The Targum of Judges 9004103651, 9789004103658

Citation preview

THE TARGUM OF JUDGES

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

OUDTESTAMENTISCHE STUDIEN NAMENS HET OUDTESTAMENTISCH WERKGEZELSCHAP IN NEDERLAND EN BELGIE UITGEGEVEN DOOR

JOHANNES C. DE MOOR KAMPEN

DEELXXXVI

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

THE TARGUM OF JUDGES BY

WILLEM F. SMELIK

EJ. BRILL

LEIDEN · NEW YORK · KOLN 1995

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

The CIP-data has been applied for.

ISSN 0169-7226 ISBN 90 04 10365 1 © Copyright 1995 by E]. Brill, Leiden, 1he Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part ef this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any farm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission ef the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items far internal or personal use is granted by E]. Brill provided that the appropriate .fees are paid direc t!y to 1he Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers AL4 09123, USA. Fees are su{Jject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Preface It is a great pleasure to thank Johannes de Moor for his unyielding support and contagious enthusiasm in introducing me into the fascinating world of biblical and semitic studies. I also wish to thank my Spanish teachers, Prof. Dr. L. Diez Merino and Prof. Dr. J. Ribera Florit of the Universitat de Barcelona for their numerous illuminating comments. I likewise wish to thank Prof. Dr. W. Baars, Dr. J. Targarona Borras, Prof. Dr. L. Dequeker, Prof. Dr. N. Fernandez Marcos, Prof. Dr. E. Noort, and Prof. Dr. R.P. Gordon for helping and advising me in various, but invariably beneficent ways. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. C. Houtman for his direction of the research programme in which I have had the privilege to participate. I am also most grateful to the Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland who granted me a research post during the last four and a half years. The publication of this study has partly been made possible by financial support of the Stichting het Scholten-Cordes Fonds in The Hague. I am furthermore highly obliged by the librarians of the following institutions, namely, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (M. Garel), Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge (S. Reif), British Library, London (I. Tahan), Bodleian Library, Oxford (R. Judd), Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (M. Ryan), Edinburgh University Library, Edinburgh (J.V. Howard), the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden (J.J. Witkam), Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, PreuBischer Kulturbesitz (H.0. Feistel), Thuringer Universitiits- und Landesbibliothek, Jena (I. Kratzsch), Kaufmann Collection Budapest (I. Ormos), Uniwersytet Wroclawski, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka (A. Ladomirski), Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca (M. Becedas Gonzalez), Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid (M. Carrion Gutiez), Biblioteca Universitaria, Bologna (Piccarda Quilici), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (L.E. Boyle), Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe (Buchta), Stadtbibliothek, Niirnberg (R. Toutouly), The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York (M. Rabinowitz, S. Jerchower), Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati (A. Rudavsky), Universitiits- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle (W. Starke), Bibliotheek van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen (D.M. KlunderRoepers), and above all The Jewish National and University Librarythe Instute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (B. Richler).

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Vl

PREFACE

I am greatly indebted to Dr. L. McFall for making numerous suggestions in order to purge my English of the worst. Thanks are also due to H.M. van den Bosch and to my colleagues in the department of Semitic Studies at the Theological University of Kampen who contributed to the present work in various ways, namely, R. de Hoop, M. Oldenhof, P. Sanders, F. Sepmeijer, and A.J.P.W van der Wal. I also thank G. Klompmaker, H. Offringa and J. Spoelstra for assisting me in tidying up the bibliographical references and making the indexes. Notwithstanding these acknowledgements, I bear full responsibility for the contents of this study, including errors that remain. Finally, I thank the person who recognised earlier than I did that I would enjoy working on this project. Because she stimulated me in writing this thesis ever since, I dedicate this book to her-Liv. Kampen, July 1995

Willem Frederik Smelik

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Contents Preface ................................................. v Table of Contents .................................... vii 1

The Present State of Research Reviewed ........... 1

1.1 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.1 Multilingual Palestine .................................... 2 1.1.2 Aramaic Diglossia in Palestine ........................... 10 1.1.3 The Classification of TJon's Dialect ...................... 14 1.1.4 Recapitulation .......................................... 23 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5

The Targum's Setting in Life ............................ 24 Private Study ........................................... 25 School and Academy .................................... 28 The Liturgical Setting ................................... 31 The Ban on Written Transmission ....................... 39 Recapitulation .......................................... 40

1.3 The Early History of T Jon .............................. 41 1.3.1 Overview and Assessment of Previous Research .......... 42 1.3.2 Some Additional Notes .................................. 68 1.3.2.l Historical Allusions in TJon ............................. 70 1.3.2.2 On Provenance .......................................... 71 1.3.2.3 Was There an Older Targum to the Prophets? ........... 73 1.3.3 Recapitulation .......................................... 74 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2

Palestinian and Tosefta-Targum ......................... 75 Previous Research ....................................... 77 Recapitulation .......................................... 85

1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.5.4 1.5.5 1.5.6

The Character of Targum Jonathan ...................... 86 Genre ................................................... 86 Translation Techniques .................................. 94 The Theological Position of T Jon ........................ 99 Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism .............. 100 Memra, Shekhinta, Yeqara .............................. 107 Recapitulation ......................................... 110

1.6

Desiderata for Further Research ........................ 111

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

viii

CONTENTS

2

The Text of Targum Judges ....................... 113

2.1

Introduction ........................................... 113

2.2

Error's in Sperber's Edition ............................ 117

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3

Manuscripts ............................................ 118 Selected Manuscripts with the Complete Text ........... 118 Manuscripts Not Used in This Study .................... 126 Remaining Manuscripts ................................ 128

2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 2.4. 7

A Provisional Stemma .................................. 129 Readings Typical of Western Manuscripts ............... 132 Group I: The Sefardi Tradition (WMOS) ................ 134 Readings Typical of the Non-Sefardi MSS ............... 141 Group II: B(C)NJQ with Tosefta-Targum ............... 142 Group III: Remaining Manuscripts ...................... 147 Cross-Readings ......................................... 149 The Vorlage of the Bomberg Edition .................... 150

2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3

Haft.aroth and Festive Readings ......................... 153 Haft.aroth and Fragmentary Manuscripts ................ 153 Selected Fragments or Haft.arah-Targum ................ 154 Mal;tzor Roumania ..................................... 159

2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5

The Allocation of Substitutions and Glosses ............ 162 The Palestinian and the Tosefta-Targum ................ 163 The Headings in the Sefardi Tradition .................. 166 The Unique Character of the Glosses in K .............. 170 The Character of Glosses and Substitutions ............. 175 Unequal Dissemination of Expansive Translations ....... 176

2.7 2.7.1 2. 7.2 2. 7.3

Targum Jonathan and the Haft.arah ..................... 180 The Annual Cycle ...................................... 182 The Triennial Cycle .................................... 184 Conclusion ............................................. 186

2.8

Recapitulation and Conclusions ......................... 187

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

CONTENTS

IX

3

Among the Ancient Translations ................. 189

3.1

Scope .................................................. 189

3.2

Methodology ........................................... 190

3.3 Septuagint ............................................. 194 3.3.l Introduction ........................................... 194 3.3.2 Pluses in TJon Only ................................... 198 3.3.3 Pluses in T Jon with an Equivalent in LXX .............. 201 3.3.4 TJon =fa MT, LXX =MT ............................... 203 3.3.5 Both T Jon and LXX =fa MT: Dissimilar Modifications ... 210 3.3.6 Both TJon and LXX =fa MT: Similar Modifications ...... 223 3.3.7 Different Representation of Names ...................... 228 3.3.8 LXX and T Jon: Some Conclusions ...................... 230 3.3.9 Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion: Some Conclusions . 232 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4. 7 3.4.8 3.4.9 3.4.10 3.4.11 3.4.12 3.4.13 3.4.14 3.4.15

Peshitta ................................................ 234 Methodology ........................................... 235 Pluses in TJon Only ................................... 237 Pluses in Pesh Only .................................... 239 Pluses in T Jon with an Equivalent in Pesh .............. 243 TJon =MT, Pesh =fa MT ............................... 244 TJon =fa MT, Pesh= MT ............................... 254 Different Representation of Names ...................... 259 Unnecessary Etymological Differences ................... 261 Inversion in Pesh ....................................... 268 Stylistic Variation ...................................... 270 Differences of Grammatical Number .................... 271 T Jon and Pesh =/=- MT: Dissimilar Modifications ......... 273 TJon and Pesh=/=- MT: Similar Modifications ............ 278 Additional Remarks .................................... 282 TJon and Pesh: Some Conclusions ...................... 282

3.5 3.5.l 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7

The Vulgata ........................................... 291 Introduction ........................................... 291 Pluses in TJon Only ................................... 292 Pluses in T Jon with an Equivalent in V g ............... 294 TJon =fa MT, Vg =MT ................................. 295 T Jon and Vg =fa MT: Dissimilar Modifications ........... 300 TJon and Vg =fa MT: Similar Modifications ............. 308 Different Representation of Names ...................... 311 Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

x

CONTENTS

3.5.8 3.5.9

General Remarks ....................................... 312 TJon and Vg: Some Conclusions ........................ 313

3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2

The Degree of Convergence Between the Versions ....... 316 Instances of 'Trans-Version.al' Convergence .............. 316 The Translation of C:l'il'~ in the Versions ................ 318

3. 7

Recapitulation ......................................... 321

4

A Commentary on Targum Judges ............... 323

4.1

Introduction ........................................... 323

4.2

The Consistency of T Jon ................................ 325

4.3

A Commentary on Targum Judges ...................... 329

5

Conclusions .......................................... 632

5.1

Language .............................................. 633

5.2

The Setting in Life of TJon ............................. 634

5.3 5.3.l 5.3.2 5.3.3

The Early History of T Jon Judges ...................... 638 General Comments ..................................... 638 Dating TJon Judges .................................... 639 Textual Development in the Various Textual Families ... 642

5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3

Palestinian and Tosefta-Targum ........................ 643 The Tosefta-Targum .................................... 643 The Palestinian Targum ................................ 645 The Remaining Glosses in Km .......................... 646

5.5

The Character of Targum Judges ....................... 647

5.6

Epilogue: Judah ben Ilai's Saying on the Targum ........ 649

5.6.l 5.6.2 5.6.3

The Context of the Saying .............................. 650 The Interpretation of the Saying ........................ 651 Conclusion ............................................. 656 Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

CONTENTS

Xl

Indexes ............................................... 659 Abbreviations .......................................... 659 Equation Index ........................................ 663 Index of Authors ....................................... 665 Index of Subjects ....................................... 673

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Chapter 1

The Present State of Research Reviewed 1.1 Language By common consent Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures emerged when the knowledge of Hebrew gradually declined in Palestine during the Second Commonwealth. The worshippers in the synagogue, who now had Aramaic as their vernacular, needed such translations to understand the Scriptures. Things are, however, not that clear-cut. In fact the language of the Targums stands out as one of their most pressing problems. Over the last few decades the treatment of the languages in vogue during the first century CE Palestine has been noticeably more cautious than it used to be. Whether Aramaic had superseded Hebrew by the first century CE, or to what extent Greek subsequently gained ground, is not so certain as it once seemed to be. The language map of Palestine in the period under consideration, namely the first centuries CE, will affect our notion of the origin of the Targums in general and the raison d'etre of the Targum of the Prophets in particular. A related problem is the classification of the targumic dialects known to us, an issue that often has been complicated by the quest for Jesus' ipsissima verba. This is obviously a matter of vital importance, since the problems of provenance, date, origin, setting in life

and history of the Targum are bound up with the classification of the targumic dialects. In addition, the assumption of two contemporaneous Aramaic dialects in Palestine (as reflected in different Targums), raises the question whether next to Hebrew and Greek two types of Aramaic should be put on the language map. For these reasons I shall briefly discuss the position of various languages in Palestine in the first centuries CE. This delimitation of the period is justified because it is generally agreed that the bulk of T Jon originated in this period, despite the possibility of some remnants of earlier targumic tradition and of the late Babylonian redaction. In the final paragraph I will briefly review previous classifications of the dialect of T Jon.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

1.1.1 Multilingual Palestine In spite of the extreme paucity of genuinely old Aramaic documents from Palestine, 1 scholars assumed that Aramaic became the common Palestinian vernacular by the turn of the Common Era. Aramaic quotations in the New Testament provided the evidence, whereas Mishnaic Hebrew gave the impression of an artificial and highly Aramaised language. 2 This view appeared to reflect what was known from Jewish history. Aramaic was the lingua franca under Persian hegemony and in the Babylonian Exile, so it was not surprising that it gained a firm foothold in Palestine too. The discovery of Aramaic documents in Khirbet Qumran and Wadi Murabba'at could have sealed this opinion, but it did not. 3 For the same discoveries in the Judaean desert also yielded numerous Hebrew documents from the late Second Temple period which falsified the thesis of the gradual but inevitable demise of Hebrew in the post-exilic period. Prior to these discoveries only a few scholars4 maintained that Hebrew did not disappear but remained a vital language down to the third century CE. Though Segal argued that Mishnaic Hebrew was not an artifical, scholarly language nor so heavily Aramaised, he and others 5 could not tip the scales in favour 1 E.Y. Kutscher, "The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study", ScrHie 4 (1958), 1-3; J.A. Fitzmyer, D.J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C. - Second Century A.D.) (BibOr, 34), Rome 1978, xi. 2 See J. Barr, "Which Language Did Jesus Speak? - Some Remarks of a Semitist", BJRL 53 (1970), 9-29. 3 See for the following especially: J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine", in: idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula (MT) 1979, 29-56 (= CBQ 32 (1970), 501-531); C. Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century", in: S. Safrai, M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT, 1,2), Assen 1976, 1007-1039; J. Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age", in: W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2, Cambridge 1989, 79-114; C. Rabin, "The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew", ScrHie 4 (1958), 144-161 (152). See further: E. Schurer, G. Vermes et. al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2, Edinburg 1979, 20-28 and the literature cited there. 4 R. Degen, "Sprachen und Sprachprobleme", in: J. Maier, J. Schreiner (eds.), Literatur und Religion des FrUhjudentums, Wiirzburg 1973, 109. 5 M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford 1927; H. Birkeland, The Language of Jesus, Oslo 1954, 18-24; J. Cantineau, "Quelle langue parlait le peuple en Palestine au 1er siecle de notre ere?", Semitica 5 (1955), 99-101; C. Rabin, "Historical Background", 144-161; J.M. Grintz, "Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple", JBL 79 (1960), 32-47; P. Lapide, "Insights from Qumran into the Languages of Jesus", RdQ 8 (1972/75), 483-501. Cf. Barr, "Which Language", 18-19; idem, "Hebrew, Aramaic

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.1

LANGUAGE

3

of Hebrew as a spoken tongue. Today the situation has changed and now most scholars agree that Hebrew was indeed spoken in the first century CE. 6 Judging from the scrolls and fragments in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, Hebrew even dominated in Qumran, where it was current in two fashions. 7 Moreover, Bar Kokhba and his officials still used Hebrew in 132-135 CE, though not exclusively, 8 and possibly for nationalistic reasons. So the Mishnah did not appear in a vacuum. Some scholars suggest that Josephus originally composed his history of the Jewish War in Hebrew, 9 instead of Aramaic as is generally assumed, though Josephus himself seems to indicate otherwise. 10 According to Papias (ca. 130 CE) Matthew would have written down the words of Jesus in Hebrew. 11 Although it is difficult to be certain because all available evidence is in the form of written sources and the ancient testimonies themselves are not always reliable in these matters, 12 it is justifiable to assume that Hebrew was still a spoken language in the first two centuries of the Common Era. Only in the aftermath of two disastrous revolts against Rome did Hebrew virtually disappear as a vernacular. But how many people still understood Hebrew in the first two centuries CE and, more precisely, to what extent? Many people may have had a passive rather than an active command of Hebrew. The balance between Hebrew and Aramaic is hard to assess, and a third factor does not make things any better, namely, the presence of Greek. and Greek", 82-84. 6 The exception is K. Beyer, The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions, Gottingen 1986, 40-43, asserting that Hebrew "had not been spoken in Palestine since 400 BC". The problem is how to decide what people spoke if written language is all we have at our disposal. 7 Rabin, "Historical Background", 149, 152; M. Goshen-Gottstein, "Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents", ScrHie 4 (1958), 135; Barr, "Which Language", 20-21. Whether the scrolls are representative for Palestine in general is not established yet. 8 Y. Yadin, "Expedition D", IEJ 11 (1961), 36-52 (40-50). 9 So Birkeland, Language of Jesus, 13-14; Grintz, "Hebrew as the Spoken", 42-45; Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 488-489. 10 That Josephus had this work translated into Greek but wrote in a Semitic language first, he claimed himself in Jewish War 1,3: i:fi 7tcxi:plc,> jAwaan, "(in) my native language". That this language must have been Aramaic follows from 1,6: Josephus sent his first account to "Parthians and Babylonians and the most remote tribes of Arabia with our countrymen beyond the Euphrates and the inhabitants of Adiabene"; Hebrew would not make sense here (so Schalit, EJ 10, 254; Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 113). 11 K. Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Vater, vol. 1, Tiibingen 8 1970, 136 (11.16). 12 The gospel of John calls "Hebrew" what is good spoken Aramaic, John 5:2; 19:13, 17. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

4

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

Greek had entered the Palestinian stage some centuries BCE and made enormous headway. 13 Its use was not confined to the coastal area with its Hellenistic cities, but extended to Lower Galilee, the Jezreel Valley and Jerusalem as well. Even Bar Kokhba occasionally wrote in Greek. 14 Only in Judaea, Golan and small Galilean villages do Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions equal the number of the Greek ones. 15 Lively interest in revising the Old Greek Bible in the first centuries CE only confirms the importance of Greek. 16 The famous dictum of Bar Qappara (between 200 and 220) "Let the words of the Law be spoken in the language of Japheth [Greek] in the tents of Sem" 17 proves that Greek was spoken in at least some of the Palestinian synagogues. 18 Finally two additional languages should be mentioned, though neither of them made much impact on the vernacular of Palestine: Nabatean, the use of which may have been restricted to the fringes of Judaea and to particular groups, 19 and Latin. 20 However, the question is not merely: What languages were spoken? Equally important is the question: Who spoke what? Some people may well have been multilingual, but is it possible to identify larger social groups using the same language or languages? The preponderance of Greek inscriptions is a case in point. To some scholars these inscriptions indicate that Greek was used by the common people in Palestine, 21 and not merely by diaspora Jews who migrated 13 Cf. M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung Paliistinas bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh. v. Chr., Tiibingen 1969, 108-120, 191-195. 14 Yadin, "Expedition D", 42-44; note also the Babatha letters. 15 B. Lifshitz, "Jerusalem sous la domination romaine. Histoire de la ville depuis la conquete de Pompee jusqu'a Constantin (63 a.C.-325 p.C.)", in: ANRW II 8, Berlin & New York 1977, 457-459; Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 102; P.W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An introductory survey of a millennium of Jewish funerary epigraphy (300 BCE - 700 CE) (CBET, 2), Kampen 1991, 23; Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 193. 16 S.P. Brock, "The Phenomenon of the Septuagint", in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), The Witness of Tradition (OTS, 17), Leiden 1972, 26-27; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis & Assen 1992, 143-148; D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (VT.S, 10), Leiden 1963. 17 BerR. 36:8 on Gen. 9:27. 18 See further below, pp. 6-7. 19 M.0. Wise, "Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran", in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-n.S, 3), Louvain 1992, 124-167 (131 n. 20). 2°Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine", 30-32. 21 R.H. Gundry, "The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine. Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition", JBL 83 (1964) 406; Fitzmyer, "Languages of Palestine",· 35 (contrast 46, mentioning Aramaic "the most com-

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.1 LANGUAGE

5

to Palestine. 22 If this is true, we have to reckon with a multilingual society from top to bottom. How are we to conceive of the function of Aramaic translations in such a society? From a linguistic point of view first century CE Palestine was a transition period and a border area. 23 Geographically, Hebrew was sandwiched between Aramaic on the East and Greek on the West. Aramaic started to exercise its influence in Palestine early in the Second Temple period, but after Alexander the Great's conquests in the Middle East, Greek began its rise. Hebrew, however, always remained alive in important pockets of society. Perhaps Hebrew continued to survive only because the spread of Greek made Aramaic less attractive. 24 Multilingualism was, and still is, not unusual in this area. A poem of Meleager (early first century BCE), 25 who came from the Hellenistic city Gadara in Transjordania, reflects this state of affairs. In 1959 Ferguson 26 introduced the model of diglossia which offers an explanation for the use of two distinct dialects by one and the same people. The high (H) member of a diglossia would be used in public and official functions, the low (L) member in private conditions. Thus the alternating use of two dialects is conditioned by different sets of functions. This model was soon applied to Palestine. 27 The question was: Which languages made up a diglossia? To add to the confusion, some scholars assumed that several types of diglossia coexisted in Palestine. According to Rabin, Middle Hebrew (L) was the rule in Judaea with Aramaic as the second (H) language, mon language"); Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 28. 22 J.N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How much Greek could the first Jewish Christians Have Known? (NT.S, 19), Leiden 1968, 147-148; Lifshitz, "Jerusalem sous la domination", 458; G. Mussies, "Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora", in S. Safrai et al., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT, 1,2), Assen 1976, 1040-1064 {1057). 23 Brock, "Phenomenon", 34. Cf. Mussies, "Greek", 1059 for a somewhat later example of a Syriac/Greek church. 24 So Barr, "Which Language", 28. 25 "If you are Syrian, I say 'Salam!'; if you are Phoenician, 'Adonis!'. But if you are Greek, then 'Chaire!';, Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 156; A. Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE-70 CE) {TSAJ, 21), Tiibingen 1990, 45. 26 C.A. Ferguson, "Diglossia", Word 15 (1959), 325-340; idem, "Diglossia", in: Dell Hymes {ed.), Language in Culture and Society, New York 1964, 429-439. 27 C. Rabin, "The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint", Textus 6 {1968), 1-26; Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 483-501; Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic", 1008. Ferguson "Diglossia", 1959, 325 n.2 considered the use of distinct languages as an analogous situation.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

6

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

while in Galilee the reverse was true: Hebrew was the High language and Aramaic or Greek the colloquial (L). 28 On the other hand, Cook suggested a diglossia of Biblical (H) and Mishnaic (L) Hebrew, with Aramaic overlapping both of them. 29 Greek does not even play a role in his estimation, in the same way that Rabin ignored the Greek inscriptions found in Judaea. In fact the epitaphs prove Greek ought to be nominated for High Language at least, 30 to say nothing of the language of the administration and sophistication. The variety of language pairs is bewildering, but some scholars argued Hebrew was the principal religious language of the sages, particularly for liturgical purposes. 31 The legal documents from Murabba'at written in Aramaic outnumber those written in Mishnaic Hebrew, while correspondence was conducted in Hebrew. 32 Lapide made a point when he described Aramaic as unfit for sacral use in the first century CE. 33 The allocation of languages in Qumran supports the exclusive use of Hebrew for halakhic and liturgical purposes. 34 Exegetical writings, on the other hand, could be written in Aramaic. As regards the evidence from rabbinic literature, it is well known that many sages approved of multilingualism35 and in particular referred to Greek in a positive sense. 36 They permitted the Shema, the Tefillah and the grace after meals to be recited in any language other 28 Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic", 1036. Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 483501 argues the case of (Low) Aramaic and (High) Hebrew all over Jewish Palestine. 29 E.M. Cook, "Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology", in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-n.S, 3), Louvain 1992, 20-21. 30 Gundry, "Hebrew as the Spoken", 404-408; Lifshitz, "Jerusalem sous la domination", 457-459. 31 So Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 491-501; with respect to Greek: Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 113. 32 So J.T. Milik "Textes Hebreux et Arameens", in: P. Benoit et al., Les Grottes de Murabba 'at (DJD, 2), Oxford 1961, 67-205 (70). 33 Cf. Dalman, Grammatik, 26. The ancient prayer Qaddish-which is written in Aramaic (in a dialect close to that of TO and TJon)-did not originate in the synagogue (see I. Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Frankfurt am Main 2 1924, 92-98). Cf. bShab. 12b: "Did not Rab Judah say, One should never petition for his needs in Aramaic; and R. Jol_ianan said: When one petitions for his needs in Aramaic, the Ministering Angels do not heed him, for they do not understand Aramaic?" 34 Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 491-492 n.53. Similarly E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context (BZAW, 174), Berlin & New York 1988, 15. However, Lapide's assertion (496) that EAWt EAWt in Mark is "an Over-Aramaisation" amounts to nothing. 35 Cf. ySota 7,2,2lc; yMeg. l,ll,7lb; EstherR 3. 36 mShab. 16:1; bMeg. 18a; bShabb, 115af; yMeg. 1,11, 7lc; bMeg. 9a.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.1

LANGUAGE

7

than Hebrew. 37 Their own languages may have varied according to the occasion, 38 or out of reverence: "One must hand down statements in the language of one's teacher" .39 So even the Tannaim did not prescribe Hebrew for occasions where it might seem proper to do so. Many sages mastered Greek, 40 which is also evidenced by their lively interest in Greek versions, though they do not seem to have composed works in Greek. All this even went so far that R. Juda the Prince wanted to restrict multilingualism: "Why speak Syriac [Aramaic] in Palestine? Talk either the holy tongue [Hebrew] or Greek!" 41 A similar restriction is attributed to R. Simeon ben Gamaliel. In the context of a discussion concerning languages which are permitted for the writing of Bible scrolls, phylacteries and mezuzoth, he said: "Scrolls may be written only in Greek!" 42 Needless to say, R. Simeon ben Gamaliel did not want to exclude Hebrew. So these two sages fostered Hebrew as a spoken and written language after the defeat of Bar Kokhba. They permitted Greek, but discouraged Aramaic. Speaking with hindsight, can we say that they went against the tide but could not stop it? 43 It is hardly conceivable that the rabbis were so nai:ve. What they wanted to oppose was not the vernacular of the ordinary people, 44 but a different kind of Aramaic which might serve as an alternative to the languages of the learned, an Aramaic that could serve as a third language of learned rabbinic tradition. If this is a correct observation, implying an Aramaic diglossia, the opposition against Aramaic in 37 mSota

7:1; bBer. 13a; ySota 7,1,21b; yMeg. 2,1,73a. J.C. de Moor, "The Reconstruction of the Aramaic Original of the Lord's Prayer", in: W. van der Meer, J.C. de Moor (eds.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (JSOT.S, 74), Sheffield 1988, 397-422 (398); A. Diez Macho, "La Lengua hablada por Jesucristo", OrAnt 2 (1963), 95-132 (131). 39 mEd. 1:3. 40 See S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 2 1965, 15-26; Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, 38-61. 41 bSota 49b ( = bBQ 83a), followed by the dictum of R. Joseph (in bBQ R. Jose): "Why use Aramaic in Babylon? Either use the holy tongue [Hebrew] or Persian!" 42 mMeg. 1:8. 43 So Lapide, "Insights from Qumran", 486-487. Contrast, however, S.D. Fraade, "Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries", in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253-286, who argues for a prolonged multilingualism in Galilee after the beginning of the third century CE. 44 See bSan. 21b: '~i~ 11tv'?1 rl'i::l.ll ::in::i m~1'1ii'? 1n'lii1. Hillel the Elder calls Palestinian Aramaic ~1'1ii ]1tv'?: yKet. 4,8,28d. See the commentary on Judg. 1:12. Note also the close resemblance of some of the Aramaisms in the NT to the dialect as found in the Palestinian Targums; see M. Wilcox, "Semitisms in the New Testament", in: ANRW II 25.2, 978-1029. 38 Cf.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

8

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

Palestine does not mean that the language of TO and T Jon was not used in the first century CE, on the contrary. 45 It is difficult to estimate the use of Greek by the predecessors of Rabbinic Judaism. Among the unearthed Greek epitaphs of first century CE Jerusalem, three bear the inscription otoo:cnW.AOU, "teacher" .46 For Lifshitz, 47 these men could only have been rabbis, but even though rabbis were indeed teachers, not every teacher was a rabbi. It is, perhaps, worthy of note that of the epigraphs mentioning a rabbi, which were conveniently collected by Cohen, 48 most are in Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic, Greek-Hebrew and Aramaic-Hebrew are also attested. However, the dates are either uncertain or late and the number of epigraphs is small. Consequently, no generalisations can be made from this data. To a certain extent the sociological dimension is a counsel of despair. Popular though the distinction between upper class and lower class languages may be, it is apt at this juncture to cite Barr: ... language competence probably varied with many variables: with social class, with occupation, with locality, with sex, with position in the family, with past personal history, travel and education; in other words, it varied almost personally, and wide generalisations cannot be made. 49 Recent views of the 'language barriers' in Palestine are, therefore, rather cautious, 50 though all of them presuppose bi- or multilingualism and usually Aramaic as the principal spoken language. 51 With 45 See the caveats of Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, 44-46, and Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 110-111. The lack of quotations of TO and TJon in Palestinian sources (see below, p. 16) would also become clear from this point of view. 46 CIJud II, 1266, 1268, 1269. 47 Lifshitz, "Jerusalem sous la domination", 458. 48 S.J.D. Cohen, "Epigraphical Rabbis", JQR 72 (1981/82), 1-17. 49 Barr, "Which Language", 26; idem, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 111-112. For Greek, see: B. Lipshitz, "Beitriige zur paliistinischen Epigraphik", ZDPV {1962), 75-79; Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, 183-191. This argues against the basic summary and division in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1946, 15-22, 47-49. 50 Take for example: Degen, "Sprache und Sprachproblemen", 116. Contrast: Schiirer, Vermes et al., History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, 20-28, 74-80. 51 Diez Macho, "La lengua hablada", 132; Gundry, "Hebrew as the Spoken", 404-408; J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament", in: idem, A Wandering Aramean, 7; Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 110-113; L. Diez Merino, "Philological Aspects in the Research of the Targums", in: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein {ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem 1985). Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.1 LANGUAGE

9

these reservations, I adopt the table of spoken languages which Spolsky offered (the order of languages in this table represents the supposed rank of importance): 52

JEWS IN PALESTINE

Judaean villages Galilee Coastal cities Jerusalem, upper class Jerusalem, lower class

Hebrew Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek

NON-JEWS IN PALESTINE

Government officials Coastal cities (Greek colonies) Elsewhere

Greek and some Latin Greek Aramaic

What was the purpose and use of the Targum in a multilingual society, in which Hebrew may still have been understood by many people? Not so long ago many scholars regarded the dwindling of Hebrew as the pre-eminent raison d'etre for the Targum in the synagogue; and vice versa, the Aramaic translation proved by its very existence how little Hebrew was understood. If these presuppositions are no longer tenable, the picture of the Targum's origin and original setting in life should be changed accordingly. Several solutions to this situation are possible. The Targum could have originated in a nearly monoglot milieu where the knowledge of Hebrew was sparse (Galilee?), 53 because a translation presupposes that the target language is also the receptor's language. In a diglossia model, it is interesting to observe the practice of reading the Targum in conjunction with the Hebrew by way of comEast, Jerusalem 1988, 88. 52 B. Spolsky, "Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: An Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics", in: J.A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages, Leiden 1985, 41. Note that Spolsky did not differentiate various periods, nor did he take the two distinct Hebrew dialects and Nabataean into account. 53 Cf. U. Glefimer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988, 46-48, 272.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

10

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

mentary, either in or outside the synagogue. 54 We already noted the use of Aramaic for expository compositions in Qumran. Finally, the literal Targums could well have served as an educational means to conduct Aramaic speakers into the world of the Bible. These possibilities do not exclude each other. In a study of the Septuagint, Rabin perceived the origin of the Targums, notably T Jon, in "monolingual hermeneutics": "A translation of the type of the Targum to the Prophets makes little sense unless the listener also understood the source text without its help, as otherwise all the ingenious allusions would be so much wasted effort". 55 An objection might be made at this point that if the Targum was meant for study reasons by way of commentary intended for people who understood Hebrew, why then was it not written in Hebrew? Here the multilingual situation may offer an explanation. It is reasonable to assume that many people had a passive rather than active command of Hebrew. Moreover, the choice of Aramaic may have commended itself in order to keep the original and the explanatory version distinct from each other.

