. See also literary Aramaic school/academy 239, 386, 411 school house 386 – of Shem 301 second death 512–516 seed 165–167, 216 Septuagint 51, 61, 343 serpent 278–279, 353, 359–360, 499 Shekinah 54, 223–224, 332, 528–530 Shem 298–303, 309, showers/rain 253, 429, 506 Sinai 470–473, 475–476, 479 slq 46, 452–459 Society of Biblical Literature 48, 91 Spanish translations of targumim 65, 67, 107 Spirit 7, 46 star (from Jacob) 279, 369–370, 388 St Thomas of Phordesa 152n7, 293–294 synagogues 39, 203, 319, 350, 439. See also liturgy Syriac 193, 445, 447 t‚ alîta 200, 208 Tamar 302, 494, 511, 522 Targumic phrases 54, 95–96, 216, 246–249, 331–332 – in NT 38–39, 225. See also parallels Targumic themes 18, 57, 79, 240ff, 281–284 tekton 207–208 teleios 500

Index of Subjects and Persons

tel-like structure 28–29, 236, 485, 518–522 – defined 317, 323 text of targumim 49–50, 127–128, 163, 211–213, 307, 320–323. See also manuscripts; publication theology 72–73, 96, 223–225, 257–258, 277–278, 439 three/third day(s) 446, 505–507, 520 tithe 142, 292, 315 Torah 96, 284, 323, 422, 472–473. See also law tradition 40, 102, 345, 354–355, 422 – age & dating of 55–56, 61, 79, 163, 345, 355 – transmission of 41–42, 69, 238, 354, 427. See also rabbinic tradition translation principles 116, 175, 130–131, 423 translation style 49, 109–111, 215–227, 331, 487 translation techniques 22–23, 110, 239, 254, 342, 423 translations of targumim, modern 50n8, 62–63, 120–121. See also English, French, Spanish translators 10, 112–114, 124–128, 240 transmission of targumim 55, 96–97, 237

583

Tree of Life 96, 242–243, 503–504 vernacular Aramaic 56, 60, 187–188, 213, 238, 481n5 visions 272–274, 436–437, 494–496 vivification. See resurrection vocabulary 23, 200, 491, 518. See also loan words well 229–230, 301, 347, 353–354, 362–363, 507–509 Western Aramaic 191–193, 199, 184–186, 213 wisdom 225, 241–242, 250, 411 world to come. See afterlife word play 456–457 word. See memra – logos wood (gopher) 167–168 written targumim 69, 163, 176–177, 215. See also origins of targumim Yemen(ite) 122, 213, 215 Zealots 348–350, 367–368, 373, 388 Zechariah 526–528 zkr 253, 259–262

Index to Citations and References Old Testament Genesis 1 1:4 1:28 2–3 2:3 2:9–15 3 3:6 3:11 3:14 3:15 3:19 3:22–24 3:24 4:6–8 4:13 4:14 4:20 4:26 5:1 6:6 6:7 6:9 6:14 7:1 10:7 10:10 11 11:2 12 12:3 12:8 12:13 12:19 14

441 222 232, 383 242 314n59 242 359, 462 242 462 360 20, 216, 227, 243–244, 430 227, 430, 504 243 225–226 264–265 216 219 389 346 314n59 222 314n59 250 167 250 467 148 300 148 461 381 228 259 220 156–159, 300, 305

14:1–17 14:3 14:5 14:6 14:7 14:8, 10 14:13 14:17–20 14:17 14:18 14:19–20 14:19 14:19b–20a 14:20 14:22 15 15:1 15:8–16 15:17–21 15:17 15:19 15:20 16:6–7 16:7 16:13–14 16:14 17:1 17:9–14 17:14 17:19 18 18:1 18:3 18:18 18:19

148–156 294–295, 316 174, 292 466, 470 174, 471 294, 316 293 289–317 132 295–300, 308–313, 527 313–317 314 299 315n61 314 268, 270–271 226, 315n61, 339n61, 493 271 271 485 382, 389 155 465 174, 470 465 152, 467 232, 265 232 269n52 171 340, 461 232 222 261 251

585

Index to Citations and References

18:26 19:2 20:1 20:12–13 21:1 21:5 21:14 21:21 21:33 22 22:4 22:10 22:14 22:17 22:18 24:10 24:11 24:59 25:3 25:13 25:15 25:18 25:22–23 26:24 26:4 25:25 25:27 26:35 27 27:40 27:46 28 28:10–22 28:12 29:17 29:31, 33 30:27 32:4 32:7 33:11 33:14 33:18 34:12 35:8 35:18 35:22 35:28

216 301 152 220 479 301 465 223, 465, 470 485 81, 340, 351, 461, 462, 485, 521 429, 506, 520 352, 494–495 352 351 461 171, 197 174 198 169 465 474 465 302 259, 261 261 301 386 246 340 244 131, 359 461 485 494–495 168, 220 220 259 152 348n7 173 152, 173–174 298 196–197 198 174 164, 220 301

36:7 36:12 38 38:24–26 38:35 39:5 40:20 41:38 41:45, 50 42:17 42:21 46:20 46:21 48:20 49 49:1–2 49:3 49:9 49:10–12 49:10 49:18 50:17

131 471 302 485, 493–494 522 259, 261 174 224 308, 312 429, 506, 520 170–172 308 312 261 485 272–273 174 388 227 363 279 216

Exodus 1:12 1:19 2:16 3:1 3:6 3:14 4:16 4:22–23 4:24–26 6:25 9:27 12:42 12:46 13:21 15:1 15:2, 4 15:17 15:18 15:22 15:23 15:27 16 16:13–17:6

359 225, 498 312 308, 312 430, 504–505 282 246 497 81 303 250 231, 485 218 353 430, 504 429–430 222 274–275 471, 507 228 507 360, 471 353

586 17:1–7 17:8 17:8–16 17:12 17:15 18 18:1 18:5 18:15, 19 19 19:3 19:5 19:6 20:5–6 20:6 20:18 21:1 21:14 21:24, 29 22:15 22:17 23:16 23:19 23:21 24 24:1 24:10 24:15–18 25:1 28:1, 3 28:4 28:41 29:1 29:9 29:44 30:30 31:10 32 32:4, 8 32:9 32:12–13 32:23, 25 32:32 32:34, 35 33:3, 5, 7 33:14 33:20

Index to Citations and References

360, 469n34, 471, 507 466 471 497, 499 360 472 312 472 246 269, 470n37 246, 339, 525 288 429, 506, 520 426 247 269 472 310 218 196–197 218 324 218 216 269 246 168–169, 223 339 339 312 170n23, 312 312 312 310 312 312 312 164, 220, 384 164–165 246 263 164–165 216 165 246 447 223

33:22b–23 34:6–7 34:9 34:26 34:28 35:19, 41 40:13 40:15 40:34–38

224 426 246 218 246 312 312 310, 312 339

Leviticus 1:1, 2 1:8 1:9, 13, 15, 17 5:21 6:2 7:35 9:4 10:1 10:6 10:19–20 14:26 16 16:32 19:4 19:15 19:17 19:30 19:36 20:3, 5, 6 20:22 21:1 21:1 22:27 22:28 22:31 23:11, 15 23:29 23:39–43 24:12 26:1 26:2 26:7, 12 26:14 26:15 26:18, 21, 23 26:27 26:44