1.1.2 Aramaic Diglossia in Palestine To understand the theory of Aramaic diglossia, it is necessary to begin with one of the most common periodisations of the Aramaic language. Fitzmyer proposed the following table: 56 1. Old Aramaic (ca. 925-700 BCE). 2. Official or Imperial Aramaic (ca. 700-200 BCE). 54 So Barr, "Which Language", 24-25; Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic", 10291030. Cf. D. Golomb, "'A Liar, A Blasphemer, A Reviler': The Role of Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targumim,'' P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies Volume One. Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta (GA) 1992, 137 n.7. 55 C. Rabin, "The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint", Textus 6 (1968), 17. See also Fraade, "Rabbinic Views", 253-286. 56 J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Phases of the Aramaic Language", in: idem, A Wandering Aramean, 57-84; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, Rome 1966, 19 n.60; cf. Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", 93. Kutscher followed Fitzmyer's scheme in: Current Trends in Linguistics, 347-348, but in his earlier publications "Middle Aramaic" corresponds to Fitzmyer's "Late Aramaic". This scheme has achieved status but there are still dissidents. J.C. Greenfield, "Aramaic", in: !DBS, 1976, 39-44 would rather set Biblical Aramaic, Qumran Aramaic and TO/TJon-Aramaic under the rubric of Standard Literary Aramaic. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, RamatGan 1990, 3, follows the older terminology of Rosenthal; his "Middle Aramaic" corresponds to "Late Aramaic" in Fitzmyer's proposal.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.1 LANGUAGE

11

3. Middle Aramaic (ca. 200 BCE-200 CE). 57 4. Late Aramaic (ca. 200-700 CE). 5. Modern Aramaic (preserved in some Middle Eastern areas). In this model-to which Medieval Aramaic (as found in the Siddurim, Malfzorim, Piyyutim, and Sefer Zohar) should be added-TO and T Jon belong to Middle Aramaic, whereas the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targums is part of "Late Aramaic". It does not, however, take the dialect of spoken Aramaic into account, which attracted the attention of many scholars interested in the vernacular of Jes us and of early Christianity. They claimed that two types of Aramaic existed alongside each other, in part based upon NT indications, in part on the extant Aramaic texts written in different dialects. 58 A brief sketch of the origin and development of this theory will illuminate the issue. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls there existed two alternatives for the language of Jesus (when restricted to Aramaic): the literary Aramaic of TO and T Jon and the "spoken" Aramaic of the Palestinian Targums. For some time many scholars followed Paul Kahle who persistently advocated the priority of the Palestinian Targums for the reconstruction of Jesus' vernacular. 59 When Diez Macho discovered Targum Neofiti in Rome, and defined it as an essentially pre-Christian version, 60 this view seemed to be substantiated. Kahle regarded TO and T Jon as late crystallisations of the Targum tradition under the influence of Babylonian Judaism. 61 The Qumran scrolls shed new light on the issue. The Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon now provided the missing link between Biblical and Imperial Aramaic on the one hand and TO/TJon-Aramaic on the other. 62 In an influential footnote Kutscher considered the different dialect of the Palestinian Targums as the spoken Western Aramaic dialect. Its rise to literary expression could be explained by 57 With a geographic division between Palestinian and Arabian Aramaic on the one hand and Syrian and Mesopotamian Aramaic on the other. 58 Cf. GleBmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung, 40-44. 59 P. Kahle, "Das paliistinische Pentateuchtargum und rv, "Presence" and t1:ip•, "Glory" as descriptions of God in the Targums has often been related to the issue of anti-anthropomorphism. Much of what has been said in the previous section, therefore, applies to the use of these terms as well. Since so much ink has flowed over this subject, I am happy to refer to Chester's critical survey of scholarly opinions. 556 Here I will confine myself to some introductory remarks. 557 Memra is, generally speaking, a circumlocution for God in his relationship to his people, both in his activity on behalf of them and as their address. The use of Memra seldom leaves the impression that it represents a separate entity or hypostasis (TJon Hab. 1:12 558 and Isa. 10:17). 559 On the whole, however, the Memra is introduced wherever God and human beings relate to each other so as to keep a proper distance between the two. In this sense the concept of Memra could be termed reverential. The Glory is a well-known theologoumenon which expresses God's splendour and incomprehensibility. It is therefore usually associated with the theophany and verbs describing an activity of God in human ways. These verbs are substituted by the reflexive of t1:?J, "to authors advocate an early date in the first century CE; cf. M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27), Rome 1966, 80-81 n.27a; L. Diez Merino, Targum de Balmos: Edici6n Principe del Ms. Villa-Amil n. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora (BHBib, 6), Madrid 1982, 59-62. Others suggest a relatively later date, so Dalman, Grammatik, 34; E. White, A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer Generated Text of Books I and II, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. McGill University Montreal 1988, 19-20). Hence, this argument is inconclusive. 556 Chester, Divine Revelation, 293-324. 557 See, i.a., Ribera Florit, El Targum de Isaias, 38-43; Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 56-77; Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 130-150; Levine, The Aramaic Version, 57-61, 65. 558 K.J. Cathcart, R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (AramB, 14), Edinburgh 1989, 4. 559 Cf. A.M. Goldberg, "Die spezifische Verwendung des Terminus Schekhinah im Targum Onkelos als Kriterium einer relativen Datierung", Judaica 19 (1963), 43-61 (60), referring to MHG Shem. 24:10.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

108

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

reveal one's self". No one could see God, despite some contradictory passages in the OT; people saw God's Glory. Already in Scripture itself the Hebrew term ii:::i' of which t1iip• is a mere translation serves as an anti-anthropomorphic description of God. 560 The term could, however, also be used of brittle human fame. The Shekhinah is God's Presence, a concept presumably related to the Deuteronomistic Name-Theology. 561 Naturally, the term is mostly invoked in the context of the Temple and the Heavens. Goldberg, who studied the term Shekhinah in rabbinic literature, understood it as an explanation of how God can be seen as present on earth even though he is still in heaven. 562 The removal of the Shekhinah from the Temple as a result of Israel's sins is a particularly important theme in TJon, 563 which may reflect the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and thus affords us a clue to the date of TJon. However, Gordon recently expressed doubts as to the validity of this criterion. 564 At the beginning of this century, it became fashionable to understand Memra and the like as an intermediating hypostasis of God. Studying the term within its rabbinic context, G.F. Moore ardently opposed the theory of Memra as a hypostasis: "Memra is a phenomenon of translation, not a creature of speculation". 565 Scholars have now generally accepted that Memra, Shekhinah and Yeqara are reverential circumlocutions for God. 566 But discussion about the proper understanding of the terms did not stop there. The question was raised whether the "circumlocution" or "substitute" 567 is a metonym or part of a conceptual sphere. In the face of the claims of Memra as a hypostasis, some scholars would tip the scales toward understanding Memra and the like as mere translational phenomena, with exegetical aspects, but without any more sophisticated theological connotation. Conversely, others tried to infer distinct theological concepts for all of these terms: the A Rift in the Clouds, 378. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 4-5. 562 A.M. Goldberg, Untersuchung iiber die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der friihen rabbinischen Literatur, Berlin 1969, 450. 563 Cf. Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 69-75. 564 Gordon, Studies in the Targum, 132-137. Contrast Cathcart, Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 5. 565 G.F. Moore, "Intermediaries in Jewish Theology", HTR 15 (1922), 41-85 (54). 566 E.g., Klein, "The Translation of Anthropomorphisms", 172; B.D. Chilton, "Typologies of memra and the fourth Gospel", in: Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies, 89-100 (89). 567 An inadequate term, because Memra strictly speaking does not substitute for i11i1', since often '1' is used as well, sometimes even when it is not in MT. 56 °Korpel,

561 Cathcart,

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.5

CHARACTER

109

creative Word, Memra as the expression of the Divine name, 568 or anti-anthropomorphic paraphrase. Chester569 rejected both extremes. In brief, he does not regard these terms as mere metonyms on account of the wide spectrum of usages of Memra exhibited in the Targums, conveying an aspect of God's activity. 570 But he likewise denied any attempt to construct a distinct theological meaning from either one of these terms, because the usage appears to be stereotyped and largely extended beyond their original scope. In the end, he sees the origin of these three terms as limited exegetical devices which took on theological significance only as expressions of the modes of God's manifestation. In a recent study, Walter Aufrecht advanced a method to recover the "trajectories along which targumic traditions develop". 571 Patterns and deviations in the Targums constitute clues for the Uberlieferungsgeschichte of the Targums. On the premise of a targumic tendency toward consistency of expression, he argued that the dominant pattern of translation reflects the latest phase of development whereas the "exception pattern" reflects a pre-editorial phase (the NT "Criterion of Dissimilarity"). He illustrated this method by the variations of the surrogates for God in the pentateuchal Targums. The use of ~ip• and ~n:J'::::itv in TO is without exception, and this degree of consistency implies a late stage of development in his view. Aufrecht's method seems helpful but caution should be exercised in its application. Partial revision of a Targum undermines the validity of the "exception pattern" as an indication of the oldest level. 572 The tendency towards consistency could be undercut by changes introduced into the text during textual transmission. For various reasons the linear development Aufrecht presupposes is unlikely, as we observed in the previous section. The tendency towards consistency cannot be taken in any absolute sense, especially not if the terms became stereotyped and interchangeable to a certain extent. Again, comparison with other Targum traditions and ancient versions might be useful as a test whether Aufrecht's reconstruction is historically valid. 568 C.T.R. Hayward, "The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St John's Gospel", NTS 25 (1978/79), 16-32. 569 Chester, Divine Revelation, 293-324. 570 So also G.F. Moore, as pointed out by Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 56-69; idem, "Typologies of Memra", 93. 571 Walter E. Aufrecht, "Some Observations on the Uberlieferungsgeschichte of the Targums", Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies, 77-88. 572 The odd syntactic feature Gordon observed in TJon Zech. 3, for instance, should not be regarded as a vestige of the older Targum to Zechariah.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

110

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

1.5.6 Recapitulation 1. The Targum is a genre of its own, divided in two types: one in

which the additions do not break up the narrative framework of the original (base translation+ additions), and one in which the original is taken apart to provide the building-blocks of a new narrative framework. Both types take account of the wording and sequence of the original.

2. The genre of the Targum discloses an exegetical interest rather than the pure need of a translation. Its inception may therefore well be connected to the need of "monolingual hermeneutics" of bilingual people who therefore resorted to a kind of Aramaic which was often recognised as strongly Hebraised. 3. If discrepancies in the type of translation as to genre are apparent, it is worthwhile to attempt to discern traces of a revision of the passage at hand. 4. The character and degree of the Targum's consistency may disclose something about the nature of the Targum, its origin and scope. 5. The targumic deviations from the Hebrew follow some implicit principles. The exegetical methods are more or less identical to the midrashic techniques known from other genres, and they can be categorised by a description of the relation between the Hebrew and the Aramaic text. 6. There is no such thing as a consistent anti-anthropomorphism in TJon. 7. The inconsistency as regards biblical anthropomorphisms has not sufficiently been explained, though some important suggestions have been made. Anthropomorphism is the problem of how to speak appropriately of God as He manifests himself. The solution to this problem may be related to co-textual interpretations, homiletical intentions and the assumption of layers in the Targums. Methodically speaking any theory about the history of the Targum's treatment of anthropomorphisms should be tested against other traditions, both in the manuscripts of the Targum and in other ancient versions. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

1.5

CHARACTER

111

8. The degree of consistency is of prime importance for an evaluation of the theological position of the Targum. The same is true of the character of inconsistency; it is, for instance, relevant to learn whether there is a notable difference in translation between anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. 9. Standardised translations may convey theological themes which may imply the theological importance of a cohesive translation. The negative aspect of anti-anthropomorphism is balanced by its positive value as an adequate description of God's selfmanifestation. 10. The terms ~i~·~, ~nJ'::Jtv and ~ip• are exegetical devices with theological significance, albeit largely stereotyped. See further the closing remarks at point 7.

1.6 Desiderata for Further Research Any individual Bible book presents its own problems and questions and thereby determines the direction for further research. Yet the previous survey of recent research also disclosed a variety of 'desiderata' which pertain to the study of any portion of the Targum. I shall state briefly the points that deserve attention in the following chapters of the present study. l. It may be worthwhile to identify inconsistencies of vocabulary, morphology and syntax in T Jon's dialect if they present themselves in T Jon Judges (Chapt er Four).

2. The 'Setting in Life' may be traced by carefully dissecting the character of T Jon as a translation, especially in comparison with other ancient versions of the Bible such as the Septuagint, the Peshitta and the Vulgate (chapter 3). This investigation should not, however, be restricted to a presentation of carefully selected examples which 'happen' to substantiate the conclusions. On the contrary, it should include a fair amount of phenomena, studied comprehensively. It will also tell us whether the Syriac and Aramaic versions of Judges display any kind of similarity, influence, or outright literary interdependence, as has so often been suspected in case of the Pentateuch. 3. Convergence toward or divergence from rabbinic literature obviously indicate the status of T Jon as a 'rabbinic' composition. These comparisons should be contrasted with parallels in Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

112

CHAPTER

1:

PRESENT STATE

other ancient Jewish exegetical traditions, as well as the versions (Chapter Four). 4. The relationship between the haft.aroth and the Targum requires analysis on the level of parallel translations and may disclose a history of textual development of T Jon. A general discussion will be provided in chapter 2, while case-studies will follow in Chapter Four. 5. Although the literalness of TO and T Jon is sometimes linked to the education system, its deviations and the consistency in deviation from MT deserve closer attention as to character and scope. The character of the consistency at an exegetical and theological level has an impact on the scope of the translation, and hence on its origin. At the same time, the results may corroborate or contradict the outcome of the study mentioned under 1 above. 6. More manuscript materials need to be included in the study of T Jon. A fresh edition, correcting and supplementing the critical apparatus of Sperber's edition, is the preferable option, but lies outside the scope of this study. However, in order to gain a better idea of the Western Text of T Jon, many manuscripts have been collated for Judges, and a provisional description of MSS will be provided in the next chapter.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

Chapter 2

The Text of Targum Judges 2.1 Introduction The history of the textual transmission of the Targums in general and T Jon in particular is still veiled in obscurity. With the exception of Targum Hosea, no stemma codicum of the extant manuscripts of TJon (and, for that matter, TO) has ever been drawn up. 1 Even Ferrer i Costa's study of Hosea, a critical edition provided with an introduction and translation in Catalan, is preliminary in as far as it includes Babylonian, Yemenite and Western texts but offers only a limited selection of the latter two branches. Whereas some scholars provided information on the manuscript tradition of the Targums to Job, Lamentations and Canticles, 2 such groundwork is still lacking for TJon. Without insight in the relationship between the various manuscripts it is difficult to evaluate the variant readings they offer. This is true not only for targumic variations, but also for the impact of targumic readings on textual criticism and even the exegetical study of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the exact relationship between the various strands of textual tradition-Babylonian, Yemenite, Western (with a subdivision for the Sefardi MSS)- cannot be assessed without an adequate insight into the textual development of T Jon. Therefore it stands to reason that ideally the study of the textual history of T Jon Judges should be undertaken in connection with an edition based on as many manuscripts as possible. The most comprehensive edition of Targum Jonathan to Judges 3 1 J. Ferrer i Costa, El targum d 'Osees en tradici6 iemenita ( Col.lecci6 de Tesis Doctorals Microfitxades, 869), unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Barcelona 1991. 2 F.J. Fernandez Vallina, El Targum de Job, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Madrid 1981; L. Diez Merino, "Manuscritos del Targum de Job", Henoch 4 (1982), 41-64; A. van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition of the Targum of Lamentations. Critical Text and Analysis of the Variant Readings, Leiden 1981; C. Alonso Fontela, El Targum al Cantar de los Cantares (Edici6n Critica}, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Madrid 1987; D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: Introduction and Critical Edition (AGJU, 20), Leiden 1994. Unfortunately Fernandez Vallina, Alonso Fontela and even Stec overlooked some important manuscripts. 3 1 shall ignore here the early edition by F. Praetorius, Das Targum zum Buch der Richter in jemenischer Uberlieferung, Berlin 1900. It was based on one

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

114

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

was published by Alexander Sperber in 1959 in his second volume of The Bible in Aramaic, containing the Targum to the Former Prophets. As a basic text he used MS Or. 2210 of the British Museum, a Yemenite manuscript dated 1469 CE. Critics soon expressed their dissatisfaction with this long-awaited edition. 4 Two shortcomings were emphasised: Sperber had neglected the extant genuine Babylonian manuscripts (even though he was aware of their existence), and his work lacked accuracy since it contained far too many typographical errors as well as a dubious selection of variant readings. 5 In the third volume of Critique textuelle de l'Ancient Testament the authors drew the following harsh conclusion: C'est apropos du Tg [Targum] que le defaut d'une veritable edition critique se fait le plus lourdement sentir. L'edition qu'en a donne Sperber ne merite en effet guere ce titre. 6

In their opinion, the restrictive selection of textual witnesses 7 and the choice of a Yemenite MS as the basic text made Sperber's edition unsuitable for the textual study of the Old Testament-even if it had been more accurate in representing and selecting manuscript evidence. This criticism pertained especially to Sperber's decision 8 to pass over the Babylonian MSS which were generally held to represent the most ancient textual tradition with the original punctuation, as T Jon was supposed to have received its final form in the Eastern Diaspora. An Yemenite MS (now in Tiibingen), with some variants for Judg. 5 from Brit. Mus. Or. 2210 taken from A. Merx, Chrestomathia targumica, Berlin 1888, as well as some variants from two haft.arah-MSS. 4 Cf. P. Kahle, "Die Aussprache des Hebriiischen in Palii.stina vor der Zeit der tiberischen Masoreten", VT 10 (1960), 375-385 (383-384); M. Martin, "The Babylonian Tradition and Targum", in: Le Psautier (OBL, 4) Louvain 1962, 448450; J. van Zijl, "Errata in Sperber's Edition of Targum Isaiah", AST! 4 (1965), 189-191; Idem, "A Second List of Errata in Sperber's Edition of Targum Isaiah", AST! 7 (1968-69), 132-134; R.P. Gordon, "Sperber's Edition of the Targum to the Prophets: A Critique", JQR 64 (1973-74), 314-321; A. Diez Macho, JJS 6 (1975), 217-236; R.P. Gordon, "Foreword to the Reprinted Edition", in: Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, Leiden 1992; idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VT.S, 51), Leiden 1994, 28-30. 5 Gordon, Studies in the Targum, 41 n.7. 6 D. Barthelemy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancient Testament, Tome 3: Ezechiel, Daniel, et Jes 12 Prophetes, Gottingen 1992, ccxi. 7 For which reason they themselves collated MS Or. Fol. 1-4 (Berlin) and MS Vat. Urb. 1, the Walton Polyglot and m'?11; m~ipo, and MS hebr. 1325 (Paris) for Isaiah. Instead of the two printed editions they might have selected some more manuscripts. 8 See A. Diez Macho, JSJ 6 (1975), 221-225. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.1

INTRODUCTION

115

additional objection9 was the following, le parti-pris de n'offrir aucune vocalisation tiberienne rendent impossible pour l 'usager de son edition de se faire une representation exacte de la complexite de la situation textuelle.

Somewhat more moderate was Gordon's criticism. In his opinion the basic consonantal text of MS Or. 2210 has been reproduced with a fair degree of accuracy. The majority of typographical errors appears in the vocalisation and in the apparatus .10 Most of the occasional consonantal errors in Sperber's basic text are easily recognizable. Yet a completely new edition remains a an acute necessity. Before that enormous task is tackled, however, it would seem prudent first to explore the possibilities for each book of the Prophets because for every book the manuscript situation is different. Sperber's choice of Yemenite manuscripts has been justly criticised.11 Babylonian manuscripts would have been preferable. In all fairness, however, it should be recognised that the manuscripts of the Babylonian tradition cannot function as a basic text for the whole Targum Jonathan. They are far too fragmentary and vary too much among themselves. This holds true of MS L 229 (EMC 105) of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, despite Diez Macho's programmatic statement: "Toda edici6n critica de Jonatan hen 'Uzziel habra de tomar a este MS. como base." 12 Even if this MS is supplied with the Cambridge Genizah fragments, more than half of Targum Judges is still wanting. For these reasons Martinez Borobio transcribed all available fragments of the Babylonian textual tradition of Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, and he reproduced these side by side. 13 Often no genuine Babylonian texts were available, and Eb66, Eb76 or MS Or. 1471 had to be substituted. 14 So Sperber's choice of 9 In passing, Barthelemy and his colleagues also noted the apparently isolated position of Sperber's basic text among the other manuscripts which underscores the need for a stemma. 10 Gordon, "Foreword"; idem, Studies in the Targum, 30. See also J.C. de Moor, A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, vol. 1: Joshua, Leiden 1995, vi-vii. 11 See e.g. M. Martin, "The Babylonian Tradition and Targum", in: R. de Langhe (ed.), Le Psautier. Ses origines. Ses problemes litteraires. Son influence (OBL, 4), Louvain-Leuven 1962, 425-451, 443; J. Ribera, "La version aramaica del profeta Ageo'', Anuario de Filologia 4 (1978), 290. 12 A. Diez Macho, "Un manuscrito yemeni de la Biblia Babil6nica", Sefarad 17 (1957), 237-279, 238. 13 E. Martinez Borobio, Targum Jonatan de los Pro/etas Primeros en Tradici6n Babil6nica (TECC, 46), vol. 1: Josue - Jueces, Madrid 1989, 15. 14 !. Kottsieper, ZAW 102 (1990), 156, wrongly asserts that Martinez Boro-

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

116

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

a well-executed Yemenite MS was not so injudicious after all. 15 What about the criticism of Sperber for not having included Western variants with regard to the vocalisation? I fail to see what serious harm this omission may have caused. Originally T Jon did not have any vowels and it is widely known that the vocalisation in most Western targumic manuscripts varies considerably and is far from reliable. 16 Its inclusion would have unduly burdened Sperber's apparatus. Rather, there is a need of research into the textual history of every manuscript tradition and an attempt should be made to arrive at some sort of stemma codicum. Having the edition of Martinez Borobio at our disposal now, the main remaining problem of Sperber's edition consists of the lack of accuracy in the representation and selection of the variant readings. For Judges he relied on four Yemenite and two Western MSS. Much more could have been done. Scrutinizing numerous catalogues I counted no less than twenty-four complete MSS, five of them Yemenite, 17 the rest of Western provenience. Of the fragmentary MSS and haft.aroth, numbering more then one hundred items, Sperber used only two MSS and, indiscriminately, some fragments in the Taylor-Schechter Collection in Cambridge. 18 As a result, his edition also cannot be termed representative as to the Western text of Targum Judges. A complete edition based on all available Western witnesses goes beyond the scope of the present study. 19 However, in order to get an idea of the Western manuscript tradition not represented in Sperber's edition I collated a fair number of MSS. For the Eastern tradition this was superfluous since Martinez Borobio already edited the available bio utilised MS Or. 2210 of the British Library (London)-read: MS Or. 1471 (Martinez Borobio, Tradici6n Babil6nica, vol. 1, 11-12)-and Kottsieper unfairly critised his edition for lack of separation between Yemenite and Babylonian MSS. In fact, every transcription is headed by the signature of the MS. 15 Especially unfair was Kahle's criticism (n. 4 above) in this respect. Kahle had encouraged Sperber's project and had explicitly suggested to base an edition on Yemenite manuscripts. See P. Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens, Leipzig 1913, 216. 16 See, e.g., A. van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition of the Targum of Lamentations: Critical Text and Analaysis of the Variant Readings, Leiden 1981, 47-49. 17 There exists one additional Yemenite MS of the Targum to Judges: MS 63 (private collection, Jerusalem). The Targum in M. Cohen (ed.), m?n; m~ipo Cl'~Eltv i::io ,.lltvii1' i::io ,in::i;i, Ramat Gan 1992, did not utilise manuscripts beyond those of Sperber. Moreover, its text is eclectic and the superlineair vowels have been transformed into Tiberian ones. 18 These fragments are listed under the siglum "Fr". In Sperber's days, these fragments had not yet been catalogued. See now: M.L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (CULGS, 8), Cambridge 1992. 19 The present writer plans to publish an edition of the Western Text of Judges in due time. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.2 ERRORS SPERBER

117

fragments of the Babylonian tradition (with the exception of one small fragment), and only one sixteenth century Yemenite MS is missing from Sperber's apparatus. In the following sections I shall describe the manuscripts I selected for collation and those I excluded for various reasons. I will then draw up a provisional stemma codicum of the selected Western MSS. 20 Next I will discuss the allocation of glosses and the relationship between these glosses, other expansions as well as the lectionary readings in the synagogue.

2.2 Errors in Sperber's Edition On the basis of the manuscripts I collated I tracked down the following consonantal errors in Targum Judges according to Sperber's edition: ERRORS IN SPERBER'S EDITION Errors in the main text read: 1'l11' 11l11' CJl) read: CJ~ read: r:i?i101 11:i?i101 CJl) read: CJ~ read: mm? n'm? read: 1l1:i Pl1 CJl) read: CJ~ (2°) Errors in the apparatus (incomplete) read: ~'itv) 1a 3:26 (f3) ~'itll) refers to: ~:ini ? 4:15 [~:i'm read: irv1 n' 4:21 f5 ~1rv1 n' read: i1'n'1tv01 5:2 i1'n'itvo read: ~m"n 5:4 f5~m1'n read: ':ll) f5i1:ll) 5:5 read: m 5:5 f5n1:l add: ~:im~1 5:5 f5~:im:i read: ~Ol) '111T n' Kiml;ti: ~ol11 F 7:8 Sperber: not recorded 8:21 Rashi: ~'p:i1l1 [~·:i11i10 Sperber: not recorded 9:9 Kiml;ti: r1pm [1'1P'O read: t;i:l'tvO 15:11 K t;i1'tv0 Sperber: not recorded Kiml;ti: i?'T:i1 n'? [i?'rm1 n'?1 18:7

3:1 4:20 5:10 6:36 13:21 19:11 20:28

continued on next page

20 0f course, a more definitive stemma will be possible only when a complete edition has been realised.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

118

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

continued from previous page

18:19 18:14 19:23 20:5 20:42 20:42 21:17

1'i1~

~?o=:ii o?'~i ~1i1 [1'1i1

'" ['?.1'

Kim}µ: 'tv:i~i [rv:i~i Kim}µ: mi [mp

[nnii'

1° or 2°7 read: ~?om [t:J?'~i 1° or 2°7 1°, 2° or 3°7 Sperber: not recorded Sperber: not recorded refers to nni' 7

The latter list is far from complete. 21 In any case it reaffirms the need for a more reliable edition of T Jon. We need not dwell on the omission of variant readings from the manuscripts Sperber purports to have utilised. In K, 22 for instance, the tetragrammaton is often written as: i11i1' (as in 2:15,18; 3:7; 4:1), which is worth noting. In the same vein Sperber often failed to adduce full testimony for attested variant readings. Finally, an edition encompassing more (especially Western and fragmentary) manuscripts will undoubtedly include variant readings that Sperber ignored. One notable omission is the well-known Tosefta-Targum to Ezekiel 1.

2.3 Manuscripts 2.3.1 Selected Manuscripts with the Complete Text 1. S: Kennicott 5,

Bodleian Library, Oxford. De Rossi and Kennicott 23 listed this MS with the signature: "Kennicott 85", but the Bodleian Library, following a printing error in Neubauer's catalogue, 24 know it as: "Kennicott 5". Bilingual: Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan, provided with three commentaries: Rashi, Kim}µ and Levi hen Gershom. Parchment, 262 ff, 2 cols. Hebrew with 2

21 Wrong verse divisions or numbers are not included. In the main text, 2:4 appears twice (the second instance should be 2:5). In the apparatus, 15:9-10 has a wrong division (read 10 after J 1ifD1) and 16:26 appears twice (read 16:25 for the first instance). 22 A complete list of the sigla used in this study is to be found among the indexes. 23 De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, !xiii; B. Kennicott, Dissertatio generalis in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum; cum variis lectionibus ex codicibus manuscriptis et impressis, Oxford 1780, 78. "Kennicott 5" is a Pentateuch with the former signature "Laud. G 97". 24 A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, vol.1, Oxford 1886, no. 2329.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.3

MANUSCRIPTS

119

smaller ones for the Targum, the commentaries are in the margin, Sefardi square script, written in Segovia (f. 262v), c. 13th century. It includes the Tosefta-Targum to Judges 5 and 11:1, but also

marks the expansion in 11:39 as 'Tosefta' preceded by the verse marking. The corollary addition in 11:2 is wanting. The MS is replete with errors and abbreviations, with very little correction.

2. 0: MS Opp Add 4° 75, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Bilingual: Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. Parchment, 158 ff, 28,5 x 23,0 cm, 2 cols., 37 lines, Sefardi square, sublinear pointing, both Masorahs, no colophon. Sold in 1482. MS 69 contains the Latter Prophets. 25 There is reason to believe the scribe was Ibn Gaon of Soria in the early 14th century. 26 Sefardi by geographic origin, the contents of this MS display agreement with the other Sefardi MSS. It includes the Tosefta-Targum to various verses, including that

to 11:1 which is only present in the Sefardi MSS (attached to the end of 10:18). These alternative translations are not introduced by any header. The MS underwent some correction, plausibly by the naqdan (cf. 8:16), but not much. Words at the end of a line are often abbreviated, and very common words may be abbreviated in the middle of a line.

3. M: MS 7542, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid. 27 Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets including Ruth, with a Latin translation prepared by Alfonso de Zamora and Aramaic roots. Fine parchment, 235 folios, 2 columns (one Aramaic, the other (smaller) one its Latin translation), provided with a third column containing the roots of the Aramaic words (with a reference system of minor Latin letters) with Hebrew vocalisation: 1::;).'J for tn:n~ in 20:42), 34 lines, 37,2 x 26,6 cm, Sefardi square, one hand, copied by Alfonso de Zamora in 1533 (f. 235b). Old no. P 22. According to the 25 Neubauer, Bodleian Library, vol. 1, no. 68; B. Narkiss, Hebrew illuminated manuscripts in the British Isles, part 1, 2 vols.: The Spanish and Portuguese manuscripts, Jerusalem & London 1982, 33-34 no. 5. 26 B. Narkiss, G. Sed-Raijna, "La premiere Bible de Josue ben Abraham lbn Gaon", REJ 130 (1974), 4-15. 27 C. de! Valle Rodriguez, Catalogo descriptivo de los manuscritos hebreos de la Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid 1986, 89ff, no. 16; M. de la Torre, P. Longos, Cat. de Codices Latinos, vol. 1, 152; Gallardo, Biblioteca Espanola, vol. 2, Apendice 177.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

120

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

Aramaic/Latin colophon at f. 235v, the MS was destined for Don Antonio Ramirez del Haro. Sublinear vocalisation. When I examined the MS in 1992, one folio between f. 151 and f. 152 (the final page of a quire) containing 1 Kings 1:1-13 appeared to be wanting. There is no prologue. Alfonso de Zamora himself may well have added the vowels to this MS and in the following one. 28 Some confusion of qame9 and patal:i turns up in a comparison of the MSS of Madrid and Salamanca. Spanish Jews did not distinguish these vowels in their pronounciation, as Spanish itself only knew one vowel a. De Zamora was assisted by other scribes, to which perhaps some of the differences of the script in his manuscripts may be attributed. 29 This MS preserves the Tosefta-targum including the one to 11,1, but as a remarkable feature sometimes also the regular text was introduced by the word t11n::iom. Often such passages would be deleted from the edition of the Antwerp Polyglot by Masius, albeit inconsistently. The manuscript is closely related to another copy written by De Zamora one year earlier for the benefit of the Biblioteca Antigua in Salamanca. It is unclear whether this MS or its Vorlage was used as a model by De Zamora when writing MS 7542. The original copy produced for the Complutensian Polyglot was sent to Rome and bought there by the Flemish scholar Masius, but apparently only after De Zamora -who first owned it- had used it to write the MS of Salamanca. 30 The codicological aspects of the MS prove that De Zamora was a trained scribe in the Jewish-Sefardi tradition. A conspicuous feature of this MS is the frequent substitution of an imperfect ithpe'el for a perfect (e.g., 16:22 n?m'i [n?m~i; 20:40: 1tli':J::lr1'1 [1tli':l::lr1t111). 4. W: MS 1, Bibliotheca (Antigua) de la Universitaria, Salamanca. Targum 28 A. Diez Macho, "Le Targum de Job dans la tradition Sefardie", in: M. Carrez et al. (eds.), De la Torah au Messie. Etudes d'exegese et d'hermeneutique bibliques offertes d Henri Gazelles, Paris 1981, 545-556 (549); L. Diez Merino, Targum de Salmos: Edici6n Principe del Ms. Villa-Amil n. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora (BHBib, 6), Madrid 1982, 20; Fernandez Vallina, El Targum de Job, 29. 29 C. de! Valle, "Notas sabre Alfonso de Zamora", Sefarad 47 (1987), 175. 30 J.Ma. Millas Vallicrosa, "Nuevas aportaciones para el estudio de los manuscritos hebraicos de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid", Sefarad 3 (1943), 289-327 (292-294).

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.3

MANUSCRIPTS

121

Jonathan provided with a Latin translation, first volume of a set of three comprising the Targum to the Former, the Latter Prophets and the Writings. Parchment, 262 ff, 31,5 x 21,6 cm, 2 columns (Aramaic and Latin), 32 lines (Aramaic), some leaves supplied at the opening (ff. 2-6) and at the back (ff. 261-262). Sefardi script, written by Alfonso de Zamora in Alcala de Henares for the University of Salamanca (f. 1b) 31 and completed August 3, 1532 (f. 144r of the third volume). The book is to be read from left to right (that is, with the back of the MS at the left hand). In contrast to MS 7542, Aramaic words are occasionally hyphenated. The supplied leaves (of which f. 6v and f. 262 are blank) are written in another hand, the same which supplied ff. 208b-229a in MS 2, containing the Targum to the Writings. According to Alonso Fontela, 32 the latter folios were written rather hurriedly by De Zamora himself: Letra mas apresurado, como si al autor le corriera prisa terminar su obra. However, the parchment appears to be prepared differently and the lines are drawn by a sharp point rather than by pencil, while the script is jagged and far from elegant. The colophon is in part based upon the prologue written in the first hand and seems to be dependent upon it. Moreover, the colophon in MS 1 at f. 261 also contains the date when these folios were added, i.e. 1756, and the name of its scribe: :i:m!li~p cioi' p, Don Joseph Cartegenah? Its contents are almost identical to the preceding MS, including the additional markers ~m:ioin at unexpected places. In general, this MS is not as well executed as MS 7542, though better preserved. 5. A: MS 11, Stift Gottweig. Bilingual: Prophets with Targum Jonathan. 468 ff, pointed, with both Masorahs, Joshua 1:1-4:17 has been provided with the commentary of Rashi, Ashkenazi script, 14th century. 33 There is no Tosefta-Targum to Judges in this MS. 31 For the sum of 12 ducates, as recorded in the archives of the university: F. Marcos Rodriguez, Los manuscritos pretridentinos hispanos de ciencias sagradas en la Biblioteca Universitaria de Salamanca, Salamanca 1971, 18. 32 C. Alonso Fontela, El Targum al Cantar, 58; following J. Llamas, "Los manuscritos hebreos de la Universidad de Salamanca", Sefarad 10 (1950), 263-279

(272). 33

This information was provided by Dr. B. Richler (the Jewish National and Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

122

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

It contains some unique variant readings, but an equal number of obvious scribal errors which raises the question how well the scribe knew Aramaic. A second hand introduced numerous corrections, possibly the naqdan, and he also sometimes supplied the missing consonants of abbreviated words. Often the abbreviation marker was simply forgotten. Judges 5 is written semi-stichometrically, which resulted in some hyphenated Aramaic words, i.e. ~ni~ip in 5:14 became ~ni ~ip.

6. B: MS Or. Fol. 1-4 (Kennicott 150), Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preu:Bischer Kulturbesitz. 4 vols. Bilingual: Pentateuch with Targum Onqelos, Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating, Writings with Targum. Parchment, 140, 208, 243, 293 ff, 3 columns. The MS is 14th century, but its (sublinear) punctuation is dated 1455. Written by Baruch hen Abraham. Including Somnium Mordechai in Aramaic. 34 This MS preserves the Toseftas to Judges 5, apart from the Tosefta-Targum to 5:11. It contains few abbreviations and these only at the end of the line. It has many corrections which often affect the vocalisation, perhaps following a different Vorlage, though also frequently correcting obvious errors. Since the pointing was added much later, this is an important feature. 7. F: Cod. Urbinati-Vaticano 1 (Kennicott 228), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome. Bilingual: Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings with Targum alternating, provided with the commentary of Rashi (to the Pentateuch only) in the margin; a small midrash on Isaiah's martyrdom and Somnium Mordechai. Parchment, 979 huge folios, 3 columns, 56 x 40 cm, 35 lines, Ashkenazi script, Hebrew and Aramaic pointed, 35 including Targum Sherri and (decorative) Masorah, text written by one scribe, the Masorah by two of which the second, who is the scribe, dated his work 15 Kislev 5055 (1294 CE; f. 979v). 36 University Library, Jerusalem). 34 De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxvi-lxvii; Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, 83. 35 With many errors according to L. Diez Merino in a private communication. 36 S.E. Assemanus, J.S. Assemanus, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, vol. 1, Rome 1756, 409-411; Kennicott, Dissertatio Genera/is, 89; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxxii; Th. and M. Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages. Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries, Fribourg 1982, 310, no. 240; L. Diez Merino, "Targum al Cantar de los Cantares", Anuario de Filologia 7 (1981), 237-84; Fernandez Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.3

MANUSCRIPTS

123

Written by Ishaq, son of Rabbi Simeon ha-Levi for R. Eliezer, son of R. Samuel; the scribe's name is decorated at f. 144a and 479b. Mappiq is usually beneath the h, not within. The use of matres lectionis is restrictive in this MS when compared to all other Western MSS of T Jon. The pointing is not very reliable. The use of abbreviations is not extensive. Quite often the particle 1 is not prefixed but written as '1 instead (i.e., toll? '1 for toll?i). The ending of the third person plural perfect of verbs tertiae Aleph frequently lacks the toll (for instance in 19:21: 1'nOtoll1 [1toll'nOtoll1). F. 283r may have been supplied by a different hand. There is no Tosefta-Targum to Judges. Neither is a second corrector's hand discernible. 8. J: MS El. f.6 (Kennicott 182), Universitatsbibliothek, Jena. Bilingual: Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. Judges: fols. 34v-68v. Parchment, 471 folios, 38 x 48 cm, 3 cols., 31 lines, German square, sublinear pointing, 13/14th century. 37 This MS includes the ToseftaTargum to Judges 5. Extensive use of abbreviations and plene spellings. The naqdan introduced many corrections by way of pointing; other corrections (always with sublinear pointing) may well have been carried out by the same hand, though occasionally it seems they are based upon a slightly different Vorlage. There is quite a number of errors in the Targum. In Judges 11:24 the usual translation is replaced by a different clause shared by no other MS, apparently for theological reasons. 9. N: Cod. Solger Ms. 1-7. 2° (Kennicott 198), Niirnberg, Stadtbibliothek. Bilingual: OT with Targum (almost all books) alternating, Masorah. 7 volumes, parchment, 3 cols., 33 lines; MS 3.2° contains Joshua 1:1-1 Kings 12:7 with Targum Jonathan. 164 folios, 36 x 48 cm, German square, both Masorahs, dated 1291 (f. 127v). 38 The naqdan may not have been the scribe. 39 Many corrections. The name of the client has been Vallina, El Targum de Job, 11-12; C. Alonso Fontela, El Targum al Cantar de los Cantares {Edici6n Critica}, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Madrid 1987, 54-62. 37 E. Roth et al., Hebraische Handschriften (VOHD, 6/2), Wiesbaden 1965, 151, no. 213; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxix; Kennicott, Dissertatio Genemlis, 86. 38 Roth et al., Hebraische Handschriften (VOHD, 6/2), 317, no. 504-510; Kennicott, Dissertatio Genemlis, 88; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxx. 39 According to C. Alonso Fontela, El Targum al Cantar, 54-55.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

124

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

erased in favour of the name of a later owner. The place of origin is not mentioned. The microfilm which the University of Kampen obtained from the University of Jerusalem did not show complete pages. The margins were trimmed, which suggests the possibility that some marginal glosses were partly or completely invisible. Consequently, a reading under the heading ~,,., in Judges 4:7 had to be reconstructed. Frequent abbreviations occur at any position. There is extensive correction, especially of the spelling (crossing out of matres lectionis). Some of the marginal glosses seem to be intended as corrections, while others are alternative translations (under the heading ~"0). Perhaps this might explain the evidence of the Biblia Rabbinica, edited by the baptised Jew, Felice da Prato (Felix Pratensis), and printed by the Christian Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1517-18), 40 which follows MS Solger 3.2° closely and mostly adopts the corrected readings, with some notable exceptions. 41 The MS includes the Tosefta-Targum to the Song of Deborah. 10. P: Laud. Or. 326 (Sub Fen viii; URI 4), Bodleian Library, Oxford. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, preceded by various readings of different schools for the Writings. Parchment, 69 leaves, 3 cols., 41 lines, unpointed, rabbinic square, Ashkenazi script, 14th century. 42 No ToseftaTargum to Judges. The MS hardly contains an abbreviation, but it does occasionally show up corrections by a second hand. Most errors, and there are quite a few in this MS, remained uncorrected, however. There is abundant use of matres lectionis. The Aramaic of each verse is introduced by a Hebrew lemma and the haft.arah is indicated in the interlinear space or in the margins. 11. Q: MS hebreu 18 (Suppl. 6, Cod. De Rossi Ext. 1), Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Bilingual: Bible in 2 volumes (MS 17 is the first volume), with Targum Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, 40 D.

Amram, The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy, London 1963, 152-156. editions of D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: Introduction and Critical Edition (AGJU, 20), Leiden 1994, and J. Ferreri Costa, El targum d'Osees en tradici6 iemenita (Col.lecci6 de Tesis Doctorals Microfitxades, 869), unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Barcelona 1991, did not utilise MS Solger 1-7. 42 Neubauer, Bodleian Library, vol. 1, col. 29, no. 179. 41 The

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.3

MANUSCRIPTS

125

Targmn Writings and Somnium Mordechai in Aramaic. MS 18: Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. Parchment, 373 ff., both Masorahs, 3 col., 41 lines, dark ink, Tiberian vowels and accents, Ashkenazi script, dated 1512. This huge and beautiful MS once belonged to the private library of Pius VI, 43 which the French sold to a Roman bookseller in 1798 except for some valuable volumes, among them this one, which were claimed for the Bibliotheque Nationale. 44 There are many corrections in this MS, but also numerous alternative translations written in the inner or outer margins or between the columns under the heading (in)~ (i=:l )o. Sometimes a primitive textcritical apparatus is implied by remarks to pluses: p111 ( ... ) i:i 1'~ ~o, "in another MS the word (.... )is not there; consider (this!)". The corrections often do not correspond with the original vocalisation and often concern the spelling with matres lectionis. Little abbreviation, as a rule at the end of a line. Most errors have been corrected (corrected readings and alternative ones are distinctly marked as "*" and "ID" respectively). A striking feature of this MS, which it shares only with MS 26879 (British Library, London; siglum 'a'), is its consistent use of ~i~1' for 1'i1' in Judges 17-18, almost always accompanied by 1'i1' as an alternative reading in the margin. The reverse state of affairs is to be found in N which has the former reading in the margin. In the same chapters r~~, is substituted by ~·m'?·~ (again only consistently shared by 'a') with the former option in the margins. It also contains some unique variants in the basic text, such as T~O for 1pn~ in 16:26 and 29 (again with the marginal alternative). The MS contains the Tosefta-Targum to Judges 5. 12. T: Cod. Or. 72 (MS A. 1,2; Kennicott 240), Biblioteca Angelica, Rome. Bilingual: Former Prophets, Writings, both with the Targum in the inner margin, and with several commentaries. Parchment, 346ff, 460 x 320 mm, 29 lines in Hebrew (Judges), decorated, Hebrew: vowels and accents (except for the first 5 folios of Genesis). Targum: unpointed and smaller characters, written in Frascati (Italy), dated 1323-1326 (finished 43 De

Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, cxxvi. Zotenberg, Cataloques des manuscrits hebreux et samaritains de la Bibliotheque Imperiale, Paris 1866, 2, nos. 17, 18; M. Garel, D' une main forte. Manuscrits hebreux des collections franr;aises (Exposition Bibliotheque Nationale), Paris 1991, 160-161, no. 117 (MS 18) with bibliography. 44 H.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

126

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

December 1326). 45 Joshua 1:1-7:16 is missing. With a Hebrew translation to the Aramaic parts of Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah. The Targum is not always legible in the available microfilm copy. There is no Tosefta-Targum to Judges. The MS contains some corrections, all of which may perhaps be ascribed to the first hand. There are many abbreviations and occasional marginal notes. Often the Aramaic is introduced by one Hebrew lemma, but quite inconsistently (also as regards the ":"), and this sometimes resulted in the omission of the first Aramaic lemma. This MS contains errors of all sorts; omissions due to parablepsis, omissions of single letters, confusion of similar letters, metathesis, etc. Either the scribe or somebody in the line of his Vorlage altered final i1 occasionally into ~' and erred when the third person female suffix was at stake (see, e.g., 4:5: ~'?'1 [i1'?'1 ; 5:26: ~,, [i11' ; 5:29 (2x), 16:11: ~'? [i1'? ; 15:2: ~)'~ [m~; 15:6: ~'mn [i1'mn; 18:10: ~io~ [i110~ ); conversely, in 11:39 ~'?was substituted by i1'?. Likewise the final i1 of the third person male suffix is sometimes lacking (see, e.g., 13:5: 'tv'1 [i1'tv'1 ; 14:16: ''?1 [T'?1 ; 16:9: ':::l [i1':::l ), whereas it is added to the first person singular suffix in other instances (17:2: i1'~'.l) ['~.!));the male and female of the third person singular suffix are often interchanged (i.e., 4:8: i1''? [i1'?; 4:18: i1'm'? [i1m'? ). Finally, n' and 1' are occasionally confused. The MS belongs to the Ashkenazi textual tradition, with particular affinities to P. 2.3.2 Manuscripts not Used in This Study 1. C: MSS B.H. III (Cod. De Rossi Ext. 23), Biblioteca Civica Berio, Genoa. Bilingual: OT and Targum alternating (all books). Parchment, French-German script, Masorah, provided with the commentary of Rashi, the third out of seven volumes, decorated, sublinear pointing, both Masorahs, dated 1438. Some leaves bear the stamp of the "Bibliotheque 45 V. Antonioli Martelli, L. Mortara Ottolenghi, Manoscritti biblici ebraici decorati: provenienti da biblioteche italiane pubbliche e private, Milan 1966, 48ff, no. 7 (erroneously Targum Onqelos). According to F.J. Fernandez Vallina, El Targum de Job, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Madrid 1981 this MS is dated 11 Adar 5173 = 13th February 1413, which turns out to be the date of sale and purchase (Stec, Targum of Job, 59). Stec mentions instead the date of completion of QimJ.ii's commentary (1st August 1184). A. di Capua, Biblioteca Angelica, 85, no. 1, does not mention the date. See further: De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxxiii; Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, 90.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.3

MANUSCRIPTS

127

Royale" ; they may have been taken to Paris by Napoleon, to be duly returned to Italy afterwards. Vol. 3: Joshua-I Samuel, 88 folios, 54,3 x 41,0 cm. 46 The quality of the microfilm was rather poor due to unstable photography. For this reason the MS could not be read entirely; nevertheless I collated the first five chapters of Judges, as far as possible. The Tosefta-Targum to Judges 5 is only partially present: a fragment of the Tosefta to 5:3, further 5:5 and 8; 5:11, 16 and 26 have no Tosefta-Targum. The MS is characterised by many abbreviations, occasional corrections some of which consist in corrective pointing. 2. D: MS parm. 3187, 3188, 3189 (Cod. De Rossi 737), Biblioteca Palatina, Parma. Bilingual: Prophets with Targum Jonathan in the margin, Targum Writings. Parchment, 3 vols., 4 cols.: Hebrew in the two inner ones, Aramaic in the outer margins, German, 13th century. 47 Joshua 1:1-11:22 is lacking; according to L. Diez Merino also the Targum to the Minor Prophets are wanting (private communication). There is no Targum of Daniel, Ezra and Chronicles. 48 It lacks Judges 1:1-27a. This MS contains numerous abbreviations (without being marked thus) and errors, and due to the small script many letters are hard to distinguish from similar ones. Therefore the testimony of this MS should be used with some caution. After collation of about one chapter I refrained from using it. Interestingly, this MS contains the ToseftaTargum to Judg. 5:8, 11, 16 (but only partially) and 26 as its basic text (without any heading), but not to 5:3 and 5. 3. E: MS hebreu 75, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan of the Prophets, with Palestinian Targum to Gen46 Antonioli Martelli, Mortara Ottolenghi, Manoscritti biblici ebraici decorati, 74ff, nos. 25-31; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, cxxviii; I.B. de Rossi, Specimen variarum lectionum sacri testus, Rome 1782, 66; G. Gabrieli, Manoscritti e carte orientali nelle biblioteche e negli archivi d 'Italia; data statistici e bibliografici delle collezioni, loro storia e catalogazione, Florence 1930, 21; A. Luzzatto, La Bibbia Ebraica della Biblioteca Berio di Genova-Quaderni dell' Universita di Genova, Genua 1966. 47 According to the Jewish National and University Library 13-14th century (microfilm no. 13914-13916). 48 De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, cxxi; idem, MSS. Codices Hebraici Bibliothecae G.B. De-Rossi, vol. 2, Parma 1803, 143.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

128

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

esis 38:25-26 and 44:18, Megillath Antiochus (Aramaic with Tiberian pointing) at ff. 300b-302a, Testament Naphtali (unpointed) at ff. 302b-303b, incomplete. Parchment, 303 ff, quires of 8 ff, lines ruled by a hard point, verses introduced by one Hebrew lemma, 32 lines, Tiberian vowels and accents, 14-15th century. 49 Tosefta-Targum to Judges 5:5 is lacking. The microfilm of this MS was obtained too late to be included in this study. The Tosefta-Targum is incorporated into the text without further indication. There are occasional marginal glosses.

2.3.3 Remaining Manuscripts 50 l. MS Or. fol. 1210, 1211 (Kennicott 160),

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preu:Bischer Kulturbesitz. Bilingual: Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings with Targum. Parchment, 585ff and 548ff {including 7ff of a duplicate of Genesis 1:1-6:1), 3 columns, 30 lines, 610 x 457,5 mm {or: 605 x 445; text: 398 x 302), Ashkenazi script, Germany, punctuation and Masorah {magna and parva), dated 1343 (vol. 2, f. 547r). 51 Both volumes suffered damage from World War II and (still) await restoration. 52 Consequently, they could not be used in

Bibliotheque Imperiale, 8, no. 75. to De Rossi MS Kennicott 531 is a bilingual biblical codex dated 1193 containing the Prophets with Targum Jonathan and the Writings with the Targum. (De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxxxvii.) He also supplied the signature as: "Bononiae Bibliotheca S. Salvatoris Canon n. 646, 647". These MSS were identified with MS BUB 2208, 2209, (Biblioteca universitaria, Bologna; private communication, by Dr. Piccarda Quilici, dated April 23, 1992 and by G. Busi, dated May 13, 1993. Thanks are due to Dr. B. Boschi). But either De Rossi erred at some points, or the identification is wrong. First of all, these MSS do not contain TJon. Second, De Rossi recorded the variant reading•? 1'm in Judg. 16:18 in this MS (•? usually being written as the Qere); but MSS BUB 2208, 2209 follow the main reading with i? and the usual Qere. Moreover, Jeremiah and Ezekiel precede Isaiah, sequences duly noted by De Rossi. Nevertheless, the cover of these MSS still displays the signature of the library of S. Salvatore (646, 647). But covers do not prove much; in fact, MS 3 of the Biblioteca Complutense (Calle de San Bernardino) is MS 4 despite the lettering on the back (the real MS 3 has been lost since the Spanish Civil War). MS Kennicott 570 (Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, 105), can hardly be identified due to sparse information. It contained Targum Jonathan, belonged to Isaac Treves in Venice and dated from the early 13th century. 51 M. Steinschneider, Die Handschriften- Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol. 2, 1; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, !xviii. This MS seems to be identical to Sperber's "Erfurter Handschrift": Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 4b, siglum "r" (only 3 times quoted and not used in his edition, vol. 1). 52 Private communication by Dr. H.O. Feistel, dated September 13, 1993. 49 Zotenberg,

50 According

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.4

PROVISIONAL STEMMA

129

this study. MS or fol 1210 is damaged, MS or fol 1211 displays traces of fire and cannot even be opened due to water damage. The MSS apparently stayed in Berlin, in contrast to the other Hebrew manuscripts which were returned from Tiibingen and Marburg to Berlin ca. 1970. 2. MS A.46 (Kennicott 598), Sachsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden. Bilingual: Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings with Targum alternating. Parchment, 645 folios, 3 cols., Masora (at times in decorations), Italian script, no date (14th [= 15th] century according to De Rossi). This MS is extant only in the form of a carbon block, having been destroyed in 1945 as a result of allied bombing. 53 3. Kennicott 471, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; now lost. 54 Once part of the Bibliotheca Barberina which was bought by the Vatican library in 1902, but none of the 13 Hebrew MSS (Barb. Or. 1, 14, 38, 44, 53, 82, 85, 88, 98, 101, 110 and 119; cat. Allony nos. 724736) could be identified as this MS. 55 Bilingual: Hebrew and Targum (all books) alternating, parchment, German characters, 4 vols., written by Yel_iiel between 1 Kasleb 5056 and 1 Adar 5057 (1295-1297 CE) for R. Jacob b. Isaac. Jeremiah and Ezekiel precede Isaiah, Ruth, Psalms, Canticles, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Lamentations, Job. The text before Genesis 28:4 was written by a later hand. First words of sections and books are written in larger characters. 56

2.4 A Provisional Stemma To achieve a clear picture of the textual development of T Jon Judges through its material witnesses and the position of the manuscripts along the actual line(s) of development, we have to collate and evaluate the intertextual divergencies and agreements between the MSS. However, the fewer manuscripts we have, the more difficult it is to obtain an unambiguous result because from a statistical point of view the 53 H.O. Fleischer, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum orientalium Bibliothecae Regiae Dresdensis, Leipzig 1831, 74, no. 442; De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, xci; Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, 106; Stec, Targum of Job, 65. 54 M. Beit-Arie kindly informed me he had not been able to find this MS. 55 Information kindly provided by Dr. L. Boyle, Librarian of the Vatican. 56 De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 1, lxxxiii; Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, 102.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

130

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

Standard Deviation becomes too large. In addition, the poor transmission of the Targum text resulted in numerous errors of which most are not shared by any of the other MSS. Moreover, the use of matres lectionis varied greatly, sometimes simply under the influence of the remaining space on a line. For these reasons I adopted the following procedure to obtain some control over the textual groups in the Western MSS described above. It is important to note whether and which manuscripts concur in these respects: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Pluses. Minuses. Substitutions. Modifications. Errors. Tosefta-Targum.

Before embarking upon a systematic presentation of this data, however, I want to draw attention to a number of complicating factors. Evidently developments in any one direction could be reversed at a later stage, for example when obvious errors were corrected later by a trained scribe, such as accidental Hebraisms. But generally speaking the number of deviations, adaptations and errors tended to increase as a result of endless copying. Moreover, if some manuscripts share a obvious errors which cannot be ascribed to accidentally making the same mistake, their genealogical familiarity is beyond doubt. I do not consider orthographical 57 features as a reliable criterion for textual dependancy. Copyists varied in their preferences with regard to the use of', and ,, 58 , or final~ and iT as mater lectionis 59 or tv 57 M.O. Wise, "Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran", in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-n.S, 3), Louvain 1992, 124-167 (129 n. 16), prefers to call variations of spelling "graphological" rather than 'orthographical' since the latter term implies a calibration which is in fact unknown to us. However, for the sake of convenience I use the term "orthographical". 58 Shared with Qumran Aramaic and typical for the WT at a later stage, as opposed to Babylonian Jewish Aramaic; see E.M. Cook, "Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology", 8-10; L. Diez Merino, "Uso de! d/dy en el arameo de Qumran", Aula Orientalis 1 (1983), 73-92. 59 Contrast A. Diez Macho, "Le targum palestinien", in: J.-E. Menard (ed.), Exegese biblique et judaisme, Strassbourg 1973, 15-77 (27-28; at page 31 he admits that morphological features cannot bear such weight in comparative linguistics, and thus cannot be used in dating the targum), with E.M. Cook, Rewriting the Bible: The Text and Language of the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of California, Los Angeles 1986, 19. Cf. Wise, "Accidents and accidence", 127-128 n. 15 (pt. 4);

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.4 PROVISIONAL STEMMA

131

and O, or matres lectionis in general. In fact, these features are often inconsistently dealt with in most manuscripts themselves. In Cod. Or. 72 (Biblioteca Angelica, Rome) for instance, the last word at f. 39v is: 'JO'~?, but its repetition by way of catch-word on f. 40r is written: •;tv·~?. 60 At the end of a line, when the space remaining was narrow, the scribe could simply omit a vowel consonant; in MS Laud. Or. 326, for example, a manuscript without abbreviations, T Jon Judges 3:26, ~i'ntvt1; (Sperber) is first written as ~mtv'tl; (end of line, already over the virtual border-line) and then as ~i'ntv'tl;1 (in the middle of a line). Also the weight of the Tiberian vocalisation in establishing dependency should not be overestimated. Since the thirteenth century CE some workshops produced manuscripts in which scribe, vocalisator, Masorete and illuminator were distinct persons. 61 Between the completion of the consonantal text and its pointing many months or even years could elapse, as we observed above with regard to MS Or. Fol. 1-4 (Berlin). 62 Therefore the person responsible for the vocalisation need not have utilised the same Vorlage as the scribe did, or he could foster different opinions about plene and defective spelling, etc. ru some cases the scribe's Vorlage may even have been unpointed. 63 Another complicating factor was the education of the scribes which was rooted in Babylonian Aramaic. 64 The neglect of targumic Aramaic among European Jews brought about many inconsistencies, errors and the like in the vocalisation system of Western Targumic manuscripts. For this reason the famous Hebraist Elia Levita, a sixteenth century scholar in Italy, suggested to use Biblical Aramaic as a model for pointing targumic texts. Indeed, various later editions seem to have adopted his proposal. 65 All these complicating factors counsel against taking vocalisation 60 Also illustrative is the catchword written at the bottom off. 5b in MS Poe. 184 (Bodleian Library, Oxford): m~,,~, whereas the first word off. 6a has: m~J~. 61 B. Narkiss, "The Relation Between the Author, Scribe, Masorator and Illuminator in Medieval Manuscripts", in: J. Glenisson, C. Sirat (eds.), La paleographie hebraique medievale: Paris 11-13 Sept., 1972 (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 547), Paris 1974, 79-84. 62 See also e.g. MS Can. Or. 91 (Bodleian Library, Oxford): the text was completed in 1304, the punctuation a year later, f. 307r. 63 See note 28 above. 64 M. Sokoloff, "The Current State of Research on Galilean Aramaic", JNES 37 (1978), 161-167 (163). 65 A. Merx, "Bemerkungen iiber die Vocalisation der Targume", in: Abhandlungen und Vortrage des Fiinften Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, Bd. 2, Berlin 1882, 142-225; E.G. Clarke, "Reflections on the Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Targum of Koheleth", Textus 16 (1991), 79-94 (88); Stec, Targum of Job, 16, 108.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

132

CHAPTER 2: TEXT

and matres lectionis into account when trying to establish relationships unless the vocalisation clearly presupposes a correction of the consonantal text (i.e., i1':? when i1'? should have been written).

2.4.1 Readings Typical of Western MSS The Western tradition often displays a wording which deviates from the Eastern text in almost all of its textual witnesses. In the table below examples are given in which at least 10 out of 12 MSS share a common variant reading. The number 10 is arbitrary and sometimes a reading shared by fewer MSS is clearly representative for the Western Text. But the rather high number warrants the inclusion of the three textual families to be discussed below.

Verse 4:18 5:4 5:4 5:17 9:28 7:4 8:21 9:9 13:9 17:8 18:1 18:20 20:41 21:14 1:10 1:19 1:21 1:23 2:19

WESTERN READINGS OF T JON PLUSES Sigla Variant [Base Text ABCNF JTPQWMOS i1''? +[mo~i ABCNFJTQOS m pr[lrl'11~ MINUSES ACNFTPQWMOS i npe:i) +~r:i,1r:i < ['-,.v ~,, r1r:ir:i .... .v'-, n1r:i~i ,,, c::i1p 1r:i ~i.v1 ~' pn~ +[p1o:::ir:i rmi') 1'11t!l '-,_v i1'n)'::>W i1~1tv~'-, < [tv'-,ni 1'.VT (1°) 'mn:::i [pr:in:::ii ~n''?w ~)~ [~n:::iwr:i ~)~

~~:::ltDO +[~nn~ (2°)

n':::li

MINUSES

2:11 3:29 5:2 5:30 9:11 10:1 11:25 16:9 16:10 16:23

OS WMO WMS WMS WM WMS WM WMO WMS 85 OS

'tvJ'~ [ii:::i,n~i

1ll::l +['J1::li 'i:::l +[iin? n'?•n:::i. t11? r1' r1 riot111 [r1'? iot111 ').!) i11i1 r1 < [(1')10:::l.O) 1'11C!l ...:::i.•no i11i1 1'11 < [(pio:::i.o) r11C!l ...11:::i.m tli11C!l < • MWOS t11'?t11 [t11'?•t11 < [r=>'=>o r11C!l '?.!l 1'.!ln rv'?n [tv'?m 1'.!li (1°) t11•11t!l '?:::>o [pi1'?1:::> 10...1m'?1:::> 10 1 [1:::i.n 1:::>1 < [111::m ro) pi1'? tll1':::l..!lntli ti:'? [t11'?1 i:::i.jn•t111 1.!l [1:::>1 tli10'0 pr[i1t11)0 rrvon:::i. ri•tvo 'tl.''1 r::i'?t11 +[r.!l:::i.i~:::i. i1tli1i11 [i11i11 < [ro1p'?o .... t111•:::i..!lnt111 t11int11 int11'? [1nt11 r?:::>• i1tli1i1 ~'?1 1?n11 [1?n1 tli10'0' [pi:::i.? pi:::i.'?1 [t1110'0'?1

read ?~1tD' lOll? for ?~irv•?. reads ppni for ppn; J: ppni, qm: ~·Jpn, and WMOS: ppno. 107 N reads i::io for i::ioi. 108 B quoted; in J ]1i1'11n~? and in (H)Q ]1i1':l:ri are lacking; H has a similar text. 109 8 lacks the plus, WM have a little different spelling (1:lll'O?o). 110 Shared with F. 111 Shared with A; this plus agrees with some Hebrew MSS. 112 Shared with A. 113 Q0 reads n•::in'~1; B0 ::i::inn~1. 10 5BQ

106 N*

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

146

CHAPTER

2:

TEXT

Tosefta-Targum. B(C)NJQ lack the Tosefta to 11:1 which is exclusively preserved in the Sefardi tradition. A glance at Sperber's edition will show that the Toseftas are not always disseminated as a complete corpus. In several textual witnesses some Toseftas are missing, or only half of a particular tradition has been transmitted. In C the latter half of the Toseftas are wanting, i.e. those to 5:11, 16 and 26. In B 5:11 is lacking. In N, the one to 5:3 is written in the margin over against the others which are positioned in the running text. The ending of 5:8 is quite different in N; here it partially agrees with two haft.arah-scrolls (Gmrm), one fragment (H), a Mal;izor Roumania (r) and the first Bamberg edition (which is based on a MS very similar to N, as I will show below). In 5:16 N does not follow the deviating sequence of BJQ and it has some glosses which are only to be found in incomplete Targumic MSS besides N (and b). Nevertheless, B(C)NJQ clearly constitute a textual family as the table above 114 In 115 B

br the substitution is similar: il.!l~El. also preserved the base text word after this substitution; Q0 has an error:

~i:JJ.

marginal reading in Q agrees with Sperber's edition. spelling of Nm is defective: p::it!i1tli. 118 Shared with A. 119 N has an error: n?J1. T 7 has the same reading as BJ; Q has another error: 116 The 117 The

n.!liJ1.

without the copula. reads: ~"m?~, T: ~'Ji.l?'~. 122 B has: tliJ::ir.i, Q: tDJ::>'i.l1. 123 Q0 0S have a slightly different reading, but the Tosefta in OS does not support it. 124 NF abbreviated, thus inconclusive. 125 Shared with A. In 14,13, the same substitution is witnessed by AJQ. 126 N reads: n?m~. 127 J has an error: ~Ji.l". 128 Shared with A. 129 Shared with A. 130 N• reads: nr.ino~1, Q0 : nr.i~o'~1. 131 Shared with A. 132 Q0 has another error: ~r.i;::i. 133 C is different, due to a scribal error. N is identical, but with a plus. 134 C actually reads Ji.l ?::i for ?::ir.i. 135 B has a corrected reading coming close to this variant, B 0 is identical to the base text. 136 B reads: ~?1. 137 J reads: 1::i, N: 1i::lJn'~1 1.!l. 138 1n fact C has a little different spelling and interpolates two words before the last one: 1?'::i' ~?1. 139 J reads with WMOS: 11i11. 140 N° J read: J?::i•, N° omits: J?n1. 120 Nm

121 Nm?

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

2.4 PROVISIONAL STEMMA

147

plainly demonstrates.