331–336 318, 339 337 326 337 330n34 312, 333 335 327 337 318 333 327–330 312, 333 335 250 338 333 250 335 359 310 333 318 232 266 218, 337 218 324 232, 341, 485 338 332 335 248 269n52 248 333, 248 269n52

Index to Citations and References

Numbers 3:3 3:4 3:10 6:24–26 9:8–10 9:8 10:10 10:14, 22 10:33 10:34 10:36 11:23 11:26 12:1 12:16 13:3 13:26 14:16 14:18 14:22 15:20 15:34 15:39 16:10 18:1, 7 20–25 20:1–11 20:1 20:10–13 20:13, 24 20:21 20:22–29 20:28–21:1 20:29 21:1 21:1–13 21:1–15 21:4–9 21:5 21:7 21:8 21:8–11 21:13–24 21:14–15 21:16 21:16–20

312 312, 327 310 164–165, 220 232–233 232, 341, 485 470 385 445–447, 449 446 280 222 360 219 470 470 152, 469–470 152 216 152 475 232, 341, 485 445 311 311 469–470 228 152, 352, 469 469 469 502 469 229 352 359 356 471 469 359 360, 380 497, 499 360 357 360–362 362–363 229–230, 353, 469, 507–509

21:17 21:17–18 21:18 21:19 21:19–20 21:22–28 21:25–35 21:29 21:30–31, 33 22–24 22:2–21 22:18 23:7, 18 23:9 23:22 23:24 23:14 24 24:1 24:1–7 24:2–4 24:4 24:4–6 24:4–9 24:6–8 24:7 24:7–15 24:7–21 24:7–24 24:9–17 24:10–14 24:11 24:14–24 24:15 24:15–17 24:15–21 24:17 24:17–19 24:17–24 24:18 24:21–25 24:21, 23 24:22–25 24:23–25 24:24 25 25:7 25:12

587 363–364 509, 520 347, 363 353–354 509 364 358 364–365 365 374–375, 469 369n12 381 385 260 380 381 374 384–391 384 376, 378–380 385 385–386, 388 386 371 387 227, 371 380–381 377 374 388 371 373 371 385 370 381–382 227, 369–370 370 350,368, 374, 389 369 378 385 382–383 390 350, 369, 389 390 341 303

588

Index to Citations and References

25:13 26:10 27:5 27:12 27:14 29:12–38 31:15 31:16 32:8 33:14 33:36 33:37 33:44 33:45 34:4 34:15 35:1–9 35:25, 28, 32

311 360 232, 341, 485 360 469 324 373 374, 388 153 507 152, 469 152 153, 360 153 153 365 469 309

Deuteronomy 1:44 1:2 1:4 1:16 1:19 1:33 1:46 2:1, 5 2:6 2:8 2:9 2:10, 11 2:12 2:14 2:20 2:22 2:26 2:29 2:36 3:1 3:3, 4, 10 3:11 3:13, 14 4:4, 9, 23, 31 4:47 4:48 5:9–10 5:10

82, 281 152 152–153 158, 365 250 152–153 445–447, 449 152–153 152 219 152 362 155, 156 152 152, 153 154, 155 152 472 362 362 365 365 155, 158, 365 365 248 365 362 426 247

6:4–7 6:5 6:12 7:9–10 8:11, 14, 19 9:4 9:4–6 9:6, 13 9:23 10:6 10:12 10:20 11:1 11:43 12:9 12:21 13:5 14:5b 16:13–15 16:18, 20 18:11 18:12 18:13 21:22–23 21:23 23:5–6 25:4 25:15 28:1ff 28:20 28:31 28:50, 68 29:6 30:1–3 30:2 30:9 30:16–18 31:4 31:16, 20 31:27 32:5 32:6 32:14 32:18 32:21 32:29 32:30 32:39

227 222 248 266, 492 248 258 256, 263 246 152–153, 470n36 312 222 248 222 365 447 218 247–249 173 324 250 246 259 265 460n1, 462 461 369 413 250 244 248 267 390 365 281 248 497 244 158 269n52, 270n54 246 497 502 244, 365 248 516 430 244 226–227, 430, 504

589

Index to Citations and References

32:49 32:51 33:2 33:3 33:6 33:8 33:15 33:16 33:19 33:21 33:24 33:29

360 469 365, 470, 473 247, 473 430, 514 469 260–261 261 250 251–252, 363 502 244

Joshua 2:16 5:12 13:22 15:39 24:9–10

506, 520 229, 352 369 151, 293 369

Judges 2:1 5:1 5:30

269n52, 270n54 351 219

1 Samuel (1 Kings) 4:12 15:7 15:9 25:22, 34 27:8

351 471 387 220 471

2 Samuel (2 Kings) 11:2–17 13 13:23 18:5 18:18

220 220 466 173 150, 292

1 (3) Kings 1:43 14:10 15:19 19:12b 21:21 21:27

171 220 269n52 228 220 173

2 (4) Kings 2:11 18:17–19:36 19:12 25:8–12

454 350 149 527

1 Chronicles 29:10

413, 429 497

2 Chronicles 1:14 5:10, 19 15:1–7 16:3 19:3 20:2 24:19 24:20–22 24:21–22 24:27 30:10–11 33:17

413, 429 171 474 429 269n52 171 154 526 526–527 526 410 183 171

Ezra 4:18 6:12 7–8 7 7:7–8 10:13

320 529n27 323 238 323 171

Nehemiah 3:14 7:4 7:22b–8:18 7:72 8 8:1–3 8:8 8:13–15 8:15 9:12 13:2

151, 293 182 323 323 238, 323 213, 320 60n2, 213, 216, 221, 238, 320, 342 324 323–325 353 369

Esther 5:1 9:2

429 506, 520

590

Index to Citations and References

Job 3:16 15:11 27:6 33:26 35:8 36:6 37:23

429 173 251 251 251 433 251

Psalms 1:2 1:5 2 7:9 8 8:2(3) 9:5 11:4, 7 12 17:15 18:20–24, 37–42 19:1–6 29:1 41:10 45 (44) 45:5 50:6 51:6 51:21 52:7 68:16–17 68(67):17(18) 68(67):18(19) 68:26(27) 72:3 76:3 76:24, 27 78:20ff 81:8 81:14–15 83:7 84:4 85:11–14 88 90:4 95:7 95:8 96:13

227 433 305 254 305 429–430 254 255 81 254 244 386 429 297n13 305 254 254 223 254 254 472 475, 525 525 429 255 297 353 360 469 244 466, 474 430, 504 255 413 225, 242 288 469 254–255

96:10 98:9 104:2 105:40–41 106:22 106:31 110 (109) 110:1 110:1–3 110:4 111:3 112:3, 9 119:7, 75, 106, 138 132 132:9

255 254–255 386 360 469 255 304–308, 316–317 299, 303 305 299, 303–304, 308 255 255 254 413 254