2.4.5 Group III: Remaining Manuscripts Though it is convenient to treat the remaining MSS (AFTP) as a separate group, they do n,ot constitute a family in the true sense of the word. Their consanguinity first of all consists of negative characteristics such as the absence of the Tosefta-Targum and the lack of variant readings which WMOS and BNJQ share. In addition they agree on some other variant readings with BNJQ over against the Sefardi MSS (which are listed above, the non-Sefardi readings) and others with WMOS exclusively (below, marked with "*"). Clear-cut indications of a family-character are rare. Yet there are some positive indications of a family-like character. I do not exclude the possibility that these MSS are no group at all, but simply share readings common to the hypothetical Old Western Text, or an early subdivision of that text-type. A is a somewhat ambiguous member of its text family; if often joins one of the other groups (especially B, J and WMOS), or goes its own way (it attests to some unique substitutions). Occasionally all four witnesses diverge from each other in testimony. In addition, A and T are not very reliable textual witnesses. I will include unique readings shared by two members of this group only:

Verse

8:1

3:11 5:27 6:25 8:31 9:49 11:29 21:19 3:13

GROUP III: REMAINING MANUSCRIPTS PLUSES Variant [Base Text Sigla AFP141 n':::li pr [t:l'1El~ MINUSES AF142 .o&.w (B), xo:i:o:~o:tvw (LOR153 ). LXX and T Jon substitute with near synonyms. 9:6 MT :::i~o l,i,~, T Jon ~nop 1tv'O, LXX i:fi po:>.iivcµ i:fi eupei:n i:ij1101 is adjusted to the preceding plural form in T Jon, in keeping with the principle observed above. 233 The insertion of ti:'tD':::l in T Jon 234 qualifies the conduct of the addressees, in agreement with MT i1tDpi1 0::>1101, "their stubborn ways", which is emphasised as ti:•?p?po, "corrupted". 235 'O'p '?.ll 1'1i1 ti:O.ll 11:::l.ll1 z=i?n 10ti:1 '?ti:1tD':::l '1'1 ti:TJ1 crpni 20 2 t1:::>1ni, z:i·o1ti: ti:i, ti::iti: z:iti: 21 2 :•1o•or, 1?•:::ip ti:i,1 1mm:::iti: n' n•1•p:i1 :n•o1 .lltv1i1' p:::itv1 ti:'OO.ll 10 11i1'01p 10 tv:iti:

2:20 And the anger0 of the Lord increase against Israel and he said: "Because this people 236 have transgressed 237 my covenant which I commanded 238 their fathers and did not obey0 to my Wor, 2:21 I also will not continue to expel any man before0 you of the nations that Joshua left behind when he died,

MT tD'tl: is equated to the more general term ti:tLi:iti: and the far more specific tl:1:::lj 53 respectively 140 out of 199 times (ti;i,.ll:::i 6 times). It is conceivable that the targumist wanted to distinguish the male, 230 Eb66

preserves the variant reading ]1i1ni1:J~::l which may reflect a variant Hebrew reading, but it probably is an inner-targumic corruption. 231 K reads 1'?·~:i, "abolish". 232 In Eb66 and ACKNFJTPQWMOSa the feminine form is attested: ~n'?p'?pr:i. 233 Thus Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 53; see also on 2:14. 234 Absent in TQ, and in LXX and Peshitta. 235 Pesh has a similar shift with ri 1nl'.j·~ ?::> ~1:i' p:i?~ ~10ll::> ~,,.,,., ~nll:i ·~:i~il'.j n• i?~pi 29 3 :rvJ~ :irnrv~ ~?i 1:i•' 1:i' 3:29 And they killed at that time about ten thousand Moabite men, all fearsome and everyone a champion, and no one0 escaped.

For the metaphor MT 11'.jtD, "fat" two explanations commend themselves: "strong, vigorous" (TJon) on the one hand, and "rich, wealthy" on the other (Pesh "t~). The stereotyped translation ?~p for i1::>J appears 10 out of 28 times, yet the literal translation ~nl'.j 18 times. 294 In fact we find ?~p in the peal to be equated to many different Hebrew verbs: )1i1, ??n, n11'.j, 1p1, t:np, mn. Why now "smite" and then "kill"? Should this equation pattern be explained as the result of manifold authorship, or as a deliberate differentiation? The latter possibility has much to commend it. Clearly, some of the literal translations could not be avoided because the context requires the literal meaning "to hit, strike". This is especially the case with inanimate objects. 295 With human objects, the translation often is "kill" ,296 and the choice of equivalent is prompted by the context: a complete wipe out or a less severe action. 297 The three heroes which were "struck" in Judg. 1:10 are re293 The former: 3:28; 7:24 (2x), 25; 8:12, 14; 12:5; 15:4. The latter: 1:8, 12, 13, 18; 9:45, 50 and in the variant readings to 3:28 (QmSP), 8:12 (WMOS), 12:5 (B 0 ). 294 ?~p: 3:29, 31; 6:16; 9:43, 44; 14:19; 15:15, 16; 20:31, 39, 45. ~m~: 1:4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 25; 3:13; 7:13; 8:11; 11:21, 33; 12:4; 15:8; 18:27; 20:37, 48; 21:10. The latter equivalent is also to be found in the variant readings; 3:29 (Eb66); 9:43 (N). 295 Such as the cake of barley bread tumbling down on the tent of the Midianites in 7:13. 296 See M. Maher, "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Deuteronomy 1.1-8", in: D.R.G. Beattie, M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOT.S, 166), Sheffield 1994, 280. 297 Maher, "Deuteronomy 1.1-8", 280, notes that 'nt:l is chosen when, according

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

378

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

ported to be driven out in 1:20; obviously, the translation '?~p would not do, since some of these giants continued to live. 298 In other words, ~n~ may avoid the implication of complete extermination. The plus ~'?'n to 1:J') in NS* and the editions bo is a standard expression matching the Hebrew in Judg. 6:12 and 11:1; compare 18:2 and 21:10. ~l'i~ n:J111Z11 '?~i!Zl' IZl:i~ ,, mnn ~1i1i1 ~~i':::i '~:::i~m ii:::in~i 30 3

:plZl

p~n '?~i1Zl'1

3:30 And the Moabites were shattered on that day under the hand of the people0 of Israel. And the land of Israer was peaceful for eighty years.

All kinds of defeat or deprivation may be subsumed under the verb i:::in, "shatter" in T Jon. It is the standard translation of l':J:J, "be subdued" in 3:30, 4:23, 8:28 and 11:33. Additional Hebrew equivalents are: 1:JtV (7:20), 11~ (5:23), J.)1' (8:16, targumic variant), pn~ (5:26), z:p:i (20:35, 39 (2x)), i111/11' (5:13), z:ii; (5:21) and l:l~i1 (4:15). There is no question of the targumists having only a limited control of Aramaic, since proper equivalents are found as well. The tenden~y to choose one equivalent matching different Hebrew lemmata, should rather be viewed from a different angle: if one equivalent comprises several of God's actions on Israel's behalf, the continuation of God's providence is underscored and tends to convey a promise (or threat) for the audience which the Targum addresses. 299 The plus in BCJ and a: ~:::iip 1:Jl'~'?~ ('?~1tV'1), "from waging war" is an example of parallelisation, also appearing in 5:31, 300 but not in Judg. 3:11or8:28. The phrase appears in TJon Josh. 11:23 and 14:15 including the verb 1:Jl'~ instead of the more usual verb ~n;~, but with the Hebrew equivalent i1~n'?~~- Why does this plus occur only in 3:30 and 5:31? The lectionary readings cannot account for this plus, since 3:30 is not part of the haft.arah, unless different traditions to Gen. 19:11, the men inside the house of Lot are struck with blindness; the context precludes the equation with '?t!ip. 298 Such is the case throughout chapter one (the peoples being subdued), as well as in 3:13 (Israel is struck, but continues to live), 11:21 (the Amorites are driven out in 11:23), 11:33; 12:4 (the Ephraimites were not blotted out); 15:8 (Samson does not kill each and every Philistine); in 21:10 indeed not every inhabitant will be killed (see 21:11-12). A difficult exception appears to be 18:27, in which a seemingly complete extermination is described with ~nr.i. In chapter 20, some people being "struck" (MT) on the spot are said to be "killed" in TJon. Cf. 20:48. 299 Contrast TJon Judg. 5:4 with Nah. 1:6; see further my comments on 1:1. 300 so in GximRBCrNJQO. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

379

JUDGES 4

existed of which we know nothing. ~i::i:::i ~i:::ij i1~0 n'~ '~n~?::i n' '?t!ip1 nlv i:::i 1jrJ~ mi1 'i11im1 31 3

:?~i~' n' ~m i:-i~ pi::i1 ~'im

3:31 And after him was Shamgar, son of Anath, and he killer!> six hundred Philistine301 men with an oxgoad and he too rescued Israel.

A variant reading in Km, considered original by Churgin, 302 which is headed 'Targum Jerushalmi', reads '11r11 ~0~00:::1, "ox-goad", paralleled by Pesh: rv, apparently based upon the phonological similarity to the pilpel of ]~tll to Cl'llll~ (cf. E. Hatch, H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books}, vol. 1, Oxford 1906 (repr. Graz 1975), vol. 1, 80). Pesh and Vg have a partial transliteration. 337 As pointed out by W. Bacher, "Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets", JQR 11 (1899), 652, discussing the author's book p~ 1n::i, composed in 1143, probably in Rome. 338 B reads ~'l:J~, clearly an error. 339 TO Gen. 12:8; 13:3; 26:25; 33:19; 35:21; TgPs 105:39. 340 TO Gen. 31:25 (=TN, TPsJ, CG [defective, reconstructed by Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, 59]); Tg 1 Chron. 15:1 (with a printing error in Sperber, reading Cli!l1); 2 Chron. 1:4; TJon Jer. 10:20 (with the verb nnr.i, in Hebrew a hapax legomenon in Isa. 40:22, where TJon renders it by Oi!l and, surprisingly, MT i1~l by nnr.i). The translation ]'!l1lp c:i1'?ili::i~'? 1,m in TJon 2 Sam. 16:22 is Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

385

JUDGES 4

In addition, among the variant readings of TO all instances are to be counted, which uniformly lack the preposition '?. The verbal suffix and -', in fact constitute an alternative marking of the direct object. 342 It seems that the editorial levelling of dialectical differences has not succesfully been applied to the Targums. 343 tv:i;:,1

13

4 :11:m 11t!l'? t:Jl':J':::i~ 1:::i p1:::i p•'?o ·1~ ~10•0'? 1~·1m

12

4

=-j1pno ii'Ol', ~Ol' '?;:, r1'1 ~'?i1:::l, 1'::Jn1 ii~O .titvn ii'::Jn1 '?:::; n• ~10'0 ~01•

r, ·1~ t:l1p p1:::i'? ii11:::l, n10~1 14 4 :11tv'p, ~'?m'? ~·oo.I' •::;1::;

nm1 10,p ~n'?~~'? p·~:i '1', ~;:,~'?o ~'?ii ,,,:::i ~10'0 n• '1' 100, :•ii11n:::i ~1:::l) p:i'?~ ~10.1'1 11:::im ~11t!lo p1:::i

4:12 And they informed Sisera that Barak, son of Abinoam, had gone up to Mount Tabor. 4:13 And Sisera gathered all his chariots-nine hundred iron chariots-and all the people who were with him from the fortress 0 of the cities0 of the nations0 to Wadi Kishon. 4:14 And Deborah said to Barak: "Get up, for this is the day on which the Lord has delivered Sisera into your hand. Does not the angel of the Lord go out before you to make [you] succesful?" Then Barak descended from Mount Tabor with ten thousand men along with him.

T Jon comprises two pluses and one modification as regards MT ~'?ii Tm'? ~~· ii1ii', "did the Lord not go out before you?". The perfect MT ~~· is represented by a participle, 344 possibly because the battle had not yet begun. The introduction of the angel in T Jon is noteworthy. Even though the Hebrew lays stress on ii1ii', T Jon represents ii1ii' by '1', ~::;~'?o. The same wording occurs in TJon 2 Sam. 5:24 345 and Tg based on the particular interpretation of the "tent" as a "fly-net". 341 So all instances quoted for TO in the version of TN. The testimony of TPsJ is, as often, not homogeneous, but closest to TN: with both verbal suffix and preposition in Gen. 13:3; with verbal suffix but without preposition in Gen. 12:8; without verbal suffix but with preposition in Gen. 35:21; without both verbal suffix and preposition in Gen. 26:25; 31:25; 33:19. 342 Cf. Dalman, Grammatik, 226; D.M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti (HSM, 34), Chico (CA) 1985, 26, 65, 210; S.E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah, Atlanta (GA) 1990, 252. 343 In passing, TJon variously translates i1~l: with Oi::l in 4:11; with 1Jl in 16:30; with ~l::l in 9:3; 19:8. 344 However, Eb66 and three (of Sperber's four) Yemenite MSS, Kiml}i and ABNFPQ read p:::il, the perfect tense. The perfect is probably an adjustment towards the Hebrew, thus secondary. Note that LXX has a future tense. 345 MT: l'l::l? i11i1' ~~· f~, TJon: lt:11p ~n?~~? P'::ll '1'1 ~:i~?o p::l. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

386

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

1 Chron. 14:15. 346 The introduction of the warrior-angel instead of the Lord is exceptional in T Jon and highly controversial among the rabbis. Parallel verses in T Jon remain silent about any angel, 347 and the warrior-angel appears mainly in T Jon if it is present in MT. 348 Among the Tannaim, the importance attached to angels is often wilfully played down. 349 None of the Targums ascribes divine powers to the angels and all of them are remarkably restricted in introducing them, 350 apart from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. 351 Nevertheless, 346 Tg: c:i1;~ ~:::i;p? p1e:in p:::i imll'o? J"nl'lii l'll'::il'li?r:i ?p n' lllr:itvr:i::i l'lii1'1 lr:lip ~n?~~? i11i1' Clip ]r:l n'?tv ll'll?r:i pe:iJ, "and when you hear the sound of

the angels who are coming to help you, then go out to battle, for an angel who is sent from before the Lord has gone out to succeed before you". 347 MT Zech. 14:3 t:li1i1 t:l'1J:::l c:in?J1 i11i1' 1'11~'1, "The Lord will go out and fight against these nations", TJon )1Jl'lii1 l'li'r:lr:lll:::l l'li:::lip n'J'1 '1' '?m'1, "and the Lord will reveal himself and wage war against these nations". MT Hab. 3:13 llt!i'? nl'li~' lr:lll, "You go out to save your people", T Jon lr:lll n' p;e:ir:i? ~n'?ml'll, "you have revealed yourself to rescue your people". MT Isa. 26:21 1r:i1pr:ir:i I'll~' i11i1' i1Ji1-'::i, "For see, the Lord leaves his place"; T Jon i1'nJ'::itD n':::i inl'l:r:i '?mr:i '1' l'lii1 'il'li, "For see, the Lord reveals himself from the place of the house of his Schekinah". Exactly the same translation is to be found in MT Mic. 1:3. MT Isa. 42:13 i11i1' I'll~' i1JJ::i; T Jon '?mr:i ]~1JJ 1:::lllr:l? '1', "Lord, to perform wonders you reveal yourself". And less remotely, in Judg. 5:4 inl'l:~J, "when you went out" (used of God) became im'?ml'li t:l1':::l, "on the day that you revealed yourself". Thus l'li?ml'li, "reveal (one's self)" is the more regular translation of MT I'll~' when God is subject. Cf. for the Pentateuchal Targums A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (TSAJ, 14), Tiibingen 1986, 148-149. Cf. Deut. 33:2 in MT and TO. 348 Josh. 5:14; 2 Kgs. 19:35; Isa. 37:36. 349 Cf. P.S. Alexander, "The Targumim and Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6", JJS 23 (1972), 60-71; P. Schafer, Rivalitat zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ, 8), Berlin 1975, 50-51; Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 224-225; Levine, The Aramaic Version, 65-73. Levine (69 n. 24) cites an interesting passage from bBer. 13a: "When a man is in distress, he does not first call directly on his patron, but seeks admission through the medium of his servant or intermediary. But that is not God's way: let no man in trouble call out either to Michael or Gabriel, but pray to me (God) and I will immediately respond, as it is written: 'Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered (Joel 3:5)';. See now esp. M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des judischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ, 34), Tiibingen 1992, passim. 350 There are some instances of specific angels in TJon. In 2 Sam. 24:16 l'll::il'li?r:l ?':inc; is the Angel of Destruction; in Ezek. 9:1 in K the six men are described as l'li'?:::inr:i ~'::il'li?r:i. 351 See A. Shinan, "The Angelology of the 'Palestinian' Targums on the Pentateuch", Sefarad 43 (1983), 181-198: "Their sole function is to accompany the Deity". (188). In this respect TPsJ stands out as a targum with many references to angels, attributing miraculous events to them and independent power to Sammael and Satan, the evil forces.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES 4

387

many circles remained heavily interested in angelology, even among the rabbis themselves. 352 This difference points to the composite nature of T Jon, either from a synchronic or diachronic point of view. 353 The Geonic discussion of the saying attributed to R. Judah ben Iliai on the impossibility of translating as one sees fit, includes a comment on TO Exod. 24:10 (Tos. bQid. 49a): "and they saw the God of Israel". The very translation "(and they saw) the angel of God" is considered nothing short of blasphemy, and the correct translation is given as: "the Glory of God" .354 Seen against this background, TJon Judg. 4:14 represents the older exegetical tradition-followed by the preference for ~i~'~, ~m'::>tD and ~ip' in descriptions of God's interaction with the (human) world. These words underscore God's majesty and prevent idolatry of God-like beings, denoting the mode of God's manifestation in the world. 355 That the translation is relatively old, is supported by ancient parallels. In 1 QM 1,6 angels take the place of God in warfare, though Deut. 23:15 (apparently the basis of this text) states God will join the army. 356 A gloss in LXX Judg. 4:8 explains Barak's half-hearted attitude towards the war against Sisera, when called for by Deborah, in terms similar to TJon 4:14. The Hebrew Vorlage of this gloss seems to be: 357 'n~ i11i1' l~'?~ n''?~i1 t:l1'"11~ 'nl',, ~'? '::>, "For I do not know the day when the angel of the Lord shall make us successful". One readily grasps the connection with TJon Judg. 4:14. 358 352 Cf. Schafer, Rivalitiit zwischen Engeln, 73-74; Levine, The Aramaic Version, 62-73. 353 The avoidance of anthropomorphic descriptions of God is irrelevant here, as this notion fails to explain the inconsistency we observed. Pace Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 225. 354 Contrast TJon Judg. 13:22 where the very translation does appear! 355 Cf. A. Goldberg, Vorstellungen von der Schekhinah, 450. 356 Schiifer, Rivalitiit zwischen Engeln, 36. 357 The construction is odd: on oux oi8ix tT)v Tjµipixv EV Ti &uo&oi tOV li"("(EAOV xupto~ (L&t' &µoii. Therefore many commentators suggested the translator may have made a mistake (Burney, Judges, 89; Barthelemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1, 77-78; J.S. Ackerman, "Prophecy and Warfare in Early Israel: A Study of the Deborah-Barak Story", BASOR 220 (1975), 5-13; H.-D. Neef, "Der Sieg Deboras und Baraks iiber Sisera", ZAW 101 (1989), 28-49; D.F. Murray, "Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story (Judges IV 4-22)", in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, Leiden 1979, 168 n. 30). This is reinforced by the inner-Greek variant readings: xupw~ tov li"("(&Aov, tov li"("(EAOV xuplou, tOV li"("(EAOV ixuwii xupw~ and finally xupw~ tOV li"("(EAOV ixutoii. 358 Note that 'knowing the day', the topic of LXX 4:8, is taken up in 4:14. In spite of LXX's tendency to literalness, which confirms that the gloss was in its Vorlage (the doubts of Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 98-99 are not persuasive), it

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

388

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

::iini r:mi::i? Nn'itvo ?::i n'1 N'::ini ?::i n•i Nio•o n' ,,, i::im lS 4 in::i =,ii pi::ii 16 4 :•m?n::i lE:lN1 N::im ?.!lo Nio•o nmi pi::i t:Jip Nio•o n•itvo ?::i n?·~pnN1 N'OO.!l •::ii::i =,ipn ill Nn'itvo in::ii NJ'ni :in ill iNntvN N? ::iini t:Jm:J?

4:15 And the Lord shattered° Sisera and all {his} chariots and the whole of {his} army with0 the sword° before0 Barak. But Sisera alighted from {his} chariot and fled on foot. 4:16 However, Barak pursued after the chariot and the army to the fortress of the cities0 of the nations0 • The whole of Sisera's army was killed with0 the sword°, not even one was left. 359 MT '?:J'1, "and fell" has become n?·~pnN"J, "and was killed". The Aramaic equivalent appears 5 out of 21 times; 9 times ?:J.i, twice =,i~, once J ?:J, twice NOi, once p::irv and once ioo. 360 The semantic shifts are as a rule in keeping with the contextual meaning of the Hebrew and demonstrate the translator's capability to choose varying equivalents. NO?tv 'iN i1NO?tv i::in nnN ?.!J•i N.iJtvo? •m?;i::i l::lN Ni0'01 17 4 moip? '?.!l' np::i.i1 18 4 :i1NO?tv i::in n•::i ]'::11 i1~ni NJ'?O ]'::l' ]'::l i1'n'o::i1 NJ::itvo? i1m? in ?nin N? •m? iir 'J1::ii iit nioN1 Nio•o :N::im::i

4:17 But Sisera hadfied on foot to the tent3 61 of Jael, the wife of Heber the Shalmaite, 0 for there was peace between Jabin, king of Hazor, and the House of Heber, the Shalmaite. 0 4:18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera and said (to him)362 : "Come over here, my lord, come over to me. Do not worry!" And he went over to her-into the tent-and she is unlikely to be original. Its omission in MT would be difficult to explain. As an apology for Barak, it must be secondary since MT lacks any excuse on the part of Barak; it even indulges in irony; cf. 4:9, 22. Ackerman, "Prophecy and Warfare", 5-13, argues that ylvwaxe in LXX 4:9, referring to ol80t in 4:8, proves the authenticity of the plus in LXX 4:8 since in MT 4:9 a verb is wanting after O!:l~. The Hebrew equivalent would be .lli. (So also Boling, Judges, 96.) But this argument can be reversed since the formula ~? •:i O!:l~ without a verb appears in Deut. 15:4 and Amos 9:8; O!:l~ without a verb in Num. 13:28 and 2 Sam. 12:4. 359 Some MSS add: )1i1:J; B0 JQ 0 a; cf. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 4b, 84-85, 156. 360 ?~p: 4:16; 8:10; 12:6; 20:44, 46. ?:ii: 5:27 {3x); 7:13 {2x); 9:40; 13:20; 16:30; 19:26. =Ji~: 3:25; 4:22. )?El: 18:1. ~r.li: 7:12; 19:27. Note however that this verb could well be regarded as the proper equivalent of MT ?:ii instead of =Ji~ in 3:25; 4:22. p:::itli: 2:19. iOr.I: 15:18. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

389

JUDGES 4

covered him with a rug. In agreement with LXX and Pesh, 363 the targumist understood the hapax legomenon i1:J'Otv 364 as a hairy rug. A variant reading 365 attested by F and Kiml;ll, ~:::im, appears to be a synonym of which the spelling corresponds to an Arabic cognate (Kiml;ll). ~i1J

n• nnn::n •nrvo?

~J~ 'i1~ ·i~ ~·o

i•JJr 1JJ:J •J•prv~ i1? io~i 19 4 :i1•n•o:;,1 i1'n•prv~1 ~:::i?ni

4:19 And he said to her: "Now give me to drink a little water for I am thirsty". And she opened a skin of milk and gave him366 to drink and covered him.

MT

·n~o~

•:;, is supplemented with an infinitive verb:

~J~ 'i1~ ·i~

•ntvo?. The same phrase is found in TJon Amos 8:11 ( •ntzio? 'i1~'i) for MT ci•o? ~o~, so the translation probably reflects an idiom.

One of the glosses under the heading ~,,? in Km, ~p·r, "skin" is to be found in TJon and various Palestinian sources. 367 The other gloss,

361 Eb66 reads: '?ll'i ~l::>tlir.i'? '?ll1, "and he entered the tent of Jae!". This agrees with Pesh, ha, and may therefore reflect an Eastern Hebrew variant reading otherwise lost. The vocalisation with /a/ seems to be erroneous for /a/; cf. A. van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition of the Targum of Lamentations: Critical Text and Analysis of the Variant Readings, Leiden 1981, 127-130; Fassberg, Palestinian Targum Fragments, 186-187, with both /a/ and /a/. LXX does not reflect it. 362 The omission of MT 1''?~ in Sperber's text and a few other MSS is not supported by the majority of MSS: AB CNF JTPQWMOS, aFrEb66, and the Yemenite ones wx. It is supported by K and py plus the first Bomberg Bible. Cf. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 4b, 84. 363 LXX 8 : empo:i..cxtiji, "covering" and LXXLOR: EV ~n oippel cxu~ij~, "by her leather covering" and Pesh, r "' i::::i~ ~?, ·~o,,,~ r1'1'WO ?ZJ 11P' 1'i iirll):Jijj iirl' ii?::::ipo? 1l):::l ~?,

rl':::l lOl'? iin::::iii' 1':l:J iirl' i?•:ip ~? ?~ZJOW', 11ii'J:::l1 iirl' ~?::::ipo? :i~ 'J'O, ~1it;i ?ZJ 1J':l1rl'~ ~'OW :i~ rllJi ~l)1~ 1'P1:::l r?p::::i ?~1W'

rl':::l lOlJ 'rl'O 11ii:J ii~n~? ~m"n, 1''?t!l1 ~1lJ1, ~1t!l0 ,,)) ~'JJlJ :?~1W'

Lord, when you revealed yourself to give the law, at first you revealed yourself over the people of Seir, but they did not want to accept it. You sent forth the splendour of your glory over the camp of the Edomites, but they did not desire to accept it; and the Ishmaelites did not accept it [either]. Thereafter you gave it to your people, the House of Israel with zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ, 8), Berlin 1975, 13-15). 453 For references, see Schafer, Rivalitat, 43. This was a highly controversial issue (J. Schultz, "Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law", JQR 61 (1970/71), 282-307. To end all speculation, R. Jose (a contemporary of R. Aqiba) claims the following opinion (Mekh Y tzrnn:::i 5): "R. Jose says: 'Behold, it says: 'The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the children of men' (Ps. 115:16). Neither Moses nor Elijah ever went up to heaven, nor did the glory ever come down to earth. Scripture merely teaches that God said to Moses: 'Behold, I am going to call you from the top of the mount and you will come up, as it is said: And the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount (Exod. 19:20)"'. The opinion that the Shekhinah never departed the heavens occurs a number of times (yHag. 77a; bSuk. 4b-5a; bSan. 97b; bHag. 15a; possibly by implication in Mekh Y tliim:::i 9), moderated in bSuk. 4b. According to TJon, the Shekhinah, though closely related to the Temple cult, resided "upon the throne of Glory in the heavens on high" (TJon Isa. 6:6; see B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOT.S, 23), Sheffield 1983, 69-75). Though this conception is fairly consistent, it does not preclude the dwelling at Mount Zion (Isa. 8:18: "His Shekhinah is at Mount Zion") or even the description of the temple as "the house of my Shekhinah" (Isa. 17:11). This latter usage may antedate the destruction of the temple, though contradicting views cannot be excluded either. See Tg Psalms 68:17: tliir.l'r.I ;i;i; ]'r.l'?.ll'? 'itD' "'1 tliir.l'r.I ti:'r.itD 'r.ltD:::l im'? i1':::l i1'nJ'::ltD i1tliitDti:'? ti:i1'?t111 (ed. Diez Merino). Contrast MTeh 68:9. 454 With the interesting aspect that everything came alive and God wanted to dwell among his people. This is reminiscent of PT Judges 5:4. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

405

thunder and lightning; the earth trembled, yes, the heavens bowed down toward Mount Sinai, yes, the clouds poured out rain of delight and dews of revivification to revive by their means the dead of your people-the House of Israel. 455

This quotation obviously shares a common textual basis with T Jon. At the same time some of the differences imply that these versions were edited independently. We have already seen that T Jon contains a digression about the law which PT lacks, and that a difference of verbal forms is related to this. The following additional differences exist: 1. Both T Jon and PT refer to the gift of the law at Mount Sinai by the pluses mn~? and ~n'i1~ 1n·~? respectively. The suffix of mn~? in T Jon refers to ?~itv•? 1m? n:::li1'1 ln'i1~, which is absent in PT. This argues in favour of the coherence of TJon, yet by the same token for the coherence of the PT-version. There is no plausible reason to assume that the digression was original, but has been dropped in the PT-version. Especially since PT agrees with Tg Ps. 68:9 in this respect (as discussed above) and probably preserves the more authentic translation of ln~~:::l. As a consequence, either both versions added the notion of the lawgiving as inspired by the identification of Judg. 5:4-5 with the theophany at Mount Sinai, or the word ~n'i1~ was transposed in T Jon. 456 There is no reason to assume T Jon is the result of an attempt to bring the Targum into conformity with MT, since TJon is not literal itself. 2. The translation of MT t:n1~ i11ID~ with TJon t:n1~ ·~inn '-,J) and PT ·~~11'~ n'i'tv~ ?ll reveals the exegetical embellishment of the PT-version, in which the geographic indications stand for different peoples. 457 This interpretation called for a parallel with "the people of Seir" and "the children of Ishmael". 458 455 Four

errors in Sperber's edition ought to be corrected: instead of ~n11'n, read: (cf. Targum Psalms 68:10: ~m·nni (ed. E. White, A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer-Generated Text of Books I and II, unpublished Ph.D. Diss., McGill University Montreal 1988, 280; even though Sperber's reading is a neat parallel to ~i.ll1); for i1l.ll (1°), read: 'l.ll; for nil, read: m; and supplement ~l1n~1 to ~im:i (omission) . . 456 My opinion at this point differs from my earlier account in "Parafraserende expansie in de Targum op Richteren 4 en 5", in I.E. Zwiep, A. Kuyt (eds.), Dutch Studies in the Targum: Papers Read at a Workshop held at the Juda Palache Institute, University of Amsterdam (18 March 1991), Amsterdam 1993, 43. 457 The equation of i11tD with ~r.:imn occurs in TJon Judg. 20:6. 458 Another minor variant is related to this expansion as well: MT i'.llttlt:l, TJon 1'.llOt:l, PT 1'.llttl1. ~m"n

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

406

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

3. MT i=:lt!l~, TJon 1:l~, PT 1J':iin·~. According to Churgin, 459 the latter is origin~l but he fails to argue why. The latter verb is used in TJon 2 Sam. 22:10; 460 the expression 1:l~ ~·~tli reappears in FT Exod. 12:42; Lev. 22:27. 4. The plus 'J'01 ~11t!l '?l' in PT makes explicit the exegetical tradition that the heavens bowed down toward Mount Sinai, implicitly supported by TJon. Still, both versions remain elliptical. 5. The plus J'p1:::l1 J''?p:::i in PT echoes the description of the theophany of Mount Sinai in TO Exod. 19:16. 6. T Jon lacks two aggadic plusses in PT: one concerning the offer of the Torah to peoples other than Israel and the other concerning the dew of life (see below). All in all, these differences do not exclude the possibility of a common proto-Targum. In his study of the marginal readings in K, Bacher flatly denied the Palestinian origin of the Targum Yerushalmi-readings. 461 His argument is buttressed by rabbinic parallels to the marginal glosses. 462 However, a parallel does not constitute conclusive proof. It has long been customary to consider the Targums as pastiches of rabbinic tradition, without any originality on the part of the targumists. 463 Nowadays this assumption is no longer generally accepted, and it is therefore necessary to study the aggadic traditions of PT 5:4 to establish whether their origins may be rooted in the Palestinian exegetical tradition.

The Torah Offered to the Surrounding Nations The aggadah of God's offer of the Torah to other nations besides Israel is widespread in rabbinic literature. 464 Its prime reason of existence 459 Churgin, 460 ii'iP'

Targum Jonathan, 152.