Proverbs 1–9 3:16 3:18 8:22–31 8:30 31:23 52:15

82, 413 242 226, 430, 504 225, 242 198 433 198

Canticle of Solomon (Song of Songs) 82n69, 413, 434 Isaiah 1–39 1–27 1–5 1:4 1:21, 26 1:27 2:2 3:14 5:7, 16, 23 8:2 8:6 9:6 10:22 11:4 11:5 14:13 14:17 16:5 22:13, 14

252–254 519 12 12 497 252n23 253n25 475 433 253n25 526 173 252 131, 253n25 252n23 252 458 141 252n23 515

591

Index to Citations and References

24:5 269n52, 270n54 24:16 273 24:23 275, 421n40 26:9 252n23 26:19 429, 506 26:20 267 28–39 12 28:5 276 28:17 253n25 29:11–12 519 31:4–5 275 32:1 252n23 32:16–17 253 33:5 252, 253n25 33:8 269n52 33:21 390 35 519 37 350 37:12 149 40–55 (Deutero-Is.) 12, 82, 413, 519 40:9 276 40:22 386 41:2–3 82 41:10 252n23 42:6 252n23 42:21 252 45:8 252, 253n25, 387 45:13, 19 252n23 45:24 253n25, 253 46:6–8 253 46:12–13 253n25, 253 48:1 253n25, 253–254 48:11 257 48:18 253n25 51:1 252n23 51:4–5 253 51:5 252 51:6 253 51:6, 8 253n25 52:7 276, 505n67 52:13–53:12 82 53 507 56–66 (Trito-Is.) 12, 82, 519 56:1 252–253 58:2 253n25 58:8 252 59:16 253n25 59:17 253

60–62 60:17 61:10, 11 63:1 62:2 63:16 64:4–5 64:6 64:7 64:8 65 65:1–2 65:15, 17, 19

413 253n25 253n25, 254 253n25 252 497–498 252 253n25 497 498 516 516 516

Jeremiah 3:4, 19 6:1 7:12 9:6 11:10 11:20 14:21 23:5–6 25:11–12 29:10 31:8, 9 31:15 31:27–30 31:31–34 31:32 33:20–21 33:20 42:4 48:5 51:19 51:57

238, 426 497–498 151, 293 131 131 269n52 270n54 269n52, 270 426 82 82 497, 498 360 426 270 269n52 269–270 269n52 297 297 514–515 515

Ezekiel 7:6, 7 7:10 15:3, 5 16 16:3 16:6 16:7b 16:59 16:60, 61 17:15, 18

413 275–276 276 221 220–221, 257, 413 221, 257 257 221 269n52 257 269n52

592

Index to Citations and References

18:1–4 23 34 36 36:20–23 36:25 36:26 37:2–3 38–39 44:7 47:19 48:28 48:30–35

426 220 81 263 256–257 497 270 226, 430, 504 389 269n52 469 469 513

Jonah 2:1

429, 506, 520

Micah 4:5 4:7–8 4:7b

221 276–277 277

Habakkuk 3:3

470, 473

Haggai 3:23

426

Daniel 2 2:18, 28, 30, 47–78 4:8 5:12 7 7:13–14

82, 199, 373n27 373 273 529n27 246n15 373 350, 368–369, 389 373 390 82 368 171 390 504–505 82

Zechariah 1–8 (Proto-Z) 1:1 9–14 (Deutero-Z) 11:10 12:2–6 14:2–5 14:8, 9

82 527 82 269n52 350 350 277

Malachi 1:6 2:16a

497–498 219

Judith 4:4

297

8 8:23 9:2ff 9:24–27 10:7, 21 11:30 12:1–3 12:2–3 Hosea 2:1 6:2 6:3 10:1–4 11:4 14:2, 3

497 429, 505–506, 520 429 81 173 249n18

Joel 2:16

429

Amos 5:24

387

Obadiah 1:21 1:21b

277 277–278

Wisdom (of Solomon) 82, 413, 490 7:13 118 10:21 430 Ben Sira(ch)/Ecclesiasticus 96, 241, 284, 354n24, 490 Prologue 238 19:20 242 24:3 241–242 24:8 241 24:25–27 241–242 48:9 454 49:14 454 51:23 411 Baruch

241

593

Index to Citations and References

1 Maccabees 1:49 2:58 3:42 3:48 5:20–23 9:50–52 12:33–34 13:11, 43–48 14:35, 41

270 454 349 367 183 182 182 182 304

2 Maccabees 2:21 3:24

275 275

5:4 10:6–8 12:22 12:42–45 14:15 14:35 15:27

275 324–325 275 433 275 529 275

Samaritan Pentateuch 234, 298 Numbers 24:24 383 35:25, 28, 32 309 Leviticus 318–319

New Testament Matthew 1–2 2 3:13–17 4:1–11 5:4, 6 5:11 5:12 5:15 5:16 5:22 5:32 5:45 5:46 5:48 6:1 6:2, 5 6:9 6:14 6:16 6:19–21 6:26, 32 7:11 7:21 8:2, 5, 16 10:32, 33 10:42 11:23 12:50

413, 418, 502 415–416 81–82 495 81 492 268 492 492 268, 491, 496 433 413 496 492 172n26, 496, 500 268, 492, 496 492 496 496 492 267n47, 492 496 496, 505n67 496, 502 268 496 492 458 496, 502

13:17 13:55 16:17 16:17–19 16:21 18:8 18:10, 14, 19 18:20 19:9 19:18 19:21 21:15–16 22:22 22:37 22:43 23:9 23:23–33 23:34–36 23:35 25:34, 35 25:41 25:42, 43 26:42 27:46

385n42 207 496 6 506n71 494 496 528–530 413 433 500 430 505 249 304n31 496 503 526 526–528 433 433, 494 433 502 38, 455n16

Mark 2:23–28 4:1–22 4:12

502 485 81 488

594

Index to Citations and References

5:41 6:3 7:1–22 7:11 7:26 8:38 9:41 9:43–48 12:18–27 12:26 12:30, 33 16:19

208, 491 207 485 198–199 201 494 492 494 503 430, 505 249 454

Luke 1:26–2:40 1:67–79 2:25, 38 6:23, 35 6:36 6:37–38 9:22 9:26 9:51 10:15 10:24 10:27 11:13 11:49–52 11:51 12:32–34 12:33 16:19–31 17:8 20:27–28 20:37 20:38 23:43 24:18 24:26 24:44–47

413 413, 415–416 81 506 492 172n26, 488, 500 494 506n71 274, 494 454–455, 459 458 385n42 249 496 526 526–528 492 267n47, 492 503 445 503 430 505 503 201 520 506

John

38, 46n112, 54, 59, 317, 489, 509–512, 523–524 440 442 442 496

1:1ff 1:1–3 1:9 1:50–51

2–12 2:4 3:13–14 3:14 3:14b–15 3:18 3:19 3:23 6:2 6:62 7:30 7:33–35 8:12 8:14 8:21–28 8:21, 22 8:28 11:23 12 12:22–34 12:23, 27–28 12:27 12:32–34 12:32, 34 13–20 13:1 13:3, 33–36 14:4–5, 28 16:5, 10, 17 18:31 18:34ff 19:11, 25 19:27 20:17

509 509 451, 458 450–452 450 433 442 298, 298n16 454 458 509 456–457 442 457 456–458 457 450, 456–458 503 206 457 509 510 450–452, 453n11, 454, 457–458 46 509 509 457 457 457 462 201 201 510 454, 458

Acts 1:2, 11, 22 1:15–22 2 2:9 2:34 3 6:1 6:9 9:23–25 10:16 13

454 413 82 201 454 82 201, 205 201 477 454 82

595

Index to Citations and References

21:26–30 21:40 23:6 26:5

203 206 72 72

Romans 2:12 4 8:31–32 9:4–5 9:4 10:2–4 10:6–8 10:6–7 10:6 10:15 10:20–21 11:28 16:20

72 433 82 460 263 268 288 1, 46, 53, 95 321n9 458 505n67 516 263 21n33

1 Corinthians 3:15 9:8–10 10:4 10:8 15 15:3–4 15:4 15:55–56

433 413 54, 74, 96, 520 469 434 506, 520 429 81

2 Corinthians 3 3:17 3:17–18 11:32–33

1 416 7, 46, 54, 476n50 7 477

Galatians 1:4 1:17 1:18 2:9 3 3:1–16 3:6–29 3:16 3:19 3:19–25 3:27

460 476–477 477, 507 460 462 462 460–461 462 74, 473 198 462

4:21–31 4:23, 24 4:25a 4:25b 4:28 4:29–30

462–463 463 464, 473–474 464 463n17 462

Ephesians 1:4 4:7–10 4:8–10 4:8

38–39 524 454 38, 458, 524–526

Philippians 3:5 3:5–6 3:7

72 288 288

Colossians 1:22

39

2 Thessalonians 2:8 2:17

275 492

1 Timothy 2:10 3:15 3:16 5:10, 25 6:8

492 460 454, 458 268, 492 492

2 Timothy 2:21 3:8 3:8–9 3:17

268, 492 46 101 268, 492

Titus 1:16 2:7, 14 3:8, 14

268, 492 268, 492 268, 492

Hebrews 1:2 7 7:1–3 8:1

289n1 416 304 304 38

596

Index to Citations and References

9:11 10:1 10:24 13:21

505n67 505n67 268 268

James

81

2 Peter 3:8

225

I John 1:6 2:8 2:9 4:20–21

442 443 442 249–250

Jude 24

39

Revelation 2:11 3:12 12:16–17 14:4–5 20:4–6 20:6, 14 20:13–14 20:14–21:4 21:1, 4 21:8 22:16

46, 59, 413 512–513, 521 460, 516 8, 21 38 513 512–513, 521 513 516 516 512–513, 521 388

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Enoch 1:3–9

86 475

2 Baruch 14:19 15:7 21:14 81:4

86 314n60 314n60 314n60 273

4 Esdras (Ezra) 8:1, 44 9:13

86 314n60 314n60

Book of Jubilees 16:24 30:1

490 330 297

Life of Adam & Eve 28:4 503 Lives of the Prophets 2:15 503 3:12 503 23 528 Psalms of Solomon 86, 455 4:20(18) 454

3 Maccabees 2:9 5:8

275 275

4 Maccabees 7:19 13:14–15, 17–18 16:25 18:6–19 18:10 18:16–19

100, 226 505 505 505 226 504 430, 504

Assumption of Moses 10:12 454, 455n16 11:5–6 455n16

Seven Heavens apocryphon 436 Testament of Moses 1:12 314n60 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Juda 24:1 370 Levi 18:3 370, 483

597

Index to Citations and References

Qumran Texts 187, 193–194, 202, 205–206, 345, 488

Murabba’at transactions 187, 194, 195, 203–204, 205, 488

Community Rule 4Q258

328n29

Nahal Hever

Copper Scroll 3Q15

151, 194–195, 293

Damascus Document (Rule) CD V 1:7 363 CD 6:6–8 347 CD 7:9–21 370 Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) 1QGenAp/1QapGen 41, 186, 188–190, 193–194, 418 XXI 11 152, 466 XXI 23 148–149 XXI 25 149 XXI 28 154 XXI 29 152, 466 XXI 31 149 XXII 13–14 150, 292–294 XXII 13 297 XXII 15 309

202, 203–204, 488

pesher 418 pesher Psalm (4Q171) on 37:23 348 pesher Nahum 1 (4Q169) on 2:12 461 pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 41 VII 5–8 on 2:3 273 Targum Job 4QtgJob (4Q157) 11QtgJob (11Q10) XXVIII 9 Job 36:2 XXXIII 8 Job 39:27 Targum Leviticus 4QtgLev (4Q156)

98, 193, 214 98–99, 193, 214 99 99

98, 193, 214, 318, 327–330

Temple Scroll (11Q19)

461–462

Messianic Anthology (Testimonia) 4Q 175 370

Testament of Levi (4Q213) 192, 483

Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) frag 2 col. II 11–13 504

War Scroll (1QM, 4QM) col. XI, 6–7

376 370

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 10:12 454, 455n16 11:5–6 455n16 De nativitate Mariae 434 Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 434

Gospel of Peter 1:19, 5:19

455n16

Protevangelium Jacobi 434 Transitus Mariae

436

Visio Sancti Pauli

436

598

Index to Citations and References

Translations Septuagint

23, 39, 51, 82, 195n38, 197, 199, 234, 326, 343, 491

LXX Genesis 3:15 430 6:14 167 11 300 12:19 220 14:5 156 14:15 155 14:18 308 20:12–13 220 24:10 197 25:3 169–170 29:17 169n19 33:18 297 34:12 196–197 LXX Exodus 22:15 196–197 LXX Leviticus 1:9, 13, 15, 17 326 16:1 327 LXX Numbers 24 375 24:3 385 24:4–9 371 24:7 387 24:17 388 24:23a 390 24:24 383 31:8 153 33:44, 45 153 35:25, 28, 32 309 LXX Deuteronomy 1:33 449 31:16, 20 270n54 LXX Judges 2:1 270n54 LXX Nehemiah 8:8 320n5 LXX Job 83n 1–15 83n74 LXX Psalms 67(68):18(17)c 525 67(68):19(18) 525

44(45) 109(110) LXX Proverbs LXX Isaiah 8:2 24:5 LXX Jeremiah 11:20 14:21 33:14–22 48:5 LXX Daniel 3:34

305 305 83 61, 83 526–527 270n54 238, 426 270n54 270n54 426 297

Aquila Genesis 14:8 Leviticus

23, 167n14, 343 294 326

Symmachus Genesis 6:14 14:1, 9 Leviticus

23, 167n14, 343

270n54

167 148–149 326

Theodotion Genesis 14:8 Leviticus Daniel 3:34

23, 167n14, 343 294 326

Dositheus Esther

204

Syriac Peshitta Genesis 14:1 14:7 14:10 16:14 20:1 24:24 29:17 49:15 Leviticus 21:18

23, 166n11, 465 166n11 149 152 149 152 152 383 166n11, 169 448

270n54

166–167

599

Index to Citations and References

Numbers 10:33 13:26 14:16, 22 20:1 21:1 21:33 24:5 24:17 24:24 32:8 33:36 33:37 34:4 Deuteronomy 1:2, 19 1:33 1:46 2:14 9:23 Sirach 1 Timothy 3:16