'?mt111 tli'r.ltD )'::litli1; the same verb is used in the parallel verse Tg Ps

18:10. 461 Bacher, "Kritische Untersuchungen", 4 (see above, Chapter 1.4.1). The Palestinian origin of the Tosefta-Targum has been doubted as well: cf. A. Epstein, "Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi", REJ 30 (1895), 45-51; L.G. Pautasso, "Gen. 44:18 - A Case for the Textual Relevance of the Targumic Tosefta", Henoch 10 (1988), 206 n. 7. 462 For 30 out of 80 marginal readings he was able to adduce a parallel in the Babylonian Talmud. 463 A. Shinan, "The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations", in: D.R.G. Beattie, M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOT.S, 166), Sheffield 1994, 203-217 (204-206). 464 bAZ 2b; SifDev §311, §343; MekhY tD11n::l 1 (2x), 5; Tan 1in' 14, 1J'r.ltD 6, Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

407

5

seems to be of an exegetical nature: just like the motif of the inclining heavens, this aggadic tradition solves an exegetical riddle. The various theophany accounts in MT, Dent. 33:2, Judges 5:4-5 and Hab. 3:3 and Exod. 19, make mention of different localities other than Mount Sinai, namely, Seir, Paran, the fields of Edom, Teman and Paran. All of these were connected with the lawgiving, on the assumption that these theophanies all related to the supreme theophany at Mount Sinai. So apparently God first offered the Torah to the other nations, and only after they turned it down was it offered to Israel. 465 The main sources for this tradition are all of Palestinian origin, so the Targum may well be Palestinian too. Having a wide variety of parallels at hand, it is worthwhile to study the growth of this tradition. An interesting parallel is found in the Targums to the Pentateuch, which have a common textual origin. Despite the differences between MT Judg. 5:4 and Dent. 33:2, their wording even shows a remarkable similarity with PT Judg. 5:4:

Km TPsJ FTP

TN

Km TPsJ FTP

TN

tiin•11tii 1n•o? tiin•?Jn'tii i;:, i1'0.t)? tiin"11tii 1n•o? •?mtii 'J'O 10 "' i1'0.t)? tiin•11tii 1n•o? •?m•tii 'J'OO " '0.t)? i1n'11tii 1no? •?mtii 'J'O 10"' tiin•?m•tii tiin•oip:l i1'nJ';:)tV ip•tii 1'T nJ11 ?tiiitv' n':l ?tiiitv' 'J:l i1'1P'tii:l mi •ip':l m[i] ?tiiitv' 'J:l

Km

1'.t)tll1 1tv.t)1 '1J:l? mn•o? tii?:JJO 1tv.t)1 '1J:l? tiin•11tii 1n•o? tii?:lJ i 1tv.t)1 '1J:l? n•11tii 1no? i1?:lJ,

TPsJ FTP

TN

FTP

TN

Km TPsJ FTP

TN

r?1t!lp 111i1n tii? i1m:l :l'n::i in;:,tvti;1 11';:)1 r?1t!lp 111i1n tii? i111):l :l'n::i in;:,tvti; ,, 111•;:,1

iip'

1•r

ip•tii n11i1:l ;i•ip•tii:J ;iip•:J

i1n.t)E:l1i1 .t)E:l1i1 .t)'E:l1ii .t)'E:l1ii1

;in• ii?:lpo? i1n' 1?•:Jp iin' 1?•:Jp i1n' 1?•:Jp

i1:li:J 4; WaR 13:2; TPsJ, FT and TN to Deut. 33:2. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 7, "index", 471. 465 So J. Heineman, )i1'n11'?1m n11)~, Jerusalem 1974, 156ff.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

408

CHAPTER

Km .TPsJ FTP TN

i1Jn•o? ~n·,,~ 1n•o?

Km TPsJ FTP TN

COMMENTARY

·~mi·~

n•i•rvo ?.v

11~::ii ~1m!l0

11~::ii ~,,~

11~::ii ~,,~

Km TPsJ FTP TN

4:

?~.vorv•i 1,il'J::l, ?~.vorv•i

m::>rli~i F=> ?~.vorv•i m::>rli~i 1w=>, ?~.vorv•i

;m• 1'?'::lP ~? ;rn• ,i,'::lP ~?1 ;rn• i?•::lp ~? ;rn• i?•::lp ~?

1'::lD 111iln 1'::lJJ 11mn

,,J::l? ,,J::l? ,,J::l?

~? ~?

iln'

?.v ?.v

iln'i,~

1no?

~?::lpo? ,::l~ ~i,,

ilm::l ::l'n::> ilm::l ::l'n::>i

?~.vorli'i

'IJ::l

The reference to the Ishmaelites466 is not based on Judg. 5:4, but on the combination of Deut. 33:2 and Gen. 21:21, and this could testify to the consanguinity of these Targums. The differences between PT Judg. 5:4 and the Pentateuchal Targums can easily be explained on the basis of the underlying Hebrew source text. 467 TN and FT, which are virtually identical, 468 insert a comment to explain why the sons of Esau and the Ishmaelites reject the Torah. Km and TPsJ lack any motivation. According to Heinemann, the nascent form of the present aggadah lacked any reason. The motivations are still absent in the exposition attributed to R. Jol}.anan, of the second generation of Palestinian Amoraim, in bAZ 2b: They [the nations] will then contend: Lord of the Universe, have you given us the Torah, and have we declined to accept it? But how can they argue this, behold it is written: "The Lord came from Sinai, and 466 Even though they are said to reject the Torah, this motif need not be interpreted as anti-Islamic polemic, contrary to the opinion of B.Z. Wacholder (as regards a parallel in Mekh Y), "The Date of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael", HUCA 39 (1968), 142. It is part of a stock tradition antedating R. Jochanan, according to bAZ. 2b. The identification Ishmael-Islam is antedated by the more general equation of Ishmael-Arabs. This latter identification is already made by the Greek pagan author Apollonius Molon, apparently borrowing a Jewish tradition which was also known to Josephus. See F. Millar, "Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus and the Origins of Islam", JJS 44 (1993), 23-45. There is likewise no reason to identify Edom with Rome in the present context. Cf. also: C.T.R. Hayward, "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic", JSSt 34 (1989), 77-93. 467 In TPsJ "'1'.lJtD is represented by ~'?:::i.J in accord with TN and FT-P; FT-VNL agree with TO, but substitute "Gabla" for "Paran". In Judg. 5:4 the offer at this mountain is characterised as the 'first' offer of the Torah. 468 Minor differences concern a reverse order of the words J~15:l1 ~i1~ '?JJ and a plus in TN consisting of a repetition: '?~JJOtD'1 '1JJ.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

409

dawned upon them from Seir". (Deut. 33:2) And it is written: "God comes from Teman" and so forth (Hab. 3:3). What did He want in Seir and what did he want in Paran? 469 R. Jol).anan says: To teach that the Holy One blessed be He offered it to every nation and every tongue, but none accepted it until He came to Israel. And they accepted it.

The tradition is advanced to silence the nations, and may for that reason antedate this motivation of the lawgiving. 470 The kernel of the aggadah as presented in bAZ 2b agrees with the short versions in the Targums. Many brief parallels not only lack the motivation to offer the Torah, or the reasons to reject it, but simply state that only Israel was worthy of the Torah. 471 These parallels seem to refer elliptically to a tradition apparently considered well-known enough, and such in Tannaitic sources. A similar exposition of Hab. 3:6 is found in WaR 13:2, attributed to R. Simeon hen Jochai, a pupil of R. Aqiba. Henceforth, the core of the aggadah may safely be dated in the Tannaitic period. This view is strengthened by the fact that a most developed tradition is attested in the Tannaitic Midrash, Sifre Deut. §343 and in a similar form in MekhY tV1inJ 5: And it was for the following reasons that the nations of the world were asked to accept the Torah: In order that they should have no excuse for saying: Had we been asked we would have accepted it.

This argument 472 agrees with the view reported in bAZ 2b and the response attributed to R. Jochanan. The continuation, however, elaborates the tradition: For behold, they were asked and they refused to accept it, for it is said: "And he said: 'The Lord came from Sinai' etc. (Deut. 33:2). He appeared to the children of Esau the wicked one and said to them: 'Will you accept the Torah?' They said to him: 'What is written in it?' He said to them: 'You shall not murder' (Deut. 5:17). They then said to him: 'The very heritage which our father left us was: And by your sword you shall live' (Gen. 27:40). He then appeared to the children of Amon and Moab. He said to them: 'Will you accept the Torah?' They said to him: 'What is written in it?' He said to them: 'You shall not commit 469 Paran

appears in the part of Hab. 3:3 which was not quoted. arguments in bAZ 2b are attributed to later tradents: R. Dimi b. I:Iama, a Babylonian Amora of the fifth generation (Cf. TPsJ Exod. 19:17), and R. Joseph, of the third generation of Babylonian Amoraim. 471 Mekh Y t!i,m:::i 1:80-84, 101-107; SifDev §311; Tan nn• 14; IJ'r.lt!i 6; i1Y1:::l 4. These expositions draw on Deut. 33:2, Hab. 3:6 and Gen. 21:21. 472 Which is attested in Mekh Y only, not in SifDev §343. 470 Subsequent

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

410

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

aldultery' (Deut. 5:17). They, however, said to him that they were all of them children of adulterers, as it is said: 'Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father' (Gen. 19:36). Then he appeared to the children of Ishmael. He said to them: 'Will you accept the Torah?' They said to him: 'What is written in it?' He said to them: 'You shall not steal' (Deut. 5:17). Then they said to him: 'The very blessing that had been pronounced upon our father was: And he shall be as a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be upon everything' (Gen. 16:12). And it is written: 'For indeed, I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews' (Gen. 40:15).

Beyond FT and TN, these Tannaitic Midrashim mention the Ammonites and Moabites and provide a scriptural prooftext (the sixth commandment from the Decalogue). The fifth and seventh commandments are applied to the children of Esau and the Ishmaelites, in keeping with FT and TN. It stands to reason that the Ammonites and Moabites were included in the narrative at a later stage, for the underlying theophany texts gives no reason to it. Moreover, their appearance provides the occasion to fill the gap between the fifth and seventh command. As a consequence, the tradition in FT and TN seems to be older. The transmission in the Palestinian Midrashim and Targums as well as the attribution to Palestinian Sages warrants the conclusion that this aggadic tradition, at least in its nascent form (such as has been recovered), originated in Palestine. As a consequence the heading ·~?tziii• c:min in K need not be called in question. The date of PT Judg. 5:4 may be fairly ancient, as it lacks the motivations present in the elaborated versions, unless PT Judg. 5:4 represents a shortened version which was based upon an already more developed form of the tradition. If the quotation of 5:4 was drawn from the same source as the gloss to 5:5 in K, bearing the same header, then this possibility of a reduction of Judg. 5:4 appears to be less likely. As we shall see, PT Judg. 5:5 contains a similar aggadic tradition, but this time it does include the arguments. It seems unlikely that the targumist left out part of the arguments in PT 5:4, but retained the rest of them in 5:5.

The Celestial Dew The Palestinian Targum fragment in K comprises a second well-known tradition, namely that of the revivification of the dead at the giving of the Law. The motif of dew in connection with resurrection is as ancient as Ugaritic literature. 473 It appears in MT Isa. 26:19, in the 473 The

goddess Anatu is depicted as washing herself in Ba'lu's dew as a symbol Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

411

Jewish novel Joseph and Aseneth, 474 the Apocalypse of Baruch, 475 2 Enoch 476 and scattered throughout rabbinic literature. 477 The specific form of the theme as found in Km is of rabbinic origin, as it connects the motif with the lawgiving. So does a saying attributed to R. Judah hen Ilai, a Tanna of the third generation, in the Mekhilta. 478 There existed different viewpoints concerning it. Not all Sages believed Israel was willing to accept the Torah, 479 nor did all connect the resurrection of the dead with the dew of life 480 (the sound of a Shofar is an alternative motif). 481 Be that as it may, these traditions demonstrate that the connection between the gift of the Torah and revivification is very ancient. The saying attributed to R. Judah hen Ilai is supplemented with Cant. 5:6 ("my soul went forth when he spoke") in an argument ascribed to an early third century Palestinian Amora, R. Joshua hen Levi (bShab. 88b). The supplemented argument, which explains the cause of death, is absent in Km and in the Tannaitic tradition quoted above. However, it figures in the (relatively late) Targum Psalm 68: 482 9. When You gave the law to your people, the earth was stirred up of Ba'lu's return from the netherworld (KTU i.3-Il.38-41), because Ba'lu takes with him to the netherworld two goddesses of dew (KTU 1.5-V.10). See J.C. de Moor, A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, Leiden 1987, 7 n.37, n.38 and 78. 474 16:14, cf. 16:8. This is a love story written in Egypt between 100 BCE and 117 CE. See Schiirer, Vermes et. al., History of the Jewish People, vol. 3, 548-549. 475 2 Bar. 29:7, 73:2. 476 2 Enoch 22:9. 477 Mekh Y tli1m:::i 9; bShab. 88b; bBer. 29a; yBer. 5,2,9a/b; yTaan. 1,1,63a OF d; MTeh. 68:5, 7 (cf. A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, vol. 5, Vienna 1873, 72); TJon 2 Sam. 23:4; Tg Ps 68:9-10. Cf. TJon Isa. 26:19 where the "dew oflight" is identified with the Torah, and MT Ps. 110:3. See further: UF 7 (1975), 590-1; D. Goodman, "Do Angels Eat?", JJS 37 (1986), 160-75. Sometimes celestial dew is linked to the 14th of Nisan, see I. Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Frankfurt am Main 2 1931, 214, and TPsJ Gen. 27:1, 16; bTaan 4b OR 3b; PRE 32; 1 Enoch 60,20. Cf. Sysling, Techiyyat ha-Metim: De opstanding van de doden in de Palestijnse Targumim op de Pentateuch en overeenkomstige tradities in de klassieke rabijnse bronnen, Zutphen 1991, 158-63. 478 MekhY tv1m:::i 9. 479 See e.g. bAZ 2b; bShab. 88a. 480 A treasure stored up in heaven for the eschaton, according to bHag. 12b. 481 TPsJ Exod. 20:15; ShemR 28:6; TanB 11n' 11; PRE 41; LeqT 5:99. New Testament: 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16. 482 1 follow the edition of L. Diez Merino, Targum de Sa/mos: Edici6n Principe del Ms. Villa-Amil n. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora (BHBib, 6), Madrid 1982, 126. Cf. White, Critical Edition, 279-280. The short version is edited by: P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig 1873, 37.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

412

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

(~ntzi'nm~), even the clouds 483 of heaven poured down dews of delight

(~urn )''?t!i) before the Shekhinah of the Lord. This [is] Sinai, its smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace because the Shekhinah of the Lord, God of Israel, revealed himself on it. 10 When Israel heard the stentorian voice, immediately their souls flew off! 484 And then you let down the dews 485 of vivification on them and you brought about the delightful rains, 486 0 God, over your inheritance, and hence you made firm the assembly that was weary. 11 Your vitalising power you returned to it. You made firm the armies of the angelic divisions so as to do good to the poor ones of God.

There are many parallels with PT Judg. 5:4-5 to be noted. The ideas of the lawgiving, the resurrection of the dead by the "dews of vivification", the "delightful rains" ,487 and the rising smoke (a quotation from TO Exod. 19:18; cf. TO Gen. 19:28), occur in PT Judg. 5:4-5 with the exception of the element attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi, which is also lacking in the dictum of R. Judah ben Ilai. For that reason PT Judg. 5:4 could well be Tannaitic.

Resumation As observed, the wording of PT Judg 5:4 shares a common standard text with TJon. In TJon, this base text was enriched with an exhortation to observe the Torah. In PT it was embellished with two aggadic traditions concerning the offer of the Torah to other nations and the resurrection of the dead. There is no reason to cast doubt on the Palestinian character of the traditions embedded in PT Judg. 5:4, since its three main aggadic elements appear to have their roots in ancient Palestinian exegesis, namely, the notion of inclining heavens, the initial offer of the Torah to the nations surrounding Israel, and the tradition of the celestial dew, poured down from heaven to revive the dead. 483 This word is only attested in MS G-1-5 (Biblioteca de El Escorial, Madrid); MS 7 of the Montefiore Collection (London); MS hebr. 110 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris); the Antwerp Polyglot; and presumably MS Salamanca M2. 484 Cant. 5:6. R. Joshua ben Levi attributes the cause of death to God's words, and Targum Psalms to the sound of his "might" which may denote the wonderful appearances of these words (cf. TPsJ Exod. 20). In an introductory acrostic poem to Exod. 20:1 the same allusion to Cant. 5:6 appears, with the explicit statement that the chosen people cannot bear to hear "the enlightened word" (Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, 278-279). 485 According to White's edition, the word is attested only in the three firstmentioned MSS of note 483 above. Other MSS read: ]'it!l'01. 486 0ther MSS read: "dews" here, see the previous footnote. 487 Interestirigly, LXX 8 and 0 also read: 8p6ao~ in Judg. However, this may depend upon Deut. 33:28 or Prov. 3:20.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

~m1~i ~m1)

;i•:im p•'?o

5

413

•:i•o 1'i .,. Clip F~ Uli ~·iit!l 5 5 :'?~itv'i ~;i'?~ •1• •m'?.IJ •'?m~i c:iip 11'.J

i:-pin~

5:5 The mountains trembled before0 the Lord. This [is} Sinai [which} was stirred up; its smoke rose like the smoke of a stove because0 the Lord, the God of Israel, revealed himself on it.

T Jon reads i'?n as i'?r~, "quaked", in contrast to Jerome and the Masoretes: 1'?!~, "flowed" .488 Modern commentators regard the Hebrew words •:i•o m either as a (late) scribal gloss 489 or a divine epitheton, 490 "He-of-the-Sinai". In T Jon, m is taken as a demonstrative pronoun and supplied with a verb (rpin~) which agrees with the preceding clauses. In the fragment headed "Targum Jerushalmi" in the margin of K, as well as in various textual witnesses of the Tosefta-Targum, the demonstrative triggers off a midrashic excursion. The plus i:-pin~ is not attested in PT Judg. 5:5. The Targum to the parallel Psalm 68:9-Tg Psalms often follows T Jon in parallel portions 491 -only reads: Clip 11'.J ~:im~i tmn) ;i•:im p•'?o •:i•o ri '?~itv'i ~;i'?~ " •m'?.IJ •'?m·~i. This non-literal translation is a verbatim quotation of T Jon, with the exception of :pin~. So T Jon and PT share a common proto-Targum which they developed in separate ways. In the remainder of 5:5, T Jon supplies a literal quotation from TO Exod. 19:18: ~:im~i ~:J:Jn) ;i•:im p•'?oi. 492 This quotation relates the theophany of Judg. 5:4-5 to the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. Likewise •1• •m'?.IJ •'?m~i Clip 11'.J connects MT ;"T1i1' ':JE:ll'.J in Judg. 5:5 with Exod. 19:18. The present translation shows the twinlike character of TO and T Jon. 493 The same quotation is attested by the alternative Targums to 5:5. 488 TJon 489 M.

75.

agrees with LXX, VetLa and Pesh. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 54-55,

49 °First suggested by F. Grimme, "AbriB der biblisch-hebriiischen Metrik", ZDMG 50 (1896), 573; followed by many authors. According to Birkeland, this construction is a specific Arabic innovation and cannot be taken in the same way in Judg. 5:5; H. Birkeland, "Hebrew z~ and Arabic du", Studia Theologica 2 (1948), 201-202. Contrast however: HALAT, 253; D.W. Goodwin, Text-Restoration Methods in Contemporary U.S.A. Biblical Scholarship, Naples 1969, 88, who are able to invoke similar constructions in Ugaritic. 491 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 50. 492 Cf. TO Gen. 19:28 for the same expression. 493 See Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 30, 35-36. There is discussion about the priority of either TO or TJon (cf. Frankel), but in my opinion Churgin correctly sensed the reciprocal influence of the official translations.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

414

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

The Palestinian Targum to Judges 5:5 The Aramaic text of PT Judg. 5:5 follows in the table below. The translation which I present here is based on Km: The mountains trembled before0 the Lord. Mount Tabor, Mount Hermon and Mount Carmel were shaken and one was mingled with another. And one responded and said to the other: "On me the Presence of the Lord will dwell and it is fitting for me". And the other answered and said to this one: "On me the Presence of the Lord will dwell and it is fitting for me". Mount Tabor answered first and said thus to Mount Hermon: "On me the Presence will dwell and it is fitting for me. Once when the flood from the days of Noah came, all mountains beneath the heavens were covered, but the water did not [even] reach to my head and my shoulders, though all the world was flooded with water. But I am an elevated mountain above all mountains and the Presence is fitting for me". Mount Hermon answered and said to Mount Tabor: " On me the Presence will dwell and it is fitting for me. When the Israelites passed through the sea, I prevailed and they crossed over me and passed on. And the water did not [even] reach to their garments". Mount Carmel was silent and passed over to the sea and stood in between the sea and the shore. Then he answered and said thus: "If the Presence will dwell above the sea, [then] the Presence will dwell on me. And if the Presence will dwell above the shore, [then] the Presence will dwell on me". On that moment a whisper fell down from the high heavens and said: "The Presence will not dwell on these haughty mountains, that inwardly strive upward. There is no will before 0 the Lord to let his Presence dwell [on these]. Not on high mountains and not on provocative mountains and not on haughty mountains, but on humble mountains [he will let his Presence dwell]. As to Mount Sinai, which is the smallest and the weakest of them all, it is the will before 0 the Lord to let his Presence dwell on it, [for indeed] it is the smallest and the weakest of them all". And there was burning, and its smoke rose like the smoke of a stove because the glory of the Presence of the Lord, God of Israel, revealed itself on it.

The contest between Mount Hermon, Tabor and Carmel to be the one chosen to receive the gift of the law is well attested in rabbinic literature. 494 The theme of rivalry occurs in many Targums: for example, the dispute between the months as to who will be the first 494 See W. Bacher, "Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum", ZDMG 28 (1874), 12-14; Komlosh, c:nnn;i 11~::i. ~;p~i1, 285-286; R. Kasher,

Cl"~i~i1 c:i·~1;1n;i '::l ?.!l ;ii;~ m110~ ?tD 1?1;?;'? -

Sinai 79 (1976), 14-25.

;i;in 1n~::i. c:i'ii1i1 ::J.'i,

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

415

month of the year; 495 the dispute between the stones as to which one David would use to slay Goliath; 496 the dispute between the letters of the alphabet as to which would be the first letter of the Torah; the dispute between Kain and Abel; 497 the dispute between Moses and the Red Sea; 498 the dispute between the earth and the sea at the crossing of the Red Sea and which one of them would swallow the Egyptians; 499 the dispute between the tribes by the Red Sea; 500 or the rivalry between the trees over which of them should be honoured with the hanging of Haman. 501 Often these disputes are of a poetic nature. Yet the structure of the present 'Targum' bears the form of a rabbinic account of a dispute about conflicting claims, 502 less a poetic one-though some passages do have a poetic touch. 503 There exist various versions of this aggadah: a long version, written in the margin of K, and a parallel short version in its running text, disseminated over many Western manuscripts 504 and sometimes labelled 'Tosefta-Targum'. In addition, it is possible to distinguish a Sefardi and, for want of a better term, Askhenazic text-type of the short version, but the latter is not homogeneous. The obvious question to put is: How do the different text-types of the Targum to Judges 5:5 relate to one another? The following tables demonstrate that all versions descend from a common textual ha495 Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, 186-188, 192-196; MS hebr. 110 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris) to Exod. 12:2, edited by U. GleBmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988, 241-245. 496 PT 1 Sam. 17:43; see E. van Staalduine-Sulman, "The Aramaic Song of the Lamb", in: J.C. de Moor, W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT, 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 265-292. 497 CG, Tosefta-Targum, TPsJ, TN and FT to Gen. 4:8. 498 CG, FTP Exod. 14:30; Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, 236-239; idem, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources (AnBib, 76), vol. 1, Rome 1980, 77. 499 CG, FT Exod. 15:12; Klein, Genizah manuscripts, vol. 1, 240-241, 244-245; idem, The Fragment-Targums, vol. 1, 79. 50 °CG, FTV Exod. 14:13-14; Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, vol. 1, 224-225; idem, The Fragment-Targums, vol. 1, 168-169. 501 Targum Sheni Esther 7:10, see: P. Grelot, "La dispute des arbres dans le Targoum II d'Esther VIl,10", in: D. Munoz Leon (ed.), Salvaci6n en la Palabra. Targum - Derash - Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Diez Macho, Madrid 1986, 399-408. 502 bBM 2a: 101~ ill i1'n~;m 'J~ 101~ i1T i1'n~~O 'J~ 101~ ill n''?t!i::i pm~ etc. 503 As we observed in Chapter 2.6.5. so 4 GmH1mLmrBCNJKQWMOS and the margin of w.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

416

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

sis, 505 the so-called proto-Targum. T Jon contains one word which the PT-version does not have, and vice versa the PT-version has many elements not shared by T Jon. A close textual analysis shows that the longest version, which was based upon proto-T Jon, presumably constitutes the source for the two Toseftas, which in turn arose independently of each other.

Km 1 Sef Ash TJon

1i:m

1i~

1i~i 1io1n1~1i~i 1i:m1

~1i~

1i~i

~1i~i

1io1n 1m1n1

1i~

~1i~

1i:m

~1i~ ~1i~

"' "' "' "'

t:l1p t:l1p t:l1p t:l1p

]O ]O ]O ]O

U.li l!Ji U.li U.li

~·1i~ ~·1i~

~·1m ~·1i~

Km 2 Sef Ash

]'1 t:lll ]'1 ]'::l1llnm ]'tDJ1m WT ~'?01'.:I r1 t:J,l.) r1 ]'tDJ 1m ~?01::i r1 t:J,l.) r1 ]'tDJ 1m ~?01::i1

Km 3 Sef Ash

•1tvn •?,!.) r1? 1o~i 'J,l.) m;i r1 •1tvn •?,!.) r1? 10~ r1 •1tvn •?,!.) (10~ r1) r1? r1 r1o~i

Km 4 Sef Ash

::i·m m;i r1i ~"in •?i "'1 ~m·::iw r1? 1a~i 506r1i ~J'::itv r1? 10~ 507r1i 1o~r1?

Km 5 Sef Ash

~n·o1p::i 'Jll ~'in •?i ~'in •?i

"'1 ~m·::itv •1tvn •?,!.) ~J·::itv •1tvn •?,!.) ~J·::itv •1tvn •?,!.)

~m·::itv '1tvn •?,!.) 1m1n1 ~1i~? 10~ ~J·::itv '1tvn •?ll 1m1n1 ~1i~? 10~ ~mi~

ii;i1 ~mi~ 508 •0

pi 1i::in1 ~1m 1i::in1 ~1i~

m;i 1::i ~n·o1p::i ~"in •?i 509 ~n·o1p

505 Except from the Ashkenazi testimony which I have simplified. I follow the text of group II (see above, chapter 2), and not those of the haft.arah-MSS. Within group II, I shall indicate variant readings. Especially H sometimes expands the Ashkenazi strand, though it also has a different text at times. A further phenomenon is that the basic text of K is Ashkenazi, but sometimes it agrees with its margin over against the other witnesses. I have not recorded this in the following table, as it does not affect my conclusions. 506 The phrase ]'i'? ID~ ]'11 is not attested in W due to haplography. 507 In MSS BJ the text is lacking up to rno:m. The text is attested by MSS GmlmCNQ and edition r, and in part by Lm. 508 In W corrupted: ~l!:l11:!l'Di, note S: ~l!:l11:!l 'D::J,. 509 S reads ~n·o;p::i, 'i~.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

Km 8 Sef

5

417

mnni ~·1m ?J i~·::inn·~ m '01' 10 mnni 510 ~no1 ~·11t!l ?J 511 i~·::inn·~i m •oi•:i

Km 9 Sef

?.vi •w•1

1t!l0 ~? "5:lr1'J it!lo ~? ·~::inJ

?.v ?.v

~·oi ~·otb ?J

~·m ~·ow ?J

Attested only in MS Km: ~·m •?i ~·11t!l ?J

?.v

c:i1 11t!l ~J~i ~·o 10 i.vpntv·~ ~o?.v i1''?1J1

iJ ~·m •?i ~nJ'Jtv •1tvn 11i1'tvi:i?

?.v

•?.v

11:in 1m? 10~1 1101n 1m 'J.V ~m'Jtv

~·oi m, i1:i.v •?.vi n•1:i' ~J~ ~o·

,,;:i ?~1tv' 'J:i i1:i.v

'J.V1 ~ntv:l' r:ii ~0' r:i c:ipi ~0' 1):! 1:l.V1 p•ntv ~'?01J 11t!l ~t!lO ~? ~ntv:i'

?.v

t::i~i ~m'Jtv •1tvn

•?.v

~m'Jtv •1tvn ~o· ~nJ'Jtv •1tvn

~0110 •ow 10 ~?p m:i 'OWO ~?p n:i

?.v t:J~ 10~ pi •?.v ~m'Jtv •1tvn

n?m ~n.vtv ~'i1i1:i

np::iJ ~0110

Attested only in MS Km: 11i1'tv::lJ:l i1:im·~i ~·011 ~'11t!l r?·~ r11t!l

?.v

~?i ro1 r11t!l

?.v

Km 11 Sef512 Ash Km 12 Sef Ash Km 13 Sef Ash

?.v

~m'Jtv '1tvn ~? mo~i

~? i1'nJ'Jtv '1tv'O'?

rn

rn

t:Jip 10 ~1.V1 n·?i

?.v

~?i r100

p1o:io r11t!l t:Jip 10 ~1.V1 ~? 1m~ p1o:io r11t!l

1'J'JO 1'11t!l rJ'Jo r11t!l

'?.v ~'?·~ ?.v ~"~

rJm'' r11t!l

?.v i1'nJ'Jw ?.v i1'nJ'JW

tb'?m I' .Vi i11i1i 'J'Oi ~11t!l1 11i1'?1J 10 i11i1i 'J'Oi 513 ~11t!l1 ?Ji TJO ?Jo 1•.vn w?n i11i1i 'J'Oi ~11t!l

Attested only in MS Km: 11i1'?1J 10 tv?m .,, .Vi ~1i1i 'i1i?.v i1'm'Jtv •1tv•o? "' t::iip 10 ~1.v1 mil reads ...'?:n for ...'?:i. o. S: i~:inmn; M: 1~'Emn'1; W: 1~':inn'~1. 512 MW read ]'J'iO:::lr.l. 5 13 S reads ')'01 ~i1t!l i11i11. 510 M

5 uso

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

418

Km 14 Sef Ash TJon Tg Ps 68:9

CHAPTER

'J'O 'J'O ')'0 'J'O

1'1 514 1'1 1'1 1'1

4:

"' t:11p

COMMENTARY

10

lVT tot:'11~ ?,l.)1 1'?'tot:i1 t-l:'11~ tol:'11~

Km 15 Sef Ash TJon Tg Ps 68:9

i1'Jm p•?oi p•?i mm i1'Jm 515p•?oi 516 i1')Jn p•?o i1')Jn p•?o i1')Jn p•?o

Km 16 Sef Ash TJon Tg Ps 68:9

ip' 'i11?,l.) t-t:1p' 'i11?,l.) 517'i11?,l.) 'i11?,l.) 'i11?,l.)

Km 17 Sef Ash TJon Tg Ps 68:9

•?m•tot:i •?Ji1'tol:1 •?m•tot:i •?)i1toli1 •?mtot:i

t:11p t:11p t:11p t:11p t:11p

?tot:1tD'1 ?tot:1tD'1 ?tot:1tv'1 ?tot:1tv'1 ?tot:1tD'1

~·,in•tot:i

~·,in•tot:i

10 10 10 10 10

:pintot: =rnntot: t']'J1i1tol:

tot:Jmtot:i toli)1i1toli1 tot:Jmtot:i toli)1i1toli1 tot:Jmtot:i

tot:Jm' toli)Jn) tot:Jm' toli)Jn) tot:Jm'

t-t:i1?tot: "'1tol:i1)')~ tot:i1?tot: ,,,, 518 tot:i1?tot: ,,,, ,,, tot:i1?tot: t-t:i1?tot: 519,,

There is no need to dwell on the common standard translation, so clearly recognizable in these tables. The Ashkenazi version is the shortest. It lacks any argumentation for the claims of Tabor, Carmel and Hermon (line 6-9), the motif of the heavenly voice (line 10) and, seemingly, the contrast between high, proud and low mountains (line 11-12). However, this latter contrast is not really absent since Sinai is chosen because it is weaker and lower than all other mountains (line 13-14). For that reason the Ashkenazi version must be the result of contraction. Presumably one copyist is responsible for reducing the longer form of the Targum. The Sefardi version also depends on the longest version. Three observations sustain this view. First, the Sefardi version provides an ar(simplified?) has a better text: "' p JO 1lll ~'11~ ?:ii. reads p•?o. The next word in 0 is ~lm. 516 Some MSS lack the last word: Q0 Qmc, and there appear many errors (BCH). 517 CN read, in agreement with Sef, ~1P'. 518 BQ read ~nl'::ltli. 519 Many MSS lack"; see E. White, A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer-Generated Text of Books I and II, unpublished Ph.D., McGill University, Montreal 1988, 279. 514 8

515 0

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

419

5

gument for Mount Tabor only, which makes no sense in a dispute. Second, it contains an error absent in the other versions: ?l)i r?-~i1 ~-.,,~ ?::>1 Tjl':l i11i1i 'j'Oi ~1mi. This line makes no sense, unless we emend Tjl':l to T::>l':l and ?::>1 to ?::>r:i, and assume that the copyist erroneously included the scribal reference where the standard translation had to be resumed: "' t:iip 11:l 1.!.)T ~·11~ ?l)i = T Jon 5:5. Third, TJon and PT Judg. 5:5 differ in their interpretation of MT ':l'O ri: T Jon keeps the combination together and adds the verb r'j'J in~. In other words, in T Jon the demonstrative particle is interpreted as a specification of which mountain shook. Conversely, in PT and the Toseftas the demonstrative pronoun triggers off a contrast between 5:5a and 5:5b, the fuel for the rivalry between the mountains. Yet the Tosefta preserves the plus r'j'Jin~ which belongs to the alternative interpretation in T Jon, and therefore suggests a fusion of two traditions. Finally, the Sefardi and Ashkenazi text types are independent abridgements of the longer version. In line 13, the Sefardi tradition lacks the words ili?n and i'l)T. The Sefardi tradition preserves one of the arguments attributed to the mountains, over against the Ashkenazi version. The Sefardi tradition contains an error, as we observed, and in line 3 the Ashkenazi version goes its own way, summarizing the dispute by ri? r i r1r:i~i. In sum, the longest version appears to be an expanded version of T Jon, but was subsequently shortened in two possibly independent ways the results of which were finally fused with TJon itself. 520

The Exegetical Origin of the Dispute The aggadah on the dispute between the mountains is widespread in rabbinic literature, 521 which allows us to compare and contrast the various forms it has taken. Attention will be given to the Scripture texts to which the aggadah is attached. Obviously, the pivotal passage 520 The plus ttrnn•11;1 in the Antwerp Polyglot is an accidental remainder of the paraphrastic expansion, ousted by the editor as I discussed in Chapter 2.6.2. The same may be true for the variant readings "'i ti;ip' and "'i ti;nJ':::lttl. 521 PT /Tos. Judg. 5:5; PT Jer. 46:18; Tg Psalms 68:16-17; Mekh Y fli1n:i 4:17-25, 5:40-48; bMeg. 29a; BerR 99:1; BaR 13:3; MTeh 68:9; PesR 7:3; PesK 21:4; Tan 1:i1r.i::i 7; Midrash m1:i1i1 nittl.11; YalqS Exod. §284; YalqS Judg. §47; YalqS Ps. §796. Perhaps this tradition is the background of the New Testament conception, that if a man has faith enough, he may remove mountains from their place: Matt. 17:20; 21:21; Mark 11:23; Luke 3:5; 23:30; 1 Cor. 13:2. The movement of the mountains is further attested in Rev. 6:14; 17:9. In any case these midrashic parallels should be added to those given by H.L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Miinchen 1922, vol. 1, 759.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

420

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

of the tradition is Psalm 68:16-17, read in combination with Jer. 46:18, to which Judg. 5:5 may have been added at an early stage. 522 Psalm 68 evoked a midrashic interpretation by its motif of jealousy between mountains: Mountain of Elohim, Mount Bashan, Mountain of the hump-backed (Cl'll::l.J 1i1), Mount Bashan, why did you watch with envy (]n~in), mountains of the hump-backed (Cl'll::JJ Cl'ii1)? 0 mountain on which Elohim desired to stay, yes, [on which] the Lord wanted to dwell forever?

According to BerR 99:1, both R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiba explained 111::nn by means of the hermeneutic principle 'notariqon': the mountains (or, in the case of R. Aqiba, the tribes) Cl':J"101 ci•::n i?~ Cl.!.l 1'?~, "were running and disputing with each other" .523 The contents of the dispute is identical with that of PT Judg. 5:5: i1:Jn':J 1111n •?.!.l 101~ i1T1 mn•:i i111ni1 •?.!.l 101~ i1i. As the exegetes were generally eager to identify anonymous protagonists, Jer. 46:18 was brought in: As I live, says the King, the Lord of Hosts is his name, for like Tabor among the mountains (C1'1i1::J 11:::in:::i '::l ), and like Carmel by the sea, he shall come (~1::J' Cl'::J '?r.i1:::i:::i1).

In MT, the verb ~1:::1' relates to someone whose coming is as much beyond doubt as is the position of Tabor among the mountains, or the location of Carmel by the sea. Who will come remains a mystery. In the aggadah, the verb is applied to the mountains. In the version of BerR 99:1: "Tabor came from Beth Elim and Carmel from Apamea, as is written: 'As I live' ... " Why did they come? To dispute: "The one says, 'I have been called', and the other says, 'I have been called'". Together these texts provide the three basic elements of the aggadah on the contending mountains: the movement of the mountains, their dispute, and finally God's revelation in connection with the lawgiving as the main bone of contention. On this basis Judg. 5:5 became significant: "The mountains quaked before the Lord. This Sinai, before the Lord, God of Israel". This verse was now divided into two contrasting clauses, as if to say the mountains were quarrelling and protesting, while Sinai was chosen in their place. 522 So

also Kasher, i111n 1nr.i:::i Cl'1i1i1 :::i '1, 24. word ]11~1n has been divided into derivations of yn and ]1i. Many translators, however, take Cl'~i and 1~in as derivations from i1~1. However, Tg Psalms 68:16 presupposes the former interpretation with its Aramaic translation: ]'t;Ji1i. 523 The

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

421

The long tradition of reading Psalm 68:16-17, Jer. 46:18, Judg. 5:5 and Lev. 21:20 in close alignment is attested by various Tannaitic traditions. Although the reliability of attributions to named Sages in rabbinic literature is problematic, in this particular case the convergence of attributions and sources is so striking that it strongly suggests that the core of the tradition was already in circulation by Tannaitic times. These texts were interrelated in the Mekhilta, 524 in a tradition attributed to R. Eleazar ha-Qappar 525 and Bar Qappara in bMeg. 29a, 526 and in a tradition attributed to R. Nathan, a fourth generation Tanna, in Midrash Psalms 68, 527 and finally in a tradition ascribed to R. Jose the Galilean, a Tanna of the second generation, in Bereshith Rabbah 99:1. Interestingly, R. Nathan and Bar Qappara appear to be closely related in the traditions attributed to them. 528

The Development of the Aggadah: A Survey The question how the theme of contending mountains developed in the different forms which we have is intriguing and important in view of the relative date and originality of PT Judg. 5:5. Before touching on the meaning of the aggadah in its essential form, it will be useful to present a brief survey of the parallel sources, especially the Targums. The aggadah assumed many diverging forms, in spite of the similarities between the sources, which renders any reconstruction of the history of this tradition both intriguing and highly problematic. Many motifs were used in different ways: 1. The names of the mountains involved in the dispute. 2. The attribution of the arguments used by the mountains. 3. The movements of the mountains. 4. The motif of pride and arrogance. 5. The motif of blemishes. 6. The motif and content of the reward for the mountains. 524 MekhY tD1111J 5 quotes Jer. 46:18 and alludes to Judg. 5:5. MekhY tD1111J 4 quotes Exod. 19:20, Judg. 5:5, Ps. 68:17 and Lev. 21:20. 525 Note the inscription, found in the Golan (D. Urman, "Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura in the Golan", IEJ 22 (1972), 16-23): "Eliezer ha-Qappar. This is the Beth Midrash of Rabbi". 526 Quoting Jer. 46:18; Ps. 68:17 and Lev. 21:20. Bar Qappara possibly added the motif of the heavenly voice and the interpretation on the basis of Lev. 21:20, since YalqS §796 (Psalms) agrees with bMeg. 29a at this point. 527 A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, vol. 5, Vienna 1873, 72-73. 528 So Kasher, i1i1n 1nr.i::J t:l'ii1i1 J'i, 24 n. 50.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

422

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

7. The form of the clash: run and contend, shake, mingle, leap, dispute. 8. The motif of the heavenly voice. One of the prime reasons for the differences is the context in which each parallel is embedded. It is instructive to study the targumic versions from this point of view. K contains an interesting parallel in its margin to Jer. 46:18, again a PT-fragment: 529 1i:::i;wi•1 ~.!.l:::ii] ~·iit!l[ 'J']:::i [i:::i;]n'~ ii:::in1 (~~m:::i) :::i·~·1 ~~' ,,~ ·~.!.l? ~Jpii:::i •m?.!.l n':::lil'i il'1)~ n•n:::ip ~? ~J~i •m?.!.l ~n·ii~ •mn•:::i

•m?.!.l ?~io~ ·~.!.l i?t~i ~n~] ~~·:::i ~i,~,,,, [~io•o ·~i·:::i ?~itv' ~·:::iJ iii·?~? ~m~J 'i!i'?.!.l n':::lil'i il'i;~ n•n:::ip ~i,, ~~· i;:::i ~rnv:::i•:::i

[Cl'1~~1 ~''?~ il.!.l1:::l1] il'1:::lr1 'r1" 1'[1],~1 ~1p'tti '~':::lJ r1' 1~r1 '?t!ipi

For just as it is certain that Tabor prevailed among the mountains and requested that the words of the law should be given upon it, yet I did not rob it of its reward, but gave redemption to my people Israel upon it in the days of Sisera, and just as Carmel came to the sea, and my people Israel went over it on dry land amidst the sea, yet I did not rob it of its reward, but gave victory upon it to Elijah the prophet, for he killed the prophets of falsehood there, so shall come about the shattering of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Once more T Jon and PT share a standard text which they appear to have developed differently. 530 Though the theme of this fragment recalls PT Judg. 5:5, the differences clearly stand out. Mount Hermon does not figure in Jer. 46:18, 531 and its claim to have served Israel as they passed through the Red Sea is now ascribed to Mount Carmel. As a consequence, the interpretation of the words ~i:::i• t:l':::l in Jer. 46:18 differs from PT Judg. 5:5: in PT Jer. 46 Carmel comes to the Red Sea whereas in PT Judg. 5 Carmel steps into the Mediterranean. 532 In turn, both interpretations of MT ~i:::i• differ from the traditions in bMeg. 29a, BerR 99:1 and MekhY ttiiin:::i 5 stating explicitly that 529 I will quote this text in full, indicating with square brackets which words or letters the PT-fragment has in addition to the text ofTJon, and with round brackets which words TJon has in addition to the base text shared by both versions. 530 The standard text is sometimes filled up as if it contained abbreviations: n'l'li becomes i:Jm'l'li, l'li'i1t!l:J becomes l'li'i1t!l 'j':J, r=> becomes J'1::lil. 531 Nor in any other account except from Midrash m;:i 1il n;to lJ, as demonstrated by Kasher, ili1n 1n~:i D'iilil :i•;, 20. 532 There is reason to assume PT Judg. 5:5 is more original in this respect, see below.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

423

both Tabor and Carmel came from outside Palestine, that is from Beth Elim and Apamea. 533 A few differences suggest that the Targumic version of PT Jer. is concise, not to say elliptical. First, PT Jer. 48 is enigmatic about what Tabor achieved in its claim. That it "prevailed among the mountains" provides no information. PT Judges connects this motif to the deluge. A partial reason for this differentiation is the dependence of PT Jer. on the wording of the proto-Targum shared with T Jon. Second, the formulation n'm:ip ~? ~:i~i in PT Jer. seems to imply that the behaviour of Tabor and Carmel could be taken as a pretext for punishment. Consequently, missing motifs in PT Jer. 46 do not prove much. Some of the standard elements may have been omitted or changed on purpose. Targum Psalms 68:16-17, which exists in two versions, comprises a third form of the tradition. This is the translation of the text as preserved by MS Villa-Amil no. 5: 534 16 Mount Moriah has been chosen before me for the service of the patriarchs of the world before the Lord, and it has been chosen in the second place in order to build the house of the sanctuary thereon. And Mount Sinai has been detached from there and chosen in the third place for the law. 535 Mount Bashan was weak and rejected. Mount Tabor, there a miracle was performed for Barak and Deborah. Mount Carmel, there a miracle was performed for Elijah the prophet. 536 Now they were 533 Possibly the Sea of Apamea is meant. In that case Carmel did not come to, but from the sea, requiring a different punctuation. ~1::J' . !:l'::J ?Qi:l:l1. 534 Edited by L. Dfez Merino, Targum de Balmos: Edici6n Principe del Ms. VillaAmil n. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora (BHBib, 6), Madrid 1982, 126. The edition of E. White, A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A computer-Generated Text of Books I and II, unpublished Ph.D., McGill University 1988, is unreliable at this point since White fails to record the important variant reading in Ps. 68:16 (as recorded by Dfez Merino, Targum de Balmos and Kasher, ]nQ::J !:l'ii1i1 ::J'i i1i1n, 21). Perhaps MS G-1-5 of the Biblioteca de El Escorial does not have this variant reading, but even then one would expect that White had recorded it in his notes, because he did use the manuscript in Salamanca and intended to note the differences between these Spanish manuscripts (see part 1, p. 55 and part 2, p. 318). An older edition, with an often shorter version of Targum Psalms, was edited by P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig 1873. See further S. Speier, "Sieben Stellen des Psalmentargums in Handschriften und Druckausgaben: 3,7 44,17 45,6 49,11 68,15.20 126,1", Biblica 48 (1967), 491-508. A translation is provided by P. Grelot, who, however, mixes both versions in his anthology: What Are the Targums? Selected Texts, Collegeville (MN) 1992, 113-116. The shortest version as edited by De Lagarde entirely omits the reason why the latter mountains were rejected and crippled. 535 Many MSS read: ~n'i1~ n'::Ji1'Q?, "for the gift of the law". 536 This clause is entirely wanting in White's edition!

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

424

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

running contrary to one another-disputing with each other. The one said: "The Shekhinah shall dwell on me" ( ~m''tli 'itlin ''?l'), and the other said: "The Shekhinah shall dwell on me". But the Lord of the world, who hates the proud (1'Jn1')) and whose dwelling is with the humble (~''''0), struck them and rejected them and rendered them hump-backed (~):::l') ) 537 as Mount Bashan. 17 God said: "Why do you leap, 0 mountains? I have no desire to give the law on proud, haughty mountains ( ~')iO:::lO ~')r!1') ~'i1~) !" Lo, Mount Sinai is humble (T'O), [so] the Word of the Lord desires to let its Shekinah dwell on it. But the Word 538 of the Lord [itself] will dwell in the heaven of heavens forever.

Tabor, Carmel and Sinai figure in PT Judg. 5:5 and in Targum Psalms, and in both versions there is a dispute. Yet Targum Psalms lacks Mount Hermon, and mentions Moriah and Bashan instead. The main reason for this difference seems to be found in the Scripture verses on which this Targum is based. It is easy to understand why Mount Bashan appears in Targum Psalms, contrary to Targum Judges and Targum Jeremiah, because Mount Bashan appears in MT Psalms 68. For the same reason it comes as no surprise that PT Jer. 46:18 mentions Tabor and Carmel only, because these mountains are mentioned in the MT. 539 The exception is Mount Hermon in PT Judg. 5:5, for which no obvious reason seems to exist. 540 The underlying biblical text definitely accounts for the following wording in Tg Psalm 68: ]'1 t:ll' ]'1 ]')"101 ... ]'~i1i, depending on MT 1n~nn (see above). A third characteristic of Targum Psalms which depends on MT is the explanation for their hump-backed appearance and a declaration of the ritual impurity of the mountains (through the application of Lev. 21:20). 541 The words on which this interpre537 In the edition of Diez Merino: tn:::i•;. See, however, White's edition and Kasher, iii1n 1no:::i t:l'iiiii :::l'i, 21. 538 Attested by MS Villa-Amil no. 5 (ed. Diez Merino, p. 127) and in three additional manuscripts collated by White (ed. White, p. 284). Most manuscripts, however, omit this word, which has implications for the distinction between God, his Memra and his Shekinah! 539 PT Judg. 5:5 does not quote either Jer. nor Ps. 68, even if its exegesis presupposes a connection with these texts. 'Mutatis mutandis' the same applies to PT Jer. 46:18 and Tg Ps. 68:16-17. 540 The mention made of Mount Moriah in Tg Psalms is due to its identification with the Temple site, and hence with the abode of the Shekhinah. 541 So also bMeg. 29a; BerR 99:1; MekhY t!iiin:::i 4:17-25 and MTeh 68:9. The mountains are declared unfit for sacred purposes by application of the hermeneutic rule ii1tD iliD to Lev. 21:20 and Psalm 68:17: t:l'll:l) is a hapax legomenon, which is explained by p; in Lev. This verse excludes the hump-backed from the offering. Thus also the "hump-backed" mountains are excluded from ritual performances.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

425

tation is based do not appear in Judg. 5:5 or in Jer. 46:18, and the interpretation is wanting in the Palestinian Targums to these verses. Conversely, other elements are lacking in Targum Psalms: there is no motivation provided for the boasting of the mountains claiming their right to be chosen. As a consequence, the movement of the mountains to the sea (Jer. 46), and the merit to which the mountains appeal, are absent; so is the heavenly whisper. In addition, the motif of reward differs in all these targumic versions. In PT Judg, there is no reward; in PT Jer. there is, hesitatingly, a reward; and in Tg Psalms 68 there is punishment: the mountains are disabled. The punishment stands out in stark contrast to the other versions, which either have a reward, or consider the 'hump-backed' appearance as the reason for, instead of the result of, the rejection. All in all, the tradition apparently remained fluid, an impression that is reinforced if we study the midrashic forms that this aggadah assumed. For example, BerR 99:1 gives a different reason for the rejection of Tabor, Carmel, Hermon or Bashan than the Targums do (if at all), for it buttresses the rejection in the idolatry committed at the top of these mountains. Kasher attempts to relate this motivation to the polemic against the Samaritans and the question of the holiness of Mount Gerizim. 542 Moreover, in a later form of the aggadah the combination of either Jer. 46:18 or Judg. 5:5 with Ps. 68:16-17 is dropped. 543 Nor do Tabor and Carmel always figure in the aggadah. In Midrash nn:::ii;i nitvl', 544 it is Hermon and Sirion545 who lose out to Mount Sinai, because they elevated themselves whereas Mount Sinai lowered itself. Is it possible, then, to penetrate any further into the history of the forms that this aggadic tradition assumed? To answer this question we will need penetrate to the source and meaning of this tradition.

The prime reason for this interpretation may well be exegetical, namely to explain the rare Hebrew word. 542 Kasher, i1"'11n 1nr.i:. t:l'"ii1i1 :l'"i, 25. 543 BemR 13:3 (par. PesR 7:3). Many known elements of the tradition are presupposed here: Tabor and Carmel come, albeit not in the direction of the sea, but "from the end of the world". The contest is likewise presupposed. This form agrees with the comment attributed to R. Ashi in bMeg. 29a which is obviously late as well. 544 Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, vol. 1, 66. 545 See for this mountain SifZ 27:12; SifDev 37; bHul. 60b. Its inclusion is based on Deut. 3:9. TN and TPsJ call this Mount m?n "'11t!i. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

426

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

The Significance of PT Judges 5:5 The brief survey of the sources for the aggadah on the contending mountains suggests that the exegetical hinterland of the gloss in K is not Babylonia, as Bacher surmised on the basis of the parallel in bMeg. 546 The tradents are Palestinian Tannaim, and the date of the tradition goes back to the Tannaitic period. Far more difficult is the date of PT Judg. 5:5, either in an absolute sense or relatively when compared to its rabbinic and targumic parallels. Kasher 547 took as his starting-point for dating the traditions the alleged contrast between PT Judg. 5:5 and the Toseftas. In his opinion, the essential difference between the mountains in the long version of K is a matter of physical height. By way of contrast, in the Tosefta to this verse as found in W, the contrast between arrogance and humbleness is decisive. The argument concerning the physical height of the mountains, which occurs in Midrash Psalms, belongs to the most ancient layer of the tradition as a neutral, exegetical description. The moral and social dimension of arrogance and humbleness, which is adopted in Targum Psalms 68, is a later interpretation of the aggadah. In his opinion, the same watershed is descernible in the description of the fate of the contesting mountains. As soon as the mountains are deprived of their neutral status as high mountains, Kasher argues, the sources have them punished for their haughtiness. Yet in neutral versions, the mountains receive a "reward" for the trouble they did for the honour of God. In sum, the Palestinian Targum548 to Judg. 5:5 represents an old form of the aggadah. Unfortunately, the history of the tradition as constructed by Kasher is not verifiable, even though later sources do indeed tend to emphasise the moral aspect of the tradition. As Kasher admits in a footnote, the long version in K combines the notion of physical height with that of haughtiness. 549 It does not merely call the mountains p~i, but also 11i1'tV£lj::J 11::J)n'~1, 1'100 and 1'j10::JO; the latter designation is 546 Bacher,

"Kritische Untersuchungen", 14. 1nr.i:::i Cl'iiiii :::l'i, 14-25. 548 He calls it "Tosefta-Targum". For the sake of convenience, I use the headings given in the MSS themselves and thus distinguish between Palestinian Targum (margin K) and Tosefta-Targum (other witnesses), though I am aware of the possibility that the headings may have changed in the course of textual transmission. Moreover, in many MSS the Tosefta has no heading at all. See Chapter Two. 549 Kasher, iii1n 1nr.i:::i Cl'iiiii :::l'i, 17 n.24. See also P. Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen im Antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und verwandten Phanomenen (TSAJ, 20), Tiibingen 1989, 238-241. 547 Kasher,

iii1n

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

427

5

shared with the Tosefta-Targum. Although the Tosefta indeed has a plus over against PT in pni• J, it also has another plus in ~n~i. In other words, both expanded versions of Judg. 5:5 combine the motif of physical height with that of haughtiness or humbleness. The motif of 'reward' as found in the sources similarly defies the interpretation Kasher has advanced. 550 This motif is absent in the Targums of Judg. 5:5, despite its stress on physical height. On the other hand, the reward appears in PT Jer. 46:18 without any mention made of the physical superiority of Tabor and Carmel. As was pointed out above, the formulation n•m:ip ~? ~:J~1 seems to imply that the behaviour of Tabor and Carmel could be taken as a pretext for punishment. So that in the case of an explicitly mentioned reward, apparently some wrong may have been done. Kasher, however, argues that wherever pride and arrogance are at hand, there is no question of a reward. Yet next to PT Jer. 46:18, Midrash Psalms 68 has Tabor and Carmel rewarded for the trouble they put themselves to, despite the 'blemish of arrogance' which God found in them. In sum, Kasher's differentiation between the PT-version and the Tosefta-Targum is untenable, since both versions contain the contrast high-low as well as haughty-humble. Neither does the combination of this contrast with that of the presence or omission of the motif of reward prove much. Seemingly, the fluid nature of the tradition does not allow us to construct a straightforward line of development for the aggadic tradition along which all the various forms may be positioned with a fair degree of certainty. This applies to PT Judg. 5:5 as well. However, studying the specific form of PT Judg. 5:5 it is indeed possible to suggest a basic interest lying hidden in all these traditions. It has not been appreciated so far that the mountains in Judg. 5:5 were personalised: They speak, they boast, they are haughty and strong over against little and humble Mount Sinai. This suggests Mount Sinai should be taken as a metaphor for Israel itself, and the mountains as a metaphor for the nations. Though Sinai is weak, little and humble, it was chosen by the Lord in contrast to the other mountains, which are strong, but haughty and rebellious. In fact, it comes as a surprise to hear Mount Sinai was small, for both Philo and Josephus know Mount Sinai as the highest mountain in the region. 551 This strongly suggests the aggadah is a metaphor with hardly concealed irony at its core. In the same vein we learn that, according to PT Judg 5:5, only Mount Tabor managed to stay dry during the deluge-though this mountain actually does not reach i1i1n 1no:::i !:l'ii1i1 :J'i, 24. De vita Mosis, 2.70.; Josephus, Ant. IIl.76.

55 °Kasher, 551 Philo,

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

428

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

beyond 2000 feet, and many summits in the region are clearly much higher, let alone that it obviously contradicts the Biblical account of the deluge. 552 If Mount Tabor represents the nations, and its claim is taken as irony, things become clear at once: anyone could easily understand that Tabor does not live in the real world, while Sinai is underestimated. These elements fit ethnic irony very well. 553 If this interpretation is correct, PT Judg. 5:5 agrees with the attention paid in PT Judg. 5:4 to the interests of the surrounding nations in the Torah, over against the Israelites. The Mekhilta strengthens this view. According to MekhY tD11n:::l 5 Tabor and Carmel are first said to have come from Beth Elim and Apamea, that is outside Palestine, 554 yet in the end they remained at their place because they understand they have no part to play in the giving of the law. The point made here is similar to the next parable in the Mekhilta, where the kings remain at their place. We have already seen that the theme of jealousy lies at the bottom of the whole tradition, while a second characteristic of the present aggadah is the common point that Tabor and Carmel came from outside Palestine. 555 Thus it seems most likely that initially the mountains represented the envious nations surrounding or present in Israel, who is represented as small and humble. Indeed we find a similar wording applied to the classic division into non-Israelite and Israelite in the Targums. In PT Isaiah 10:32 God is said to have "stirred up" (n'tv'' i~) foreign nations against Jerusalem, that "is smaller and weaker than all the fortresses of the nations": ~·~~l) •::ii::i ?::i~ ~tv?m ~,, l'i. Tg Psalm 42:7 connects 552 Bacher, "Kritische Untersuchungen", 14, believed the argument originally belonged to Mount Hermon. However, his shift of arguments would not resolve the contradiction with Genesis, nor would it do justice to the irony. Moreover, the aspirations of Mount Tabor to become high and revered are reflected in TanB :::ipll 6; cf. PesK 21 (144b); MTeh 36:6; 87:3. Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem identified a "high mountain" in Matth. 17:1 with Mount Tabor (Origen, PG 12.1548; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 12.16). This may well be correct, as TJon Hos. 5:1 equates MT ;1:::in to t:li i1~, "a high mountain"-which is also the claim attributed to Tabor in PT Judg. 5:5. 553 Cf. L.K. Handy, "Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon as Ethnic Humor", SJOT 6 (1992), 233-246. 554 Beth Elim appears not to have been located, but the sources imply a nonIsraelite location. As to Apamea, see: A. Neubauer, La Geographie du Talmud, Amsterdam 1965, 304-305, 417; G. Reeg, Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur (BTAVO.B, 51), Wiesbaden 1989, 300-301. I did not have access to: I.S. Horowitz, Palestine, Vienna 1923, 67 n. 1, 124. 555 In bMeg. 29a R. Eleazar ha-Qappar compares the coming of Tabor and Carmel to Palestine with the expectation that the synagogues and houses of learning in Babyloniana will be replanted in Israel. According to BerR 99:1 and MTeh 68:9 they come from Beth Elim and Apamea, as in MekhY tliim:::i 5.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

429

the Hermon with i•.im T::JO, 'J'O, ~11t;i:::l ~n·ii~ i'?•:::lp, ~O.l.)1, "the people who accepted the law at Mount Sinai which is humble and small" .556 Yet the Hebrew source text does not speak of Sinai. The contrast between Israelite and non-Israelite is explicitly linked to the metaphor of the mountains in Tg Ps. 46:4, 7: 4. The mountains are shaken up (1'5:l)1no) 557 in their pride (lmmn:::l) forever. ( ... ) 7. With the giving of the law to his people, the nations were shocked (1tD)1n~) 558 and kingdoms were stirred up. When he raised his voice, the inhabitants of the earth lose their heart.

The Hebrew lacks the reference to the gift of the law, and merely mentions God as a refuge in times of trouble. "The nations rage, the kingdoms totter" is related to the gift of the law in the Targum: i1'0.l.)'? ~n·ii~ 1n'O:::l precedes the actual translation of MT. It is therefore not far-fetched to assume that the tottering mountains are none other than the nations, possibly in the Hebrew Psalm already. 559 At this juncture the motif of reward becomes promising. If the reward applies to the nations, the difference between punishment and reward reflects a different stance toward the nations and proselytes. Note that the mountains came to Eretz Israel from outside the country according to the early Tannaitic versions of the aggadah. In some sources the mountains are not chosen, yet still receive a reward for their trouble to come to Sinai. In other sources, they are rejected right away, and no reward is mentioned. In Tg Psalms they are even punished. The point of such motifs may therefore well be a positive or negative stance toward the position of the 'stranger' in Eretz Israel.

Final Remarks It is difficult to pinpoint the date of PT Judg. 5:5 exactly. Its unique 556 Translated after the edition of L. Diez Merino, Targum de Balmos, 30. Cf. White, A Critical Edition, 179. 557 Komlosh, cnnnil i1~::l ~ipi.lil, 286, refers to this translation in view of the similar wording, but did not recognise the significance of the metaphors in this Psalm for PT Judg. 5. 558 Here I follow the edition of White, A Critical Edition, 197. The reading 1tlinn' in Diez Merino, Targum de Balmos, lll, is either a printing error or a scribal mistake in MS Villa-Amil no. 5. The former edition has a plus as second word:". 559 Perhaps the mountains mentioned in TPsJ Exod. 32:12 function as similar metaphors. The source of this tradition is unclear (M. Maher, Targum PseudoJonathan: Exodus (AramB, 2), Edinburgh 1994, 252 n. 28) but it mentions Tabor, Hermon, Sirion and Sinai between which the Israelites will be slain after the Exodus.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

430

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

features point to an independent development of the tradition. We have already observed that the element of 'coming' was variously worked out in the targumic versions. Yet implicitly PT Judg. 5:5 shares the view with the Tannaitic versions that the mountains were alien to Israel, and came from outside Palestine, with the apparent exception of Mount Tabor. It does not have any features which necessitate a later dating than the Tannaitic versions. 560 The explanations for Tabor, Hermon and Carmel may well be relatively late, and yet be Tannaitic. Here we detect a similarity with the development of the targumic expansions in Judg. 5:4 and Deut. 33:2, where the motivations seem to be secondary as well, and yet still appear to be of ancient origin. In conclusion, the present survey demonstrates that the exegetical roots of PT Judg. 5:5 are to be found among Palestinian Tannaim. Moreover, most of its elements were already in circulation by the close of the Tannaitic period, if not earlier. It is likely that the exegetical origin of this particular aggadah as well as the various (polemical) interests of authors account for the variety of forms the tradition assumed. 561 11;i11 1ni1~ •1.v 1po::i

'?.v•

'01':::1 m.v i:::l imw '01':::l 1:::ln , , 6 5

:1:::lJJO 1ni1~:::l r?r~ '1i10'? 1:::lrl ~·'?•::Jtv:::l 1'''?i10

5:6 When they sinned in the days of Shamgar, son of Anath-in the days of Jael-travellers on the roads ceased, and5 62 and those who were [still} going on journeys turned to go by secret roads.