445–447 152 152 152 359 365 386 388 383 153 152, 469 152 153 152–153 445–447, 449 152 152–153 152–153 426 458

Christian Palestinian Aramaic Romans 10:16 458 Ephesians 4:8 458

1 Timothy 3:16

458

Vetus Latina Genesis 3:15 Sirach

61, 347 430 426

Vulgate Genesis 3:15 6:14 14:1 14:8 14:9 24:24 25:3 29:17 Leviticus 16:1 Numbers 21:1 21:14 24:3 24:7 24:14 24:24 Malachi 2:16a

23 430 167 148–149 294 148–149 383 169 169n19 327 359 361 385 371 388 383, 390 219

Targums Tg. Genesis 1:1–18:18 1:1–3:4 1:1 1:3–5 1:4 1:26–28 2–3 2:3 2:15 3:14 3:15 3:18 3:19 3:22–24

3:24 394 212 314n59 223 222 224 242 314n59 242 360 8, 21, 216, 227, 242–243, 245, 278 245, 283 227, 390, 430 243

4:3–5 4:6–8 4:8 4:13 4:14 4:26 5:1 6:3 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:14 7:1

225–227, 242–245, 390 199 264–265, 492 266, 274, 390 216 219 346 314n59 265, 280–281 222 314n59 250 250, 265 167 250

600 10:10–11 10:12 10:19 11:28 12:6 12:8 12:13 12:20 12:26 13:18 14:1–15:1 14:1 14:1–17 14:2–5 14:3 14:5 14:6 14:6–10 14:7 14:8 14:10 14:11–14 14:13 14:14–18 14:17 14:17–20 14:18 14:19–20 14:19–24 15:1 15:2 15:8–16 15:11 15:17 15:17–21 15:19 15:20 16:7 16:14 17:1 17:19 18:1 18:3 18:18 18:19 18:21

Index to Citations and References

148–149 149 217 157 151, 293 228 259–260 348n7, 385n40 260 151, 293, 308–313 132–159 133–134 148–156 134–135 294 174 152 136–137 174 294, 311n52 294 138–139 293 140–141 132–133, 291–295 333n42 295–300, 308–309, 311n52 313–317 142–143 144–147, 226, 259, 267, 493 195n38, 283 271 258, 274, 285 246 271 382 155 174 152, 467 265 171 151, 293 222 261 251, 259 280

18:26 19:11 20:1 21:1 21:21 21:33 22 22:1 22:8 22:10 22:14 22:19 24:2 24:10 24:11 24:24 24:59 24:61 24:62 25:3 25:22 25:27 26:1 26:24 26:35 27 27:40 27:46 28 28:10–22 28:12 28:14 28:16–17 28:17 29:17 29:18 29:31, 33 30:27 30:30 31:5 31:39 32:4 32:7 33:11

216, 259–260 245 152, 467 479 28, 217, 223, 322 150, 484, 490, 498–500 54, 96, 485, 488, 510, 521 301 279n65 352, 494–495, 511, 521 263, 352, 510, 512, 521 301 197n45 171, 197 174 383 198 491n36 301 169–170 283, 301 265 364 259, 261 246 484 244 131 54, 96 485 494–495 259, 261 495 195n38 168, 220 247 220 259 261 279n65 266 152 348n7 173

Index to Citations and References

33:14 33:18 34 34:12 34:21 35:3 35:8 35:9 35:18 35:22 36:7 36:38 38:16–26 38:24–26 38:25 38:25–26 39:5 39:11 40:13 40:19 40:20 41:13 41:38 41:42 41:45, 50 42:21 45:22 46:20 46:21 47:22, 26 48:20, 22 49 49:1–2 49:1 49:3 49:9 49:10 49:10–12 49:11 49:15 49:18 49:24 50:17

152, 173–174 265 491n36 196–197 265 512 198 251, 361 174 164 131 245 163n3 485 250, 510–512, 522 493–494 259, 261 158 312 461 174 461 224 195n38 308, 310, 312 170–172 195n38 308, 310 312 310 261 8, 272n56, 485 272–273, 278, 284 265, 385n42, 390, 505, 520 174, 311 388 29, 211, 363, 481 227, 279 195n38 448–449 279 158 216

Tg. Exodus 1:12 1:15

359 100

1:19 1:21 2:5 2:8 2:16 3:1 3:14 4:16 7:11 7:11–12 9:27 10:17 12:38 12:42

12:46 14:6 14:20 15:1 15:2, 4 15:8 15:12 15:17 15:18 16 17:1ff 17:8 17:11 17:12 17:15 18:1 18:15 18:18 18:19 19:49 19:3 19:5–6 19:6 20 20:6 21:14 21:19 21:24 21:29 22:4–6 22:15 23:17

601 225, 498–499 311 491n36 491nn36–37 312 308, 312 282 246 46 101 250 514n92 383 20, 53, 95, 100, 231–232, 278n63, 301, 441–442, 485 218 195n38 441n5 363 430 274–275 8, 21 222 301, 441 360 360 470n37 498–499 250 360 312 246 245 246 269 246 269 312 269, 502 247 310 266 218 218 166n9 196–197 246

602 23:19 23:21 24 24:1 24:6–8 24:10 26:6 26:9 28:1, 3, 4 28:11 28:17 28:18, 19, 20 28:41 29:1, 44 29:9 29:23 30:18 30:30 31:10 32 32:4, 8 32:9 32:21–35 32:23, 25 32:32 32:35 33:3, 5, 7 33:11, 20 33:14, 14 33:22b–23 34 34:9 34:26 34:28 35:19

Index to Citations and References

35:29–30 35:41 36:6 38:3 38:21 39:41 40:13, 15 40:15

218 216 269 246 269 168–169 195n38 28 311n52, 312 195n38 361 195n38 311n52, 312 311n52, 312 310 195n38 195n38 311n52, 312 310n51, 311n52 164–165, 173 164–165 246 164 164–165 216 165 246 7 447 224 46 246 218 246 310n51, 311n52, 312 395 312 195n38 195n38 310nn50–51 310n51 311n52 310–311

Tg. Leviticus 1:1–22:2 1:1

176 394 331–332, 339

1:1–2 1:2 1:8 1:9, 13, 15 1:17 5:21 7:35 8:35 9:2 9:4 9:6, 23 9:24 10:6, 13 10:30 10:45 14:26 15:31 16 16:1 16:12–15, 18–21 16:32 18:3 18:21 19:4 19:9 19:11, 12 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:26 19:30 20:3, 5, 6 20:9, 14 20:22 21:1 21:4 21:10, 13, 20 22:2–18 22:7 22:9 22:18–23:28 22:18 22:26–23:44 22:26–27 22:27

339 318 337 326 326, 331 337 311n52, 312, 333 331 332 335 332 333 337 331 337 310n50, 333 332 52, 327–330, 332 327, 333 318 311n52, 312, 333 195n38 165–167 335 337 334 259 338 247, 259 334, 337 332 335 337 359 310, 333 310n50, 311n52, 333 337 394 512 331 394 488 318 340 172, 333, 339–340, 361, 501, 521