The opening statement, "when they sinned", lacks a Hebrew counterpart563 and recalls the theological plus in 1:19: 1:::ln1 p in:::l. As in 5:2 and 8, the targumist inculcates the necessity not to sin on his audience, yet here and in 1:19 he did not find his source text in the Hebrew wording. His reason for inserting this theological comment was exegetical, namely, the striking contrast between the glorious report of the lawgiving in 5:4-5 and the undeniable decline of trade, habitation and even faith in Israel in verses 6-8. The simple insertion 560 The "heavenly whisper" is paralleled by bMeg. 29a, see Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen, 238-241. I doubt, however, whether this motif was added independently in these sources. The discussion of the date of PT Judg. 5:5 by Kuhn lacks a proper argumentation. 561 So also Kasher, ili1n 1nr.i::i Cl'iilil ::l'i, 24. 562 HNWMOS do not reflect the copula, in agreement with 17 MSS according to De Rossi, Variae Lectiones, vol. 2, 114. 563 AC lack these words, possibly by way of adjustment to MT, possibly reflecting an alternative strain of Targum-tradition.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

431

of two words completely accounts for the decline, leaving the narrative account of the Hebrew undamaged. This type of explanatory insertion is also to be found in the Targums to the Pentateuch. 564 MT ?in is repeated three times in 5:6-7, with three different translations in T Jon: 565 po::i, ::::iin, '1~ and ?t!l?t!l. This may seem inconsistent, all the more since the word is rendered by .vmn~ and p::::iw elsewhere in T Jon Judges. 566 In TO, the standard translation is either .vmn~, p::::iw or po::i. 567 These equivalents cover the different meanings of the verb under discussion adequately. 568 Therefore the translation ipo::i, "ceased" in the present verse creates no real exception to the rule, contrary to the equivalents in 5:7 which are non-literal and inconsistent. 569 Modern commentators often prefer rlh':ltl; to r11h"J~. 570 The former vocalisation implies the meaning "caravan", the latter denotes the actual route (which seemed hard to imagine as having ceased). However, roads may indeed break up when they have not been used for some time. 571 Be this as it may, the targumist preferred to leave the roads intact 572 by adding one word: "travellers" (lit. "passers-by"), with the advantage that the translation fits well with 5:6b which speaks about those who use the roads rather than the roads themselves. In the Western branch of T Jon, the "paths" are specified as "firm, established" .573 Exactly the opposite as LXX1 1 and Syrh: tptpoui: oux 564 TO Deut. 1:1 (par. FT, TPsJ, TN) inserts 1:::in1 ?.ti to explain a text otherwise obscure; cf. SifDev §2 and TPsJ Deut. 1:2. 565 Cf. Komlosh, cmini1 i1~:::i i1ipr.li1, 286-287. 566 TJon Judg. 9:9, 11, 13; 15:7; 20:28. 567 llll'.:l: Gen. 11:8; Exod. 9:29, 33, 34; 23:5; Num. 9:13; Deut. 23:23; TJon Judg. 15:7. poe:i: Gen. 18:11; 41:49; Deut. 15:11. p:::iw: Exod. 14:12. 568 "To cease; to give up, abandon; to stop an activity". See esp. T.J. Lewis, "The Songs of Hannah and Deborah", JBL 104 (1985), 105-108, and further HALAT, 280-281; Konig, HAWAT, 99. 569 With one exception in B, see below. Cf. TJon 1 Sam. 2:5; 9:5; 12:23; 23:13; 1 Kgs. 15:21; 22:6, 15. 570 Moore, Judges, 143; Burney, Judges, 114; Boling, Judges, 102; Soggin, Judges, 85; Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 266. LXXLOR read: ~cxatAet~, which is a corruption of ~&cm~ according to V. Zapletal, Das Buch der Richter, Miinster in Westf. 1923, 73, and Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 128. 571 The MT seems also preferable in view of the parallelism between mni~ (twice) and m:::i'm. 572 In TO and TJon, "caravan" is reflected by ~ni'W in Gen. 37:25 and Isa. 21:13. MS H reads 'i:::lll instead of '1 ll. 573 For ~'?':::iw:::i, the Sefardi textual tradition reads: ppnr.:i l'?':::iw:::i; Qm: ~'lpn ~'?':::!W:::l; MS J: ppni ~'?':::!W:::l; BC: ppn ~'?':::itli:::i; N°: ppn l'?':::!W:::l; IID*N*: ppni r?':::iw:::i; H: ppn '?':::!W:::l.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

432

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

euSEt(Xc;. 574 In TJon the point is no doubt to increase the impression of decline in Israel: those who still went by firm paths, now also turned to devious roads. i'?t!l'?t!lti;1 ;iti;·i~ '?~itV•i ~111~:::i 1:::in• i1ti;1i11 ti;•n~::i •np ~:::iiin 7 5 :'?~itV' n•:::i DJ i1ti;JJnti;'? n•n'?ntVti; i111:::i1 ti;Jti; n•n'?ntV~i i11 1m•1•1

5:7 The unwalled cities which had {previously} been inhabited in the land of Israel were waste and desolate, and their inhabitants were exiled until I was sent, I Deborah, I was sent to prophesy within the House of Israel.

As we have previously seen, the translation of MT '?in deviates from the standard translations. Here we find :::iin, ti;1~ and '?t!l'?t!l as equivalents.575 Still, the deviations may well be original as they are related to the interpretation of the Hebrew word 11i15:l, a difficult noun which appears only here and in Judg. 5:11. 576 The targumist connected this word with mri::i, "villages" and 'i15:l, "villagers" ,577 that is, the rural country and its inhabitants, 578 as appears from TJon's double translation of 11i15:l: ti;•n~::i •iip and 11i1'1'1. These translations are then combined in 5:11, ti;•n~::i •iip:::i :::i•n•. This interpretation, contrary 574 The latter two words sub obelisk in the Syro-hexapla. J. Targarona Borras, Historia del texto griego del libro de los Jueces, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Madrid 1979, 470, cautiously suggests that this reading might be original. 575 The only exception is B, which reads 1po:i for ~:inn; yet this verb does not fit well in the context, and may therefore be a secondary attempt to strengthen the consistency of TJon. Note, however, that Pesh agrees with B. 576 The Hebrew variant reading n1li:l seems to be erroneous, according to Barthelemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1, 79. Many modern interpretations draw on cognates in different Semitic languages. Usually, however, these proposals result in a forced interpretation of the word in either 5:7 or 5:11. See G. Garbini, "Parzon 'Iron' in the Song of Deborah", JSSt 23 {1978), 23-24, followed by P.R. Ackroyd, "Note to Parzon 'Iron' in the Song of Deborah", JSSt 24 {1979), 19-20; W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, London 1968, 43 n. 101, followed by Boling, Judges, 109; C. Rabin, "Judges V,2 and the Ideology of Deborah's War", JJS 6 {1955), 127-128. See further M.S. Seale, "Deborah's Ode and the Ancient Arabian Qasida", JBL 81 {1962), 345, followed by S. Speier, "On 1JliEl np;~, Judg 5 11", JBL 82 {1963), 216. Cf. L.E. Stager, "Archeology, Ecology, and Social History: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah", in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume {Jerusalem 1986) {VT.S, 40), Leiden 1988, 221-234 {225); J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BEThL, 91), Leuven 1990, 133. 577 Segal, )tlJ1' cnnn, 277-278; Komlosh, cm;n;i ;1~:::i i1ipi.li1, 286. Cf. Konig, HAWAT, 373. 578 mli:l denotes "unwalled cities", often in contrast to fortified ones {Ezek. 38:11; Esth. 9:19; Zech. 2:4, 8; cf. 1 Sam. 6:18; Deut. 3:5). The 'li:l dwell in these villages; see HALAT, 908-909.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

433

to those in the Septuagint, 579 corresponds to the archeological and political situation in the premonarchic period. 580 T Jon agrees with the interpretation in Midrash Psalms 3:3: 581 Jonathan replied: 111'i::l means the small villages which were destroyed in the time of Sisera (~iO'O '1.J'::J 1::Jintv nm!lpi1 nn"lli1), but which, when Deborah arose, became mother-cities in Israel.

This Amoraic tradition, inasmuch as it is attributed to R. Samuel ben Nal:_imani, a third generation Amara from Palestine, bears no actualisation in it. In this respect a saying attributed to R. Oshaia, a Palestinian Amora of the first generation, in bPes. 87b (par. SER, 54), provides a closer parallel, linking mi::i in Judg. 5:11 to the dispersion among the nations. The interpretation is based upon metathesis, reading p·g:i582 rather than 111'i::l. 583 TJon shares this interpretation in 5:7: 11i1'i'i i?t!l?t!l~1. 584 The emphasis in T Jon lies in the fact that the villages, 585 once inhabited, are desolate now that their inhabitants are driven out. There is reason to assume the translation in TJon reflects the demographical situation in Palestine soon after the devastating defeat of Bar Kokhba. Among the manifold consequences of the revolt and its subjugation, the demographical factor stands out as the most pressing one. Many Jewish settlements vanished completely. Having suffered a great blow by the Romans, the population of Palestine 579 0nly LXXR and Pesh come close to TJon with XCY.'WlXOUV'tE~, "the inhabitants", supported by Syrh, and ~ (rural country) respectively. Vg follows B or L, which seem to base their interpretations on the similarity of ]1tiEl to t:l'Jli in 5:3 (Barthelemy, Critique textuelle, 79). A connection with liEl in Hab. 3:14, as P.C. Craigie, "Some Further Notes on the Song of Deborah", VT 22 (1972), 350, suggests, is likewise possible on the basis of the Greek equivalent in LXX. Though the LXX is sometimes adduced as evidence for a certain meaning, little attention is paid to the fact that it has different equivalents in 5:11, which suggests the translator and the editors were at a loss. Cf. Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 119, 124. 580 So L.E. Stager, "Archeology, Ecology, and Social History: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah", in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume (Jerusalem 1986} (VT.S, 40), Leiden 1988, 221-234. 581 So P. Weisz, Az aggada Jonathan ben 'Uzziel targumaban, Budapest 1931, 19, 42 n.58. 582 See Jastrow, Dictionary, vol. 2, 1150. 583 So S. Speier, "On mi=i np;~, Judg 5 11", JBL 82 (1963), 216. Yet I do not believe this interpretation has any textcritical value. The metathesis of consonants was an established exegetical technique and need not bear upon the establishment of the correct text. Note that the text is quoted correctly in bPes. 87b. 584 In J, the leaders of the settlements are exiled: F1'i'i 'tD'i 1'?1:!l'?l:!l~1. 585 In B the villages are non-Israelite: ~·n~=i ~'t:lt:lll '1iP. In view of the context in TJon, this reading is hardly original.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

434

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

gradually declined in the 2nd century CE and, due to the economic crisis of the Empire, declined more rapidly in the third century. 586 In Judaea Jews were now a minority. The consolidation of Jewish settlement in Palestine was one of the main concerns of the Sages after the defeat of Bar Kokhba. They tried to counter the wave of migration from Palestine to the East by halakhic degrees and a theological concept of the merit of dwelling in Palestine. 587 Emigration from Palestine was even prohibited, and those who settled outside the land were labelled "idolaters" .588 A direct connection between the failed revolt and migration from Israel is clear in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael iDiin:i 6, attributed to R. Nathan, who taught in Palestine during the last decades of the second century: R. Nathan says: "Of them that love me and keep my commandments" refers to those who dwell in the land of Israel and risk their lives for the sake of the commandments. "Why are you being led out to be decapitated?" "Because I circumcised my son to be an Israelite". "Why are you being led out to be burned?" "Because I read the Torah".

The ban on circumcision and Torah-reading belongs to the core of rabbinic traditions about the Hadrianic persecutions. 589 By the same token R. Nathan praises the effort to stay in Palestine. In this light TJon Judg. 5:11 takes on significance: "There they gave thanks for the righteous acts of the Lord, for the righteous acts of him who lives in the unwalled villages in the land of Israel". This translation reflects the underlying Hebrew text. That is not the case with the following: 590 "Thereupon the people of the Lord went down from the 586 M. Avi-Yonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmuds: In den Tri.gen von Rom und Byzanz (SJ, 2), Berlin 1962, 16ff. 587 tAZ 5:3: "Let a man dwell in the land of Israel, even in a town inhabited mainly by gentiles, rather than outside the land, even in a town that is entirely inhabited by Israelites. This teaches us that dwelling in the land of Israel is as meritorious as the observance of all the precepts of the Torah". See further yKil. 9,4,32c; yKet. 12,3,35b; bKet. 3a; ARN 1:26. Cf. E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1975, vol. 1, 675. 5 B8 tAZ 5:4-5; bBB 91a/b. 589 We need not discuss the historicity of the rabbinic traditions at this point. According to B.Z. Wacholder, "The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael", HUCA 39 (1968), 141-142, this passage bears the stamp of the conditions under Christian emperors, rather than Hadrian, because the Hadrianic persecutions were of limited scope and not so much religious in character. This is untenable. Rabbinic tradition did regard these persecutions as religious ones, and the description quoted here fits perfectly well in the anthology of rabbinic accounts and reflections regarding the Hadrianic persecutions. See P. Schii.fer, Der Bar Kokhba Au/stand, Tiibingen 1981, 207ff. 590 MT: "Thereupon the people of the Lord went down to the gates".

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

435

fortified cities to dwell in the unwalled 591 villages". This movement from fortified cities to rural places592 is praised in a manner like the scribes who remained teaching the Torah during the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt (5:2, 9). In sum, the period shortly after the second revolt against Rome forms the back-ground to T Jon Judg. 5. 593 MT presents Deborah as "a mother (Cl~) in Israel" who stood up ('noptz.i). 594 In TJon she is a messenger commissioned "to prophesy within 595 the house of Israel" .596 Once more the notion of prophecy is introduced (cf. 5:3), and it is closely related to Deborah's function as a leader. The terms of description resemble the appearance of the prophet in 2:1, 4. 597 ~i·:::i..im~ :::i.•ipoi 1nin ~nun~? n?::io? ?~itv' n•:i i~'.tlin~ ,~ 8 5 ,,~, 11i1'1ipo 11J111~1 ~·oo.tl 11i1'?.tl in~ 11i1m:::i.~ 11i1:::i. ipo.tln~ ~?i

1'0'1r1 '1n~ i1'0.tl1 i1~JO 11i1'?.tl ~n~ 1~1 11i1? 1?'~' ~? ~r1'11~? 1:::ln1 :?~itv':::l ~:::i.ip ~m~? i?·~· ~? rirvo 'tv'1 r::i?~ 1' .tl:::l1~:::l rnoii 5:8 When the House of Israel took delight in serving new idols, 0 made only recently, 598 which had not been taken notice of by their fathers, then the nations came up against them and expelled them from their cities. But when they returned to the law, they could not overpower them, so that when the hater came against them, and with him those bearing shields and spears among forty-thousand army commanders, 591 H

reads ]'i' .Ill for ~·n::£::i. Gen. 47:21 in the PT's where both the move from cities to countryside and the vice versa are introduced in the text as an indication of "wandering" and exile. 593 In SER, 54(explaining1Jli:l as "scattering" the Israelites among the peoples) "the righteous acts" of the villagers consist of small towns proceeding to build a synagogue and an academy, spreading the houses of learning over Eretz Israel, as is said: "Then the people of the Lord went down to the gates", that is: the gates of learning. The feeling of acute danger and stiff oppression in TJon is absent here. 594·The first person singular, supported by Pesh (r1 1:::ln 1::>1 612 Nn•i1N 613 1:JJ.)O'? 1::in1 614 11;:,1 Nn'i1N 1:JJ.)O'? 1::in 1::>1

Ash Kiml;ti

MS H 2 Kiml;ti

cinn ?::>o pJ•::>1in1 l1n•::i::i1 •'?J.):J ':JJ.) PJ'N l1i1':::l:::l1 •':JJ.):J ':JJ.) l1J'N

TJon 3 Sef Ash MSH Kiml;ti

liii'? pn? l1i1'?

1?•::>• 1?•::>• 1?•::>•

N'? N'?1 615t1;'?

t:JJ.)10 l1i1'?

1:JJ.)•O'? 1'?•::>•

l:JN1 N'?1

TJon 4 Sef Ash MSH Kiml;ti

i1NJO i1NJO i1NJO i1NJO i1NJO

TJon 5 l':l'?N Sef Ash

MSH MSC Kiml;ti

l':l'?N l':l'?N l':l'?N l':l'?N

TJon 6 Sef

NiO'O N10'0 N10'0 l'J.):::liN:::l l'J.):::l1N:::l l'J.):::liN:::l

pn•'?J.) l1i1''?J.) pn•'?J.) l1i1''?J.)

NnN NnN 616p•?o1 p•?o1 NnN

':JJ.)1tz1'1 tl;J.)jtl; 1::>1 1::>1 617 i:::lm'N1 1J.) i:J)n'N 1::> 1::>1

rno11 l'O'in '1nN i1'0J.)1

l'i~J.):::l

l'J.):::liN:::l J.):JiN i1NO

rnoi1 ro•in '1nN i1'0J.)1 i1'0J.)1

1'?•::>• N'?

1'?•::>• N'?1

NP'J.)01 NP'J.)01 NP'J.)01 NP'J.)01

l'itDO 'rD'i

Ash

MSH MSC Kiml;ti

1i::im•t1; 11:::lmN

l':l"O '1n1N l':l'?N rn?n::i1

l'i'tDO 'rD'i l'i'tDO 'rD'i l"itVO 'tV'i

l].i, incompletely recorded by Sperber, is adduced on the basis of Cohen, mt111pc

m',i1), 109.

611 X agrees with the plus in the Sefardi tradition. M reads i1'::l.!ln', see Chapter Two. 612 So HBCNJQ. Xw, however, agree with Sef. 613 This reading is attested by HNQw, but not by XBCJ which agree with TJon and Sef: ~n·1i111',. 614 Except for N. Similarly, N and B* read i::in with Sef. am1m lack ~',i ...i::in 1::ii

,,'::l'.

615 B

reads ~',1. am1mN*Q. B lacks the lemma, and N° had: p•',o. 617 So BCQ. Gm: 1::im1111 1.!l; N: i1::i)n't111 1.!l; F: i1::i)nt111 1].!l(; J: 1::l. 616 So

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

Sef 7 Ash MSH MSC Kiml;ri

5

439

J'El'O J'El'O r:no 't!:!PJ re:i'?~ rwonJ1 rno1i J'El'O J'El"O

•in~ ]'El'?~ •im~ ]'El'?~

]'WOnJ

•im~ re:i'?~ r.vJi~J1 •im~ ]'El'?~ rwonJ 'i'n~

Kiml;ti only: Sef 8 Ash MSH Sef 9 Ash MSH

•in~ re:i'?~ r .VJtDJ1 •in~ re:i'?~ r.vJtvJ1 ·iJ.v re:i'~ r .vJtvJ1 ;i~o ;i~o

;i~o

.vtvno iJ .vtvno iJ .vtvno iJ

rnoi •in~ re:i'?~ rn'tvJ rnoi •im~ re:i'?~ rntvJ ~J"1tv 'tll1J'? •in~ re:i'?~ rntliJ1 618

~·iiJ ~·iiJ

~'1'J

i1' 0.1' i1'0.V r'?~ '?::; 620 •;i1:;•ni1 ;i•o.v 'i11:>'ni 1'?·~

Sef 10 Ash MSS GmlmN MS H

r'?~ '?::; r'?~ '?::;

TJon 11 Sef 11 Ash MSS GmlmN MSH Kiml;ri

~m~'? ~m~'? ~m~'?

op•o'? op•o'?

~m~'?

TJon 12 Sef Ash MSS Gm1mN i1'0' .Vi MSH i1'0' .Vi Kiml;ri

1'?':>' ~" 1'?':>' ~" 1'?':>' ~" 1'?':>' ~" 1'?':>' ~'?1

1mi i1~1i1i

619

;i~mi

~n·itvo

~n·itvo ~nJJ'i

~iJJ re:i'?~

riJ'J re:i'?~

'JOnJ ro•in ponJ ro•in rmnJ1 ~Jip

·~~no re:i'?~ -~~no re:i'?~ ·~~no re:i'?~

~itv.v ~itv.VJ

~'?T1Ji r:>ni ~'?T1Eli r:>ni ~'?T1Eli ]'::Jn1

'?T1Eli r:>ni

r'~

'?:;1

r'~

'?:;1

1'?·~1

621

~·e:i'?~

i1'0' .vi ~·e:i'?~ ~·e:i'?~

'?~itv':J ~Jip '?~itv':J ~Jip '?~itv':J ~Jip

tiip1 piJ tiip i11Ji1 piJ tiip '?~itv':J ~Jip

The following translation is based on H: And when they returned to keep the law, they prevailed over their enemies. And they expelled them from the whole territory of the land of Israel. But even when he, Sisera, the hater and the oppressor, prevailed, of rno; and ]'O'in appear in J and am. JQ. BCN, however, agree with Sef. 620 am adds c:Jll. 621 Text quoted after N. am breaks up after c:ipo'?, while 1m has some orthographic variant readings as well as an apparent error in the penultimate word: 618 Transposition 619 So

[... ]~~'?.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

440

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

and went up against them with twenty thousand army commanders and with thirty thousand swordbearers and with forty thousand spearbearers and with fifty thousand holding shields and with sixty thousand dressed in suits of armour and with seventy thousand warriors and with eighty thousand archers, apart from nine hundred iron chariots-his own chariots, [all] these thousands and these myriads were not able to stand before Barak and Deborah with the ten thousand champions that were with him.

Though the versions share a common text, the differences stand out far more clearly than in the case of the Palestinian Targum to Judg. 5:4-5 (see above). TJon is itself non-literal, yet sticks to the Hebrew word order in 8b. Contrariwise, the Toseftas invert the order of "shield" and "spear", and the 'haftarah'-text goes its own way at the end of the verse. C mostly agrees with the Ashkenazi text-type, except for two conspicious pluses in lines 5-6 which agree with T Jon. Presumably some copyist merged the Tosefta and T Jon, which suggests the Tosefta was originally not incorporated into the running text. H, likewise belonging to the Ashkenazi family, 622 contains the longest version. For several reasons it must represent the youngest text-type. In line 2 it inserts a phrase which corresponds literally to T Jon Judg. 5:2, because it takes up the theme of 'prevailing', which refers to Sisera in the other versions. This resulted in some modifications to line 3: 1m'? i'?'J' ~'? had to be dropped, and t"j~I written instead. The appearance of Sisera is not what one would expect after the quotation of 5:2, stating that the Israelites prevailed because they had returned to the Law. As we saw in 5:4 (concerning the gap between the fifth and seventh commandment in TN and FT, filled out with the sixth commandment by the Midrash), H fills in the missing numbers. 623 The sequence follows the shorter version: first swordbearers, spearbearers and shieldbearers are mentioned, with different numbers. Then men dressed in coats of mail and warriors (footsoldiers?) are added, to conclude with the fixed total of eighty thousand archers. The reference to miracles and wonders is unique to the Sefar di tradition (line 1). Whether or not this reference is original, can hardly be decided. As we observed in the case of 5:3 and 5:5, the scribes often felt free to add or subtract from the Toseftas, so that neither reduction nor expansion can be excluded. However, it does attest to 622 See especially lines 1, 4-5. The correspondence between H and Sef in line 11 over against Ash, may go back to an error in Ash. 623 Twenty, thirty and fifty (lines 6-7, change of number in line 5).

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

441

the freedom of handling the tradition. Due to homoioarcton, 624 the Sefardi tradition lacks the words 1'1tvl'J 'tv'1 r::i?~ in line 6. Both features 625 are shared by the gloss in w, which appears to be based on a Sefardi MS. 626 All in all, the Sefardi and Ashkenazi types are very close (see lines 8-10, 12). Pluses of the Ashkenazi version in lines 4-5 and a 'substitution' 627 in line 11, point out that the Ashkenazi and Sefardi text-types are independent developments from a common text. The reading of GmimN agrees with the Ashkenazi version up to line 10, and clearly belongs to that family. Line 12 deserves particular attention, since it substitutes the Hebrew by a quotation from Judg. 4:6, 10 and identifies the protagonists (so also H). 628 This line lays stress on the minority position of Barak's troops, and completes the numerical play. This treatment enables us to appreciate the freedom with which the targumic tradition could be modified. Finally Kimlµ's version. In line 1 it agrees with the Ashenazic type, in 2 with H, in 4 mostly with the Sefardi family (with pluses) and with T Jon, though placed in the wrong position between lines 7 and 8. His text seems to be mixed. The reading r::i?~ i1~1'J ll:::l1~ (line 5) is supported by a gloss in K (f1 ). A second variant reading under the heading of~" J, written in Km, but unnoticed by Sperber, 629 reads 1"::l'O for 1'0'1n. This corresponds to the Tosefta, and may demonstrate how variant readings were selectively quoted in the margin of this valuable codex. The date of 'the' Tosefta can hardly be guessed, nor its provenance. The expression ~'11J '~~nl'J, is unlike PT Isa. 10:32 and T Jon in various places, rnrvp '1JJ 630 and seems to be a hapax legomenon. 631 624 In view of the sequence 40-50-60-70-80 thousand, followed by 900, the absence of 50 seems unlikely unless ]'itDO 'tD'i ]'El'?~ did not belong to the 'original' Tosefta, and was imported from TJon. Since this suggestion cannot be substantiated, it seems safest to assume a scribal mistake. 625 The main difference between w and Sef is the former's reading ~n'i1~ 1::lDO'? in line l. 626 w contains two words with sublineair pointing (see Sperber's edition). In 5:3, 11 and 16 w's glosses also belong to the Sefardi text-type. 627 Given the agreement between the 'Haftarah'-texts and Ash, i1'0'D1 seems to be secondary. 628 H is especially keen on identifying Deborah, Barak and Sisera: 5:19, 21, 30, 31 (only in H). Cf. 5:3, 23. See A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums (TSAJ, 27), Tiibingen 1992, 12. 629 Contrast P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipzig 1872, xi. 630 Levy, CWT, vol. 2, 88 and add: TN gloss to Gen. 21:20. 631 Cf. Levy, CWT, vol. 1, 278; Jastrow, Dictionary, vol. 1, 496. The word is not listed in Sokoloff, DJPA; Tai, c:nnni1 ]1tv'?, does not discuss it.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

442

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

The Sefardi version has two readings, 1:m 1::J1 and ~'?l'i:::l1 (lines 1, 10) which belong to T Jon's dialect, where the other versions read the Palestinian forms 1:::in1 11::J1 and (~)'?ii5:l1. 632 However, TJon itself breaks the rules with 1:::in1 11::J1, so it is impossible to decide which reading is original. Yet the correspondences between T Jon and the Tosefta render a connection likely. 633 ~n·irvo r'?~ '?::;1 ~·::i'?~ r"~ '?::; in lines 10-11 seem to sum up the Tosefta in order to recapture the final words of TJon: '?~itv':::l ~:lip ~m~'? 1'?•::;• ~'? (rrvo). Further, the expansion with warriors and numbers recalls how midrashic traditions (discussed in connection with Judg. 5:4-5) filled in the gaps. Part of the expansion is derived from Judg. 4:2: the nine hundred chariots of Sisera. For these reasons the Tosefta appears to be dependent upon T Jon. The function of the Tosefta is intriguing. In comparison with TJon, it emphasises the overwhelming superiority of the enemy which is already present in T Jon in a less exaggerated form. In the versions of GmimN and H, the contrast with Barak's forces is made explicit. Apparently these stories comforted those who heard them, and appealed in a direct and most welcome way to their faith in the one-time victory of Israel. It agrees with the Toseftas to 5:3, 11 and 16, which deal with different aspects of a war situation. 634 The setting in life, therefore, is most likely the synagogue. The Tosefta's characteristics as a translation are striking. It shows remarkable freedom when dealing with the Hebrew word order, especially in the versions of GmimN and H as we saw. In view of what we observed in Chapter Two this comes as no surprise. In Tos. 5:3 we noticed how the latter part of the verse followed 5:9 rather than 5:3. This characteristic differs sharply from T Jon proper. nii1 1::;1 '?~itv' 'i::io'? ~n:::irv'? ~n·'?rv ~)~ i1~1::i.)::i. i1i1::i.1 ~io~ g 5 •n::i.::i. r:::in•1 1m'? ·~· 11)1 ~r1'i1~::i. tvi10'?0 1po::i ~'? ~'i1i1 ~npJJ :•1• c:np pm1 1''.:Ji:::l01 ~r1'i1~ •om::i ~0.l) n• r::i'?o1

•'?j tv'i::i.

~ntv')::J

Dalman, Gmmmatik, 50; cf. Sokoloff, DJPA, 445. Targum Jonathan, 128, argues this Tosefta belongs to the margin of 5:2, and not 5:8 ("there can not be the slightest doubt ... "). This probably occured to him in view of the similarity between 5:2 and 8 (both read: pi7''?ll in~ ~n·ii~ i::ivr.i'? i::in ;;:,i ]li1'iipr.l p~iii~i ~'r.lr.lll). Yet the repetition of a theme does not by itself substantiate his view. Moreover, the motif of different types of weaponry as well as the number of warriors in the Tosefta must be derived from 5:8 and the very theme itself fits well in a verse pondering on the apostasy of the Israelites. 634 With a chiastic structure: in 5:3 and 16 the enemy and the traitor are rebuked, in 5:8, 11 there is wonder and amazement about the miracles of God. 632 Cf.

633 Churgin,

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

443

5:9 Deborah said in prophecy: "I am sent to praise the scribes of Israel who, when this distress occurred, did not cease to expound the law and who, when it was proper for them, sat down openly0 in the synagogues635 and taught the people the words of the law and blessed and gave thanks before0 the Lord.

The translation recalls 5:2 and 5:3 with its allusion to brave Sages, adding that Deborah was speaking prophetically. The emphasis on the prophetic character of the words Deborah spoke-she is identified as the speaker in T Jon-contrasts with rabbinic opinions as we saw earlier. 636 Nevertheless, the contrast between T Jon and rah binic opinions should not be overestimated. Deborah's prophecy serves to legitimate the prominent role of the "scribes" as leaders commissioned by God to fulfill their agency. It is not far-fetched to assume the praise of this group of leaders belongs to the transitory period of one of the two great revolts, when the rabbis championed the claims of the royal and priestly classes in their aspirations to power. 637 The connection with one of the revolts and the present translation is seen in the reference to ~'i1i1 ~np.v and the defiant stance of the scribes. The Hebrew song states that Deborah's heart "is with the commanders of Israel": ?~iiD' •ppin? •:::i?. Her "heart" has become the personal pronoun 'I' ,638 and the •ppin are equated with the scribes639 by way of actualisation. 640 The remainder of 5:9 is translated as the third translation found in 5:2. Since we found 5:2 to comprise different translations and traces of reinterpretation, it is important to address the differences between 5:9 635 AWM

as well as edition 'o' read':::!:::! for 'n:::i:::i. my comments in connection with TJon Judg. 5:3. 637 See esp. S.A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, Cambridge 1990. 638 Cf. the substitution underlying the equation of p'? (Deut. 1:1) to ]tV5:1J in SifDev §1 (contrast M. Maher, "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Deuteronomy 1.18", in: D.R.G. Beattie, M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible, Sheffield 1994, 273). 639 As a rule, the piel participle of ppn is equated with either tli15:10 or ti:=:i'?r.:i. See PT's and TO Gen. 49:10; Num. 21:18; Deut. 33:21; TJon Isa. 33:22. TJon Judg. 5:14 is an exception. However, the qal, as in Judg. 5:9, is usually rendered by t:ltli1 or 11~: Isa. 10:1; 30:8; 49:16; Ezek. 4:1; 23:14; npn: Ezek. 8:10; 23:14; 1 Kgs. 6:35. Another exception, due to its context, is found in Isa. 22:16. 640 So G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Leiden 2 1973, 49-55. According to proem 16 in EkhaR this word applies to the Sanhedrin. Pesh preserves a similar interpretation: i top twice. 793 HALAT, 206: "Jagen"; Konig, HA WAT, 67: "Galoppspriinge". It is attractive to assume the repetition of nni11 in imitation of the sound of a gallop, as Moore, Judges, 161 suggests. Pesh loosely paraphrases: ,m~~!f ~!I rni in his 1n:i p~, according to W. Bacher, "Notes on the Critique of the Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

470

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

pi.l)o'? in~ ~'? ,,~ ~;i~n· n• ii~ni ,~,i,

,,,,

~·~J io~

nio ,~,i, 23 5

:~·i~J~ ~~ip n·;~ i;:, '1'1 i1'0.l) p1.l)O'? '1'1 i1'0.l)

5:23 "Curse Meraz!", the prophet0 of the Lord said, "Curse and shatter its inhabitants for they did not come to the help of the people of the Lord, to the help of the people of the Lord when it waged war against the champions!"

The sudden introduction of the i11i1' 1~'?0 turns out to be a prophet in TJon, as we already observed above on 2:1. The reason for the equation of "angel" with "prophet" in this particular verse may have been the question whether an angel was supposed to have the prerogative of cursing. In the Western Tradition, the prophet is identified with Barak by a plus: pi~ ~·~J io~. 798 In fact, the introduction of Deborah would have made more sense, for Barak is not designated as a prophet in MT. Yet the reception of Judg. 4-5 clearly reflects the embarrassment about the subordinate position of Barak to Deborah. 799 This gloss marks a similar feeling in targumic reception, but does not appear to be original. 800 The rule of 'no redundancy' seems to be operative in the translation of the verb 11~, "curse", which appears three times in 5:23. Twice it is translated literally, the third instance is represented by the verb i~n. In rabbinic discussions about excommunication (l:lin), this word is taken to justify the pronouncement of either a '11'J 801 or Text of the Targum of the Prophets", JQR 11 (1899), 653, which recalls the variant reading in HBJQ quoted above. Interesting is also ]ii1'i:lJ, shared by Eb66 and Gx AHJ. B0 shares this reading with an error: ]ii1'i:l'.ll. However, B* agrees with the majority reading which shows that corrections of the Targum may have been based on a different manuscript tradition. The plural suffix does not correspond to MT, but it does to ]ii1n1010 and it seems necessary in HBJ in view of the Ashkenazi expansion. 798 GxHBCNJWMOS. The formula in J recalls 2:1: "' 'ip )r.l n•'?tz.li ~":ll. WM have the noun i1~'::ll. 799 See L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Deborah", in A. Caquot (ed.), Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Paris 1986, 115-128; P.W. van der Horst, "Portraits of Biblical Women in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", in idem, Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity (NTOA, 14), Freiburg 1990, 111-122; C.A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women, Louisville (KY) 1992. In LXX 4:8, we observed, a reason for Barak's half-hearted attitude was provided. Josephus spends few words to Deborah, and tries to conceal her importance. In Hebr. 11:32, the episode of Judg. 4-5 is attributed to Barak only. On rabbinic literature, see above (5:3): bMeg. 14b; bPes. 66b; bShevu. 36a (quoted in note 801 below). 800 See esp. below, on 5:24, cf. 5:3 and 26 as well. 801 bShevu. 36a: "A Tanna taught: i1i~ may imply excommunication ('1i'l), Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

471

a ~notzi. 802 The repetition in MT was explained accordingly. In the continuation of the curse the prophet states the reason for the verdict: Meroz did not come ii1i1' nir .lJ?, "to the aid of the Lord" . The targumist supplies a noun: '1'1 ii'O.lJ p1.lJO?, "to the help of the people of the Lord". The plus is a comment on MT that helping the Lord meant joining his people in keeping with a Tannaitic exposition of 5:23. 803 However, in view of TJon 5:13 804 it is possible that the targumist consciously avoided the notion that God needs any help. 805 In the last phrase, the connection with the war is made explicit in the plus: ~:::iip n'j~ ,,_ ~·wm ~,n, ii~o?tv

i:::in nn~ '?.lJ' ~n:::it!l ~·tvJ n'i:::io ii:::inn 24 5 :11:::mn rwiio •n:::i:::i FDOiV01

5:24 Let Jael, the wife of Heber the Shalmaite, 0 be blessed with the blessing of the good women! Let she be blessed like one of the women who serve in the houses of study!