Index to Citations and References

22:28 22:29 22:31 23:3–27:34 23:11, 15 23:28–27:34 23:29 23:40 24:11–12 24:12 25:15, 36, 37 26 26:1 26:2 26:7 26:11–16 26:11b 26:12 26:14, 18, 21 26:23 26:27 26:30 26:40 Tg. Numbers 2:2 2:10, 17, 18 2:19 2:25, 31, 34 3:3, 4 4:7 4:16, 20, 28, 33 7:1 7:89 9:8–10 9:8 10:14, 22 10:25 10:33 10:36 11:23 11:26 12:1 12:12 12:13 12:15–16

172–173, 232, 334, 498, 500–502 502 266 394 218, 337 394 218 325 341 232, 259, 341, 485 334 331 332, 338 332–333 335 332 331 335 248 248, 331 248 331 195n38 394 195n38 385 509 385 311n52, 312 195n38 310 339 7, 46 233 232, 341, 485 385 195n38 449 280 222 227, 360, 453n11, 454 219 262n38, 353 262 230–231

12:16 13:26 14:16 14:18 14:22 15:34 15:38 16:1 16:10 16:28 17:2, 4 18:31 20:1 20:17 20:18–20 20:21 20:28–21:1 21 21:1

21:1–13 21:2–5 21:6 21:7–11 21:9 21:13–24 21:14–15 21:15 21:16 21:16–20 21:17 21:17–18 21:17–19 21:19 21:20 21:22–21:28 21:24 21:25–35 21:26, 28 21:29 21:30–33 21:34 21:36 22:3 22:18 22:30

603 262, 353 152 152 216 152 232, 341, 485 195n38 514n92 311, 333 381 310 266 152–153, 364 364 211 502 229 355–365, 367 258, 262, 352, 358–359, 453n11, 454, 460, 469 356 359 353, 359–360 360 498 357 360–362 364 362–363 96, 229–230, 362, 508–509 364 520 363 353, 364 363–364 364 362, 365 358 362 364–365 365 159 362 359 381 259

604 22:39 23:3 23:7 23:9 23:10 23:18 23:23 23:24 24 24:1 24:1–7 24:2–4 24:3 24:4 24:5 24:5–6 24:8 24:6 24:7 24:7–15 24:7–21 24:9–16 24:15 24:15–21 24:17 24:17–19 24:17–20 24:17–24 24:18 24:20 24:21 24:22–25 24:23 24:23–25 24:24 25:1 25:11 26:1 26:10 27:5 27:12 32:8 32:33 33:36, 37 33:44

Index to Citations and References

314n60 279n65 385 250, 259n33, 260, 263 386, 514n92 385 266, 385, 492, 498, 500, 505n67 381 367, 376–378 384 376–377, 378–380 385 278, 381, 385 381, 385–386 259n33, 260, 261n37 386 387 386–387 227, 387 380–381 377 388 278, 385 381–382 227, 388–389 211 385 279, 388–390 152 385, 390 385, 377–378 378 266, 385 390 28, 217 383 310 310 360 232, 341, 485 360 153 365 152 360

34:3 34:4 34:15 35:25, 28 35:32

385n41 153 154, 365 333 310, 333

Tg. Deuteronomy 1:1–20:17 1:1 1:2 1:2, 19 1:4 1:33 1:44 1:46 2 2:1, 5 2:6 2:8 2:9 2:10, 11 2:12 2:14 2:20 2:22 2:29 2:36 3:3, 4, 10 3:11 3:13 3:14 3:35 4:4, 9 4:17 4:23 4:30 4:31 4:37 4:48 5:10 6:5 6:12 6:25 8:11, 14, 19 7:9 7:10 7:13 9:4–6

281, 394 394 65 152 152–153 365 449 152 152 362 152 219 152 362 155–156 152 152–153 155 152 362 362 365 155, 158–159, 365 195n38, 365 365 283 248 195n38 248 280, 498 248 247 362 247 222, 247 248 259n32 248 247, 266, 492 266, 492–493 247 256

605

Index to Citations and References

9:4 9:5 9:6, 13 9:18, 20 9:23 10:6 10:12 10:20 11:1 11:13, 22 11:30 11:43 12:9 12:19 12:21 13:4 13:5 14:5b 15:11 15:16 18:11 18:12 18:13 19:9 20:19 20:20 21:30 22 22:7 24:6 25:18 26:3 27:8 28:20 28:31 28:32 28:68 29:6 29:17[18]–34:12 30:1–3 30:2 30:3 30:6 30:10–12 30:12–13 30:12–14 30:16, 20 31:19, 22

258 259n33 246 283 152–153 311n52, 312 222, 247 248 222, 247 247 151, 293 365 447, 449 449n8 218 247 247–249 173 246n16 247 246 259 265 247 512, 522 195n38 363 491n36 501 361 245 310 361 248 267 498, 500 390 365 212 281 248–250 280 247 46 321n9 1, 53, 95, 458 247 363

31:27 31:32, 34 32:1 32:2 32:4 32:6 32:14 32:15 32:18 32:30 32:39 32:49 33 33:2 33:2–3 33:3 33:6 33:15 33:16 33:21 33:24 33:29 34:1

246 363 453n11, 454 152 245 498, 502 244, 245 512 248 244, 245 226–227 360 8, 261 470 473 246n16, 247 514, 521 260–261 261 252, 363 498, 502 244, 245 154

Tg. Judges 5:30

219

Tg. 1 Samuel 15:7 25:22, 34 27:8

467 220 467

Tg. 2 Samuel 18:18

150, 292

Tg. I Kings 14:10 19:12b 21:21

220 228 220

Tg. 1 Chronicles 1:24

50n8 289, 309, 316

Tg. 2 Chronicles 16:3 32:1

50n8 223 223

606

Index to Citations and References

Tg. Esther 9:27

362

Tg. Job 3:4–5 4:16–5:4 15:11 27:6 33:26 35:8 36:2 37:23 39:27

52, 176, 307, 525 193 193 173 251 251 251 99 251 99

Tg. Psalms

22, 251, 307, 480, 525–526 1–41 307 7:9 254 9:5 254 11:7 255 17:15 254 19:4 379 22:2 38 42–72 307 45 29, 480–481 45:5 254 47 278 50:6 254 51:6 223 51:12 270n55 51:21 254 52:7 254 68(67):17(18) 458, 525 68(67):18(19) 38, 525–526 72:3 255 81:14–15 244 85:11–14 255 93 278 96–99 278 96:12(13) 254–255 98:9 254–255 106:31 255 110 289, 315–317 110:1 307 111:3 255 112:3, 9 255 119:7, 75, 106, 138 254 132:9 254

Tg. Proverbs 8:22–31

225

Tg. Song of Songs

102

Tg. Isaiah

20, 252n22, 275n60, 278n63, 280n69, 486 241n10 252n23 253n25 253n25 488 29, 481 173 131, 253n25 252n23 252 252n23 515, 520 273 284 273, 275 252n23 267 276 253n25 275 252n23 253 253n25 390 276 252n23 252n23 257 252 252, 253n25 252n23 253, 253n25 253 253n25, 253 253n25, 253–254 257 253n25 252n23 253 252

1:2–3 1:21, 26 1:27 5:7, 16, 23 6:9, 10 7:14 8:6 10:22 11:4 11:5 16:5 22:14 24:14–16 24:16 24:23 26:9 26:20 28:5 28:17 31:4–5 32:1 32:16, 17 33:5 33:21 40:9 41:10 42:6 42:8 42:21 45:8 45:13, 19 45:24 45:6–8 46:12–13 48:1 48:11 48:18 51:1 51:4–5, 6 51:5

607

Index to Citations and References

51:6, 8 52:7 56:1 58:2 58:8 59:16 59:17 60:17 61:10, 11 63:1 63:16 62:2 64:4, 5 64:6 64:8 65:1–16 65:5–6 65:13–16 65:15 65:17–25

253n25 276 253 253n25 252 253n25 253 253n25 253n25, 254 253n25 498 252 252 253n25 498 515 515, 520 515 515, 520 515

Tg. Jeremiah 3:4, 19 7:12 7:19a 9:6 14:21 31:9 31:31–34 33:20–21 51:39 51:57

281 498 131 222 131 270 498 270 269–270 514–515, 521 514–515

Tg. Lamentations 22, 528 2:20c 526–528 4:13 528n24 Tg. Ezekiel 7:7 7:10 15:3, 5 16

258 275–276 276 221 220–221, 257

16:3 16:6 16:7b 16:60–62 23 36 36:20–23 36:26

257 257, 258 221 257 220 263 256–257 270

Tg. Hosea 6:2

505–507

Tg. Obadiah 1:21 1:21b

278n62 277 277–278

Tg. Micah 4:5 4:7 4:7b 4:8

278n62 221 276 277 277

Tg. Habakkuk 3:3

473

Tg. Zechariah 14:9

277

Tg. Malachi 1:6 2:16a

498 219

Samaritan Targum Genesis 14:7 Leviticus 16:12 Numbers 21:7 21:33 24:1

298 152 318–319 330 380 365 378

608

Index to Citations and References

Mishna Sotah 9:10 Gittin 1:1

86, 196 Zera’im Maaser Sheni 5:15 Mo’ed Yoma 6:6, 8 8:9 Rosh ha-Shanah 3:8 Megillah 4:9 4:10 Nashim Nidda 7:3

85 467, 477n51

85 Nezikin Aboth 3:3, 6 329 497 497, 499 165–167 164–165, 214, 220

Toharoth Kilayim 8:6 Yadaim 4:5

528–529

173 177n15, 214

477n51

Babylonian Talmud Zera’im Berakoth 8ab 43a 47a Mo’ed Shabbat 89ab 115ab Pesachim 56a Yoma 67b (316) Rosh Hashanah 31a Megillah 3a 74a(6)

177, 215 330 42n85

472 177n34, 214 272n57 328–329 506n69 213, 320 155

Nashim Nedarim 32b Sotah 10b Qiddushin 49a Nezikin Baba Mezia 31a 80b Baba Bathra 123a Sanhedrin 92a 97a 105a

299 522 166

338 390 169 514 506n69 384

609

Index to Citations and References

Kodashim Zebah 113b Arakin 16b

Toharoth Niddah 61a

159

159

338

Palestinian Talmud Zera’im Berakoth 5,3,9c 5,9c Mo’ed Shabbat 15c Sukka 54c Taanit 68d

172 501

214

Megillah 4,1, 74d 4,9,75c 4, 75c 74d

177n36 172 501 213, 320

Toharoth Kilayim 8, 6, 32a

173

168 388

Tosefta Zera’im Shebiit 4:11 Mo’ed Shabbat 13:2–3

153, 467n31, 474

Sukka 3:11 Megillah 4:41 Hagigah 2:5

362–363, 509 166 453

214

Rabbinic Writings Genesis Rabbah 1 on 5:9 31 on 6:14 41[42]:7 on 7:14 42:4 on 14:1 42:5 on 14:1 42:6 on 14:5 42 on 14:7

178, 321, 420, 422 198 174 167 154 156 149, 158 155, 174 174

42:8 on 14:13 43:6 43:8 45:6 on 16:7 59:11 on 24:10 59 on 24:11 61 to 25:3 62 70

159 299n19 315 174, 468n32 171, 197 174 170 453 168–169

610 75:12 to 32:7 78 to 33:14 82 on 35:18 86 on 40:20 91 to 42:21 98(99):3 99 on 49:3 Midrash Aggadah on Gen 14:2 Tanhuma Lekh 8 (Gen 14:2) Midrash Tanhuma on Gen 49:3

Index to Citations and References

348n7 173–174 174 174 171 272n57 174 149

429

Ruth Rabba Ruth Zuta

126 126

Midrash Tehillim (Psalms) 68:9 on 68:17 475 68:11 on 68:19 525 on 110 307

149 311n53

Exodus Rabbah 2:4 on 3:1 472n41 19:3 339 46:3 339 52 453 Tanhuma Beshallah 24 (Ex. 15:25) 167 Mekhilta on Ex. 17:1 470n37 Mekhilta, Bahodesh I on Ex. 19 464n21 Leviticus Rabbah (Qedoshim) 336–338, 420 4:8 299n19 23, 167a 168 25:6 299 Sifra Leviticus 328, 335–336, 338 36 336 16:1 (Ahare Mot) 327 Numbers Rabbah 19:32 159 Sifre on Numbers 420 Sifre Deut. 51

Esther Rabbah 9:2 on 5:1

153

Lamentations Rabbah on 1:13 174 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 8:2 299n19 23 159 34 (18a) 513 Abot de-Rabbi Natan 530 2 299n19 Natan be Yehiel Aruk

30, 32, 55, 97, 163, 167n13, 169, 171, 178–179. 197, 290,

Kabbalah

70, 89

Zohar

70, 89

Rabbi Shemuel ben Nissin Masnut Bereshit Zuta 179, 290, 294 Ma’yun gannim 179 David Qimhi (RaDaK) 30 Rashi 179 on Exodus 25:17 330 Midrash Ps. 12:24 168n16

611

Index to Citations and References

Other Jewish Writings Josephus, Flavius 39, 51, 205–206 Jewish Antiquities 1.1.2 § 7 205 1.10.2 § 180 309 1.21.4 § 220–221 465 2.1.1 § 6 471n40 2.12 § 6 152 2.2.1 § 257 472 3.1.5 § 25 472 3.2.1 § 39–40 152, 471–472 3.2.2 § 40, 43 466, 471–472 3.7.2 § 156 170n23 3.10.4 § 245 325 4.4.7 § 82–83 153, 466 4.6.1–6 § 100–130 370, 372, 374–375 4.6.4 § 114 374 4.6.5 § 125 374 4.6.6 § 126–130 388 4.6.6 § 128 374 4.7.1 § 161 153, 466 7.3.2 § 67 297 7.10.3 § 243 150, 292 9.8.3 § 166 527–528 9.9.1 § 188 152 10.10.4 § 210 373 10.11.7 § 269–276 373 11.1.2 § 6 466 13 304 13.5.9 § 171–172 84 13.10.5–6 § 288–298 84–85, 304 13.11.3 § 314–319 183 13.13.5 § 372 325 13.13.5 § 376 304 13.15.4 § 395–397 183 13.16.2 § 408 85, 304 14.10.2 § 191 203 14.10.3 § 197 203 14.12.5 § 319 203 15.8.1 § 268–276 151, 293 15.11.5 § 417 203 16.9.2 § 285 184 17.2.1–3 § 23–31 184 17.2.4 § 42 86 18.1.2 § 14 503

18.1.4 § 15 18.1.5 § 20

85 86

Against Apion 1.9 § 50 1.32, § 174

205 297

Jewish War 1.1.2 § 6 1.5.2 § 15 2.8.14 § 163 3.3.1–5 § 35–58 5.5.2 § 193–194 5.9.2 § 361 6.2.1 § 96 6.2.4 § 124–126 6.2.5 § 129 6.5.4 § 312–313 6.6.2 § 327 6.10.1 § 438

205 205 85 503 183 203 205 205 203 205 349, 367–369, 388 205 297, 309

Life 11 § 54

184n9

Philo 41 De congressu eruditionis grtia 18(99) 309 Embassy to Gaius 31 [212] 203 Legum allegoriae 3.25(79), 26(82) 309 De praemiis et poenis 15(94–95) 371–372 Quod omnis probus liber sit 12,75 86 Life (Vita) of Moses 371, 374n29 1.40–60 § 220–334 371–372, 375 1.48–53 § 263–294 371–372, 375 1.48–54 § 263–293 369 1.52 § 289–291 371–372, 375, 387 53 § 294–298 388 54–57 § 295–314 371–373, 375 Polyhistor

298

612

Index to Citations and References

11:15

Pseudo-Eupolemus Peri Judaion on Gen 14:18–20 298 Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 41, 51, 84, 86, 100, 239, 347, 355, 362, 366, 369, 418, 490, 507–508 3:4 168 7:4 350 8 351 8:8 350 9:13 350 10:7 229, 353, 363, 508 11:5 508

12:5 14:1–19:1 17:4 18:2 18:5 18:13 18:14 20:7 20:8 23:8 26:13 32:2–4 40:2 48:1 54:4 64:9

229–230, 353–354, 363 350 372–373, 375 370n15 350 263n40, 351 388 390 262 229, 352, 358, 508 350 350 350–351 350, 351–352 351 351 351

Non-Canonical Christian Writings Augustine

435

Diodorus of Tarsus Commentary on the Psalms 305 Eusebius Omomasticon 40 (153) 62:16 112:8

467 298n16 153 154

De martyrio Polycarpi 206n77 Ephrem 301–302, 317 Commentary on Genesis 11,2,4 on 14:18–20 299, 302, 317 Armenian Hymns 9:11–12 299n20, 317 Epiphanius Panarion haereseon 55.6.1 Adversus Haereses 2.1

299–300 299–300

Gregory the Great 435, 436 Moralia on Job 26,27,50 on 36:6 433, 435 Hippolytus Philosophoumena 9.30 36 Jerome 23, 317 Epistula /Letter 64 170n23 73 297–298, 317 73:5 300, 303, 317 73:7–8 298n16 Hebrew Questions on Genesis on 14:2–3 149–150 on 14:5 156 on 14:7 154 on 14:18–19 297, 300, 317 on 15 157n20 on 25:3 169–170 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 33 96

304, 306 304

613

Index to Citations and References

Itinerarium Egeriae (Aetheria peregrinatio)

206 298n16

Origen Hexapla

102, 436 167n14

Procopius

167n14

Theodore of Mopsuestia Expositionis in Psalmos 2, 8, 44(45) 351–352 on 109(110)

317 305–306 305 305, 306n38, 317

Other Ancient Writers & Writings Berossus

181

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 2.2 148 Egyptian Greek papyri 195 Palmyrene texts

195

Pliny the Elder Natural History 6.30.123

474 181

Plutarch Moralia 493A 492F

Ptolemy Geography 16.10

467

Strabo Geography 16.1.6

474 181

Suetonius Titus 3 Vespasian 4:5

206 349, 367–369, 388

Tacitus Histories 5:13

349, 367–368, 388

513n88 512–513n88

Medieval Texts Boniface IX

400–401

Medieval Irish Writers and Texts Vision of Adamnán 436

Honorius Augustodunensis 437 Hugh of Saint Victor

436

Ramundus Martinus Pugio fidei aduersus Mauros et Judaeos 30, 480 William of Saint Thierry

436

De enigmatibus (Irish Reference Bible)

435

John Scottus Eriugena

436–437

Saltair na Rann (Psalter of the Quatrains)

435–436

614

Index to Citations and References

Scéla na hEsérgi (Tidings of the Resurrection) 435

Mark Visio Tnugdali

436

Vision of Laisrén

436

Scéla Laí Brátha (Tidings of Doomsday)

Voyage of Ui Corra

436

435

Two Sorrows of the Kingdom of Heaven 436

Various Manuscripts Cairo Genizah Texts 47 ms A 163n2 ms C 196 ms D 163n3, 511 ms E 220, 163n3, 312, 511 ms F (Lev. 22:26–23:44) 172, 246, 318, 340, 502 ms J 246 ms X 522 ms Z 311–312 ms FF (Lev. toseftas) 272, 318, 522 ms NN 246 Pal. Targum 47 Testament of Levi 192, 483 Genesis Rabbah Vat. Ebr. 30

168, 171, 174

Irish manuscripts

305–306, 435–436

Onqelos

133–147, 211, 235, 291–296, 318, 384 2–4, 43, 47, 65

Vat. Ebr. 448

Paris (BNF) Hebr. 110 65, 127, 307, 309–311, 441 Codex Vat. Ebr. 16, 19 164n4

Harley 5709 (Brit. Museum (BL) 164n4 Palestinian Pentateuch Targums 51, 211–212, 318, 378–391, 487 Codex Neofiti 1

2–4, 6, 43n93, 47, 133–147, 232–233, 235, 291–296, 395–396

Fragment Targums

47, 63, 212, 235, 291–296 Paris ms Hébr. 110 63–65, 67, 127, 171, 441 Vatican ms Ebr. 440 2–4, 47, 63–65, 67, 196, 487 Leipzig Universitätsbibliothek B.H. fol 1 63–64 Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek Solger2.2o 63–64 Brit Museum (Library) ms Or. 10794 fol 8 64 Pseudo-Jonathan

133–147, 212, 232, 291–296 British Library Add. 27031 43, 47, 63, 65, 334 (London ms 27031) folio 130a 172 Samaritan Targums

318–319

Index to Citations and References

Shechem Synagogue ms. 3, ms. 6 319 Or 7562 319

Theodore of Mopsuestia Milan, Ambrosiana C. 301 inf. 305–306

Targum Writings

Yemenite Manuscripts 122, 212–213

193, 212–213, 307

615

Targum Prophets 212 mss. Jewish Seminary New York ENA 2576 fol. 5 1n1

Inscriptions Demotic at Philae 181 Nabatean 153, 466–467 synagogues 201, 203

miscellaneous 187, 201, 202–203 Jerusalem ossuaries 187, 201, 203, 489 other funerary 203, 206–207