Jael is blessed above the women: ?.lJ• t:l'tDJQ ii:::in, repeated at the end of the verse: ii:::in ?ii~:::l t:J'tDJO. T Jon retains this wording but indicates that J ael was blessed "by the blessing of the good women" , in other words, "as one of the women that are serving in the houses of study". According to a current interpretation, 806 MT ?ii~:::l, "in the tent" is substituted by 1'iD110 •n:::i:::i. This actualisation served a propaganda aim inasmuch as it claims an ancient pedigree for a relatively novel institution, which constituted the kernel of the rabbinic curse, or oath. Excommunication, as it is written: 'Curse Meroz', said the angel of the Lord, 'curse bitterly the inhabitants thereof'. And Ulla said: 'With four hundred blasts of the trumpet did Barak annonce the ban (il'nr.:itv) over Meroz' ". 802 bMQ 16a: "Whence do we derive that we [may] pronounce a 'shammetha'? -From the text: "Curse Meroz". Whence do we derive that it must be according to the considered opinion of some prominent person? -From the text: "said the angel of the Lord". And whence do we derive that we pronounce the ban? -From the text: 'Curse a cursing''·'. 803 Siffiam §84; MekhY ~n""l'tD 6: "And if one helps Israel it is as if he helped Him by whose word the world came into being, as it is said: 'Curse Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, Curse bitterly the inhabitants thereof because they did not come to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty ones'". 804 "Lo! This was not by [their] strength, only the Lord, before his people, shattered the power of the champions of their haters!" Cf. LXX A 5:23: o'tt oux 7\),0oaotv el~ 'tTjV ~o1j0etotV xuplou ~oTj'to~ Tjµwv xupw~ E\I µotXTJ'toti~ OU\lot'tO~, "Because they did not come to the help of the Lord, our Help is the Lord among the strong warriors". See Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 76, 93, 97. 805 Cf. 5:31 and the discussion there. 806 Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 6, 274.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

472

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

life style, though most of the ordinary people had little to do with it. 807 A small though important difference between MT and TJon is the substitution of the preposition 1~ in tl'tVm, twice used in the comparative degree, by the preposition' in ~·tvm ~in,. Note, however, that T Jon still retains the preposition 1~ in both cases and thus preserves the Hebrew wording as close as possible. Yet the resulting modification agrees with a rabbinic tradition: 808 R. Nachman ben Isaac said: "A transgression with good intent is more meritorious than the performance of a commandment with no intent, for it is said: 'Blessed above the women shall Jael be, the wife of Heber the Kenite. Above the women in the tent shall she be blessed'". Who are the 'women in the tent'? Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah. But this is not so! For did not Rab Judah say in the name of Rab: Let a man always engage in Torah and the performance of commandments even though his motive may be ulterior, because even ulterior motive will ultimately lead to disinterested [study and performance]? Say, 'Like the meaningless performance of a commandment"'.

According to the normative opinion, the mentioned transgression is as meritorious as the mentioned performance. 809 The merit of performance in T Jon consists of 'ministering in the houses of study', an innocent occupation according to most scholars. Women were, as Smolar and Aberbach point out, restricted in public service, at least as reflected by the Rabbis. 810 However, this interpretation is open to challenge. As observed already in Chapter Two, in H the women do not serve in the study houses but they i!~'?~? 1'1"1~1, "come to pray" and L, moreover, offers a literal translation. 811 The variant readings betray sensitivity concerning what women were actually doing in the study houses, and that their activity did not consist of doing the housekeeping. 812 If Jacob is said to to have served in the 807 Cf.

bYoma 28b. Contrast BerR 63:6. lOb (par. bNaz. 23b). 809 Not all Sages seem to have appreciated Jael's transgression. Her intentions were not pure according to a saying attributed to R. Jochanan: "That profligate [Sisera] had seven sexual connections at that hour, for it is said: 'Between her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay' etc. (Judg. 5:27). But surely, she enjoyed the transgression!" 810 Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 109. 811 With the beginning of the usual reading in its margin. See further in chapter 2.6.4. 812 So rightly B.J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (BJSt, 36), Chico (CA) 1982, 86. However, the priestly connotation of iVOiV is less relevant. See below. 808 bHor.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

473

houses of study, ~p1,i'J ':::l:::l tDi'JtDi'J, in TPsJ Gen. 25:27, 813 no one will assume he cleaned it up. The merit of these women apparently consists of their Torah learning, 814 on a par with "the merit of the study houses in which Israel your father served" (TN Num. 24:5). In other words, these women are put on a par with the patriarch Jacob, 815 the only difference being that their study was regarded as the performance of a commandment 'with no intent', probably a voluntary performance. Interestingly, bHor. lOb connects the "tent-women" with the four matriarchs: Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, 816 and Komlosh argues that TJon refers to them as well, 817 though there is no reason to assume that T Jon alludes to the matriarchs in particular, instead of contemporary women. However this may be, T Jon allows women to assume important functions, as the interpretations of 5:3, 7 and 24 demonstrate. In this respect, TJon Judg. 5 stands closer to PseudoPhilo's LAB than to rabbinic literature. •m?.v 'i1m' .vi n·~ ti~

.v,rJ?

i1'n' n~·ptv~ ~:::i?n ;m• ?·~tv ~·rJ 25 5

:rJ:::i,, ]i'JtD 'i11rJ,p? n:::i•ip ~'1:::l) '""El:::l

5:25 He asked her for water, she gave him milk to drink so as to learn whether he had any lust. In a champions' bowl she brought creamed milk to him. 818

The translation of this verse illustrates in small details the method of translation in T Jon. MT ?~tzi tl'i'J is supplemented with the indirect object i1n', and MT iiJnJ :::i?n with i1'n'. In the Western tradition, 819 the first subject is explained in the supplement: ~ll'tD1 ~10'0, "wicked Sisera". Similarly, MT ii:::l'1Pi1 is supplied with a prepositional phrase: 'i11rJ,p?.

T Jon contains a plus directly following upon the statement that

813 See

TN:

further TPsJ Num. 24:5. TO Gen. 25:27 reads: ~lei'?1~ n':::i tv'1:ltv1:l, and

~tv11r.i

814 Cf.

'n:::i:::i :::i'n'.

the bewailed daughter discussed by S.C. Reif, "Codicological Aspects of Jewish Liturgical History", BJRL 75 (1993), 151-155. 815 For similar credentials of women, of the same rank as the patriarchs, in LAB, see note 799 above. 816 So also bNaz. 23a; BerR 48:15. 817 Komlosh, t:m1ni1 11~:::i i11p1:li1, 290. Contrast Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 109 n. 291. 818 The Hebrew i1~1:ln is specified as ]'l:::l'1 ]1:ltD. Cf. Levy, CWT, vol. 1, 123; vol. 2, 493. Cf. Tg Ps. 55:22. According to Moore, Judges, 165, it is neither butter nor cream, but sour milk. In the editions band r, the last word is preceded by ~:J1J. 819 So GxlmWMOS. BCNQ read: ~ll'tv1 ~10'0 i1l'1:l for i1n'. H reminds of the Tosefta-targum to 5:8 and 11: ~P'll1:l1 i1~l0 ~10'0 i1l'1:l. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

474

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

Jael gave him milk: "to learn whether he had any lust" .820 This exegetical plus provides the answer to the question why Jael gave him milk though he had only asked for water, and therefore harmonises an apparent contradiction. At the same time the plus reflects the sexual interpretation of 5:27, current in rabbinic literature. 821 It was believed Jael gave the breast to Sisera. 822 In the light of this interpretation, it is significant that Jael is said to have probed Sisera's mind to find out whether he had any lust. 823

i1'nna

roi:i~i

1'.lJ'tV1 i::ma? ~n::in~? i1:1'0'1 nt!l'tV1~ ~nJo? i11' 26 5 :i1' .!Ji~:::i ni:::i.!J~ i1'ma n.!J::i i1'tV'1 ni:::in ~io'o?

5:26 She reached out her hand for a tent peg and her right hand for a hammer-to shatter0 the wicked and the robbers. She struck it on Sisera, she shattered 0824 his head, crushed his brains, pierce

~'?:in'? ~'O'J 1t!ln, "the staff-of-miracles to destroy all rebels". 828 Unusual in T Jon is the construction ~io•o'? i1'nnai, "she struck him, Sisera". Possibly ~io•o'? is a gloss to identify the protagonist. 829 MT ;i::mai, "and shattered" is supplied with an object: i1'n10 n.v::i, "she crushed830 his brains", creating a better parallel with "she shattered his head" and "pierced his temple". 831 The Western Tradition and w1 preserve a Tosefta-Targum:

:::i•n:>i ~a na"pi ;i~a'?rv i:::in nn~ '?.v•'? ;i:::iit!l ~n::ioin 'Jip•n:::i i:::iJ 1pn• ~i,, ~nn~ '?.v i:::iJi 1'T ppn 'i1' ~'? ;irvai ~n·ii~i :iam nt!l'tvi~ ~n:>o'? i11' 1'i1'?~ ~nn~

~i::io:::i

(Addition:) 832 Mercy to Jael, the wife of Heber the Shalmaite, 0 who fulfilled what is written in the book of the law of Moses: "A man's weaponry will not be worn by a woman and a man will not adorn himself with a woman's equipment". But she reached out her hand for the tent-peg and so forth.

The Tosefta expands T Jon by a verbatim quotation of TO Deut. 22:5: ~n·~ 'Jipn:::i i:::iJ 1pn• ~?i ~n·~ '?.v i:::iJi p 11p•n 'i1' ~'?. 833 Thereby 827 Following Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 91, who refer for gentile ]'01l~, "robbers" to bHul. 94b; bBB 45a; yKid. 1,4,60c; TJon Isa. 5:7; 29:20; Jer. 6:6; Hos. 6:8. 828 Klein, The Fragment-Targums According to their Extant Sources (AnBib, 76), Rome 1980, vol. 1, 71; cf. idem, Genizah manuscripts, vol.1, 238-239. 829 As a rule, the object of this verb is either a pronominal suffix or any object marked by n'. 830 GxGRmNmJqm read nll~El, Gm and r i1.ll~El. 831 Alternatively, i1'n10 may be regarded as a double translation of tlitn. The variant reading p'nio in A is a corruption. Yet it definitely is not the targumic equivalent of MT i1pi, as argued by G.R. Driver, "Problems of Interpretation in the Heptateuch", in Melanges bibliques rediges en l'honneur de Andre Robert (TICP, 4), Paris (no date), 73. In ShemR 15:22 rno is interpreted as slaying:

il)'ii1.

832 This

word appears only in WM and Sperber's edition. Gm the Tosefta is written in the margin of 5:24. A later hand corrected this with the words: in''? i11' !:l1(:iin]. In Gx, however, the Tosefta is still incorporated in the running text of 5:24, after the word: m~o'?tD. One haft.arah-MS collated by Praetorius also attests to 5:24 as its position: see Praetorius, Das Targum zum Buch der Richter in jemenischer Uberlieferung, Berlin 1900, 56. See further above, Chapter 2.6.1. 833 In

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

476

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

TJon emphasises that Jael's action corresponds to halakhic ruling. 834 As a consequence, the Tosefta is at odds with T Jon Judg. 5:24 and the dictum attributed to R. Nahman ben Isaac in bNaz. 23b and bHor. lOb, which both imply that Jael's action was 'a transgression with good intent'. Hence, Jael's action did not correspond to the halakhah. The point which the Tosefta makes seems to be a secondary use of a different ruling, inasmuch as the Talmudic discussion of this halakhah in bNaz. 58b-59a835 (reflecting Tannaitic arguments), was primarily directed against men who shaved both their armpits and private parts, and used cosmetics. As a corollary to that dictum, the other half of the verse was taken as a prohibition against women bearing arms. To say, then, that Jael fulfilled what is written in the law because she used a tent-peg must have been directed against those who argued that women might bear weapons of war, on the basis of Jael's precedent. According to Levine, the expansion argues against Zealote women being active in the First Revolt against Rome, by diverting the appraisal of Jael's killing to her halakhic behaviour. 836 Whether or not this particular period is intended, must remain an open question. ]1.~n .!i1::l1 1n~:::i

'?m

.!i1::l ~i1'?n r:::i :::l'::ltll

'?m

.!i1::l ~i1'?n r:::i 27 5

:~10'0 ~i'i:::l

'?:J:J

5:27 Between her feet he writhed-fell-lay still; between her feet he writhed, he fell. At the place837 where he writhed there Sisem felldespoiled. T Jon explicates the subject of 5:27 by its plus ~10'0, "Sisera". The expression i1''?) 1 r:::i is rendered litterally here, over against TO Gen. 49: 10. 838 T Jon does not imply a sexual interpretation of this particu834 H expands even further: ni::i.ll iir.l l'li'ii ]'ii'?l'I: for ]'ii'?l'li, "but this is what she put through". These pluses demonstrate how fluid the textual state of TJon remained in the Western tradition. 835 See also TO Deut. 22:5 (par. TN, TPsJ); SifDev l'li~n ') §226, attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob; Tos. bEruv. 96b. 836 E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context (BZAW, 174), Berlin 1988, 31 n. 3. Bacher, "Kritische Untersuchungen", 48, suggests this expansion originates from the Palestinian Targum, but he did not recognise that the Tosefta quotes TO. Note the use of l'lin)'O instead of 1'1:1W1 as in PT Judg. 4:21. 837 For MT "'itvl'li::i, see on 2:15. k reads: .ll"'il'li::l, an isolated instance which may have arisen accidentally. Similarly Pesh rn:>, "according to her wisdom" T Jon lays emphasis on the irony of wise princesses deliberating about the delay of Sisera, unaware of his death. The final words are slightly rephrased: i1? i1'10~ :i:rvn, literally "she turned back her words to herself" is represented by: i1? ia•a? ~:::i·na, "she answered, saying to herself". As a consequence, 5:30 comprises the direct speech of Sisera's mother. 854 ~1':::1 1n1 in ?::::>? i1'n':::l1 1:::1J 1':::li1' ~nr:::i 1'J?~a rn:>rva1a ~?i1 30 5 ~11an

•mi

~·i•n.!J

'O:>J

i1'11~

?.!J

p.!J:::i~ ,,,,~

nr:::i ~io•o 01p •m :11:::i1 'i111:::1J Cl1p

5:30 "Are they not8 55 dividing up the spoil that they found? [Are they not] distributing a man and his household to each and everyone [of them], a huge loot to Sisera; a loot of dyed stitching {which is} around his neck, the goods of the wealthy and the objects of desire to his champions, who plundered [them]".

In the Hebrew, 1:::1J rv~i? o•nani oni, "a girl or two for each man" presumably reflects the fate of captive girls as sexual booty. 856 This ~n~·'?tv.

851 BHS does not record the variant reading no::in for mo::in, nor the variation of spelling and punctuation of iil'llln (compare the edition of De Letteris, 1874 with the edition of Snaith, 1970). The question is, whether the verb is singular or plural, with or without suffix (cf. Moore, Judges, 170). Of the six Hebrew MSS which read no::in five read iil'llln, which seems to be singular (B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 vols., Oxford 1776-1780). All versions support the suffix, except for Pesh, but Pesh omits the verb and thus the problem. However, TJon and LXX reflect a plural with third person singular feminine suffix. VetLa and a second translation in LXXL reflect the singular of both subject and verb, supported by Vg and partially Pesh. Do these versions reflect mo::in as if a singular, abstract noun like m::i'?o? 852 N reads: ]'lllO, H reads ]l'l.!lno. 853 TJon Judg. 7:14; 8:8 (2x); 18:14; 19:28; 20:4. 854 K reads: ii'?•o'? ~::i·m:i, "she answered to her own word", and N reads: 10'0'? ii10ti;i ti;::i•nr:i (with a correction, in the margin; Gx agrees as to tl;il:lti;i), while H reads: ]'ii'? iiil:ltl;i ti;:l'nr:i. The plural feminine suffix is also attested by JO and, defectively, Nm WMS, while Q0 reads ]iii'? and T ti;';!. 855 WMS and r do not have ti;'?ii, possibly because the lemma was erroneously considered to represent the Hebrew lemma. 856 Ki:inig, HA WAT, 505; Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 281.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

480

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

blunt speech proved to be too offensive for many a translator and the solutions adopted in the ancient translations follow very similar paths. Pesh arrived at its translation by metathesis, reading ii~n, hence r:J ~imn •mi, 861 "the goods of the wealthy and objects of desire". The expression 'O:>:i ~'1'ii.li, "rich (in) possessions" belongs to T Jon's stock phrases, 862 and probably for that reason this sequence of words is to be found in the Western tradition. 863 And finally MT ??tli '1~i~?, "for the necks of the spoil" (presumably another term for the concubines) is rendered by ir:::ii 'i111:::lJ t:1ip, "to his champions, who plundered [them]". 1ii1'i:::l ~1i1i~? ri'n.li ]iii' 'i1mn1i ,,, l~.li ·~:io ?::> 1ii:::i" p ~10'0:> n:>1itvi ii'nii:::iJ:::i ~tv~tv p::i~:> iin?m ]'.li:::li~ ii~~ n?n in

?.Ii

ii'1P'

:ptv r .1i:::i1~ ?~1tv•i ~.111~

5:31 As Sisera, so will perish all those who hate your people, 0 Lord! And his lovers will be destined to shine in864 the splendour of his 857 Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 108, llO, cf. 98-99. Only Vg and a second translation in LXXL do not use a euphemism for the concubines; nor does LAB 31:1, 8. 858 H reads ~J'?:i? i1'n':::ii l:::l) ?:i? 'l:::l ~10'0 :::li1'. 859 Eb66 reads: '11::>, an error prompted by i1'11::>. 860 It seems that i1'11::> '?.ll is a second (premature) translation of MT 'l~i::.?, with variant suffix. 861 Kimhi has an error: ~·r.ir.i.ll. 862 Cf. TJon Isa. 14:8, 9; 53:9; Ezek. 39:18; Am. 4:1; Zeph. l:ll; Zech. ll:2. The same sequence is to be found in TJon Zech. 11:16. 863 BCT read: ~·o:i'l 'l'n.ll, J reads: ~·o:ii 'l'n.ll and A ~·o:ir.i 'l'n.ll. 864 The reading 11i1'l:::l is to be preferred, over against 11i1'l:l in GxNTWM and MS Heb. d. 6 (Bodleian Library, Oxford). S has an obvious error: imr.i.

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

481

glory three hundred and forty three times more, as865 the sunburst in its power. Now the land of Israel was peaceful for forty years.

The paradigmatic character of 5:31, i11i1' T::l'i~-?:i ii:::i~· p, "so may all your enemies perish, 0 Lord" is reinforced in T Jon, which attests to an eschatological understanding of 5:31 not uncommon in rabbinic literature. In H, the verse opens with a characteristic phrase: io~i m~ i1m o•i•p And a voice from before the Lord was crying and said ...

cip 10 ?pi

The heavenly voice866 and the Greek loanword x.upwc; 867 directly remind us of rabbinic literature. 868 The word is especially used of God in liturgical poetry, according to Sokoloff, 869 who cites five appearances in the Aramaic liturgical poems. This is interesting inasmuch as it points to a liturgical amplification of T Jon Judges 5 in this MS. The supplement clearly highlights T Jon 5:31 with its eschatological overtones. 870 The comparison: "as your enemies" is explained in T Jon by the plus: ~io•o:i, "as Sisera" .871 These enemies have become "all the haters of your people" by a characteristic plus, ~O.!J, 872 which seems to have an explanatory function, namely, those who are God's enemies, hate his people. 873 The targumist hardly intends to remove the personal and direct relationship between God and man, 874 given the 865 HCBJ

read p:i•r.:i:::i. not a '?1p n:::i, cf. PT Judg. 5:5. 867 Known from many other Targums: the acrostic i1t!li.I '?!~ (at latest 4/5th century C.E.), strophe~; TPsJ Num. 11:26; TgJob 3:19; 5:2; TgPs. 53:1; 97:10; 114:7; TN Dent. 32:1; SYAP 2:6, 11:37, 12:5, 14:26, 40:1. 868 See P. Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen im Antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und verwandten Phanomenen (TSAJ, 20), Tiibingen 1989 (who, of course, was not aware of this variant reading). 869 Sokoloff, DJPA, 492. 87 °Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen, 253 emphasises the paranetical function of the 'Bath Qol' motif. 871 FWMOS lack this plus. 872 See also on TJon Judg. 5:23; Isa. 40:3; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:17; 2:15. 873 Cf. Joel 1:7, according to MT: "It has laid waste my vines, and splintered my fig trees". TJon: "It has put the fruits of the vines of my people to desolation, their fig trees to exhaustion". 874 Komlosh, t::mini1 i1~:::l ~ipi.ii1, 291. According to Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 148 the targumist avoids the 'primitive concept' of God's unmediated involvement in war. However, the evidence they adduce is open to correction (Judg. 5:13 !; Josh. 10:14 ?). Contrast TJon Isa. 63:10: "Therefore his Memra turned to be an enemy, and he himself waged war against them". Despite the introduction of ~i.l.ll in TJon Nah. 1:2, it is still God who takes vengeance on 866 Though

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

482

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

literal translation of 1':J.i1ti;1 as "his friends" .875 The explanation of the real object of enmity fits the context of Judg. 5 well, and is even set off by the choice of the poignant equivalent 'ti;JO, taking the place of the standard translation 1:i.:i.1 •'?.!J:i.. 876 The paradigmatic character of 5:31 is especially brought out in the translation of the "lovers" of God as the righteous 877 ones who are destined878 to shine forth in the splendour of his Glory magnified 343 times. The translation is prompted by the comparison between the sunburst in its strength and the "lovers' of God, which evoked the ancient notion of either esoteric or eschatological transformation of the righteous into light. The theological background of this translation has been discussed elsewhere, hence it is only necessary to make a few further observations here. 879 TJon translates ini:i.;:i. ~~~i1nti;~::J1':J.i1ti;1 twice. The first translation equates nti;~ with 1'1;1i1Tti; and ini:i.;:i. ~~~ to i1'1P' 11i1'r. Then a supplement follows, connecting this 'shining' with the motif of 'sevenfold shining' (343 is seven to the third power). The nonliteral translation is closed with a rather literal one: 880 ~tv~tv p::i~:::i i1'r111:J.):J., "as the sunrise in its strength". Both elements of this translation occur in T Jon Isa. 30:26 and 2 Sam. 23:4, even though the Hebrew version of these three passages has little in common. The belief of the righteous shining sevenfold involves the eschatological union with God as light. The righteous may be compared to either the luminaries, the angels, 881 or the Glory of God. This motif has many his enemies: "The Lord is about to take vengeance on the haters of his people". TO shows no difficulty in representing MT literally at this juncture, as Smolar and Aberbach observe themselves (p. 148 n. 125). Therefore the modification is not intended to remove God's participation. 875 Unless the suffix of'moni1 relates to lOll (which would obliterate the incongruence between the second and third personal pronouns in MT). In that case the eschatological expectation would apply to faithful non-Israelites only. Contrast, however, TJon Joel 1:7 (see note 873 above). 876 0nce out of 9 times in TJon Judg. Cf. TJon Nah. 1:2 for MT i~. TJon i1~JO appears in Judg. 5:8, 13, TJon ~:::i:::ii '?'ll:J in 5:2 and 4. 877 The word ~'P'1~ appears in GxHimJQ and TanB. 878 According to J. Ribera Florit, "La funci6n modificadora de 'atid en arameo", AO 5 (1987), 146-149 1'r1ll means "prepared, ready" with varying connotations: (1) certainty, (2) necessity, obligation, (3) proximity. 879 See my paper "On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism", JSJ 26 (1995), 122-144 and the literature cited there. The instructive parallels of MTeh 11:6 and TJon Isa. 41:25, quoted below, came to my attention after completing the afore-mentioned paper. 88 °For this translation technique, see F. Bohl, "Die Metaphorisierung (Metila) in den Targumim zum Pentateuch", F JB 15 (1987), 111-149. 881 See e.g. TJon Zech. 3:7; 1 Sam. 28:13; PT Zech. 4:2; Tosefta 1 Sam. 17:43. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

5

483

parallels in early Jewish literature, from Josephus to the medieval rabbinic Midrashim. 882 However, this concept was highly controversial. When the Sages dropped the literal interpretation, they took the motif as a metaphor. The righteous will then not shine themselves, but merely see or behold the splendour of God's glory. 883 Despite their efforts, the astral interpretation never disappeared completely. The use of Judg. 5:31 in MTeh 11:6 is an instructive example: If the verse is read, "As for the upright, their faces shall shine" (Ps. 11:7), it means that the faces of the upright will become shining orbs in heaven, giving light to the earth. It is the seven companies of the upright who will give light to the world, their faces shining like the sun, like the moon, like the firmament, like the stars, like the lightnings, like the lillies, and like the torches. Like the sun, for it is said, "But they who love him will shine as the sunburst in its strength" (Judg. 5:31).

This interpretation betrays a shift of opinion. By stringing different metaphors together, it illustrates the metaphorical rather than literal character of Judg. 5:31 as various parallels in rabbinic litterature bear out. Yet contrary to these parallels, this text still has the righteous actively participating in the shining themselves. Moreover, they shine in companies of seven, which clearly has a mystical connotation. 884 The astral interpretation also seems to underly T Jon. Traces of it are to be found in the variant readings to TJon Isa. 60:5. 885 Judg. 5:31 886 was applied to the virtuous by Jesus according to Matth. 882 Cf. E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 4, New York 1954, 71-98. 883 Cf. MTeh. 49:1. The 'astral' interpretation of the menorah, still current in the days of Josephus and Philo, was dropped by the rabbis, who even forbade menorahs with seven branches. Cf. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 4, 88; A.-M. Goldberg, "Der siebenarmige Leuchter", ZDMG 117 (1967) 232-246. Archeological finds indeed show a marked decrease of seven branched menoroth for the Tannaitic period. See Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art, 251ff. 884 1 refer to my above-mentioned article for further details and substantiation. 885 ]'ii1ln1 instead of ]'ii1lnm. This tradition allows the righteous of Israel to share actively in the revelation of his eschatological splendour (see Isa. 60:1-2, 1920) whereas the alternative reading of TJon mitigates this by using the passive stem. Cf. BemR 11:5; SifBam §41 (ed. Horovitz, 44); SifZut §6 (ed. Horovitz, 247); Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, vol. 3, 154. 886 Surprisingly, TJon Isa. 41:25 appears to quote TJon Judg. 5:31: "I will openly bring a king who is as strong as the north wind, and he will come as the sunburst in its strength from the east, and I will make him mighty by My Name, ... " In TJon, the 'avenger' is not to come from either the north or the east. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (AramB, 11), 81 mistakenly thinks the king is still portrayed as coming from the north. TJon Isa. 41 is not strongly Messianic, but Isa. 42 is

Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

484

CHAPTER

4:

COMMENTARY

13:43, 887 and to himself in Matth. 17:2. 888 The messianic interpretation of this verse is commonplace in rabbinic literature, as is the notion that the righteous may look forward to the light of salvation. Time and again Judg. 5:31, and similar passages, could be applied to righteous people; to those who suffer, 889 to certain rabbis, 890 to reliable judges, 891 or to the righteous in general.892 TJon shares this pattern of interpretation. 893 His a unique witness to a plus, introducing the moon and Jerusalem: ~1i1'0 11i1'T:::l1 . i1'1P' 11i1'T:::l ~1i1T~? 1','n.lJ 11i1' ~·p·,~ 'i11~nii ,n ?.lJ . c?tVii·~ i1'1P' im'T:::l ~1i1T~? i1,'mn ~tV~tV:ii :i•pni ?·r~, i1'n11:::1J:::l ~tll~tv p::i'~:::l ~n?m r.u:::li~ i1~~ n?n And his righteous lovers will be destined to shine in the splendour894 of his glory-and in the splendour of the moon 895 which goes out and increases and is destined to shine in the splendour of his glory from Jerusalem, like the sun-343 times greater, in the strength of the sunburst. clearly messianic and 41:25 may have been read in connection with this chapter about the "servant". See S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (MHUC, 2), Cincinnati 1974, 59-61. 887 "Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father". 888 "He was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light". Cf. Rev. 21:23 for the Glory of God which will shine in the Kingdom. A transformation of righteous men into glory is explicitly taught by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:35-55), cf. 2 Cor. 3:18. 889 bShabb. 88b: "Our rabbis taught: 'Those who are insulted but do not insult, hear themselves reviled without answering, act through love and rejoice in suffering, of them the Scripture said: But they who love him are as the sun when it goes forth in its might"'. Cf. bYorn. 23a; bGitt. 36b. 89 °bBB. 8b: "And what does Scripture say of the rabbis? Rabina answered: 'They that love him shall be as the sun when it goes forth in its might.'" 891 bB.B. Sb: "'And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament' (Dan. 12:3): this applies to a judge who gives a true verdict on true evidence". 892 bHag. 12a: "But from the wicked their light is withholden" (Job 38:15). And for whom did He reserve it? For the righteous in the time to come, for it is said: 'And God saw the light, that it was good' (Gen. 1:4.), and 'good' means only the righteous, for it is said: 'Say of the righteous that he is good' (Isa. 3:10.) As soon as He saw the light that He had reserved for the righteous, he rejoiced, for it is said: 'He rejoiced at the light of the righteous' (Prov. 13:9)". 893 MT Isa. 5:30: i1'El'1.!l::l ltDn 11ti;1, "And the light is darkened by its clouds". (The last word is a hapax legomenon, cf. HALAT, 836. TJon supports the meaning "clouds".) TJon has a paraphase: ]~ ]10:Jn' ti;'i1i1 ti;n.!ltll:J ]1i1' '1 ti;'p'1~ Cli:J ti;ntll::i Cl1p, "only the righteous who will live in that hour will be hidden from the evil". This idea is already anticipated in TJon 5:20. Cf. TJon Isa. 21:12. 894 The first hand wrote 11i1l:J, but probably corrected the spelling himself. 895 ti;1i1'0 is not Galilean according to Dalman, Grammatik, 48, but it has now also been attested in this dialect: Sokoloff, Dictionary of JPA, 369. Willem Smelik - 978-90-04-49470-1 Downloaded from Brill.com 03/02/2024 03:38:39PM via Western University

JUDGES

485

6

As if to indicate at what point the glossator added, and resumed the original translation, the expansion is positioned in between the two dots in the text of H. This already shows it is dependent on T Jon's standard text, as also appears from the literal quotation: ~1i1T~? i1'1P' 11i1'i:::l. The plus introduces familiar themes. Jerusalem is held to be the place of salvation and the throne of the Messiah in T Jon. 896 Those who have observed his commandments will enjoy the glory of God in Zion according to TJon Isa. 31:9. Sun and moon, the two prominent celestial bodies, are often compared to the righteous. 897 When T Jon Isa. 5:30 identifies 11~ with the ~'P'~, a gloss in K illuminates their nature: ~1i1'01 ~tvotv? r?•no1, "who are likened to the sun and the moon" .898 Finally, the Western gloss899 ~:::i1p 1:::lllO?o is expanded in H with the words: i111:::l11 p1:::i •m•:::i, "in the days of Barak and Deborah". Note that Barak precedes Deborah here. 6 :ptv .!.l:::ltv ·~:i·10 1•:::i '1' p:i1001 '1' c1p tv•:::i1 ?~1tv' •:i:::i 11:::i.!.l1

1

6

n• ?~1tv• •:i:::i 1m? 11:::i1' ·~:i·10 c1p 10 ?~1tv' ?ll ·~:i·10 1• m:rpm

2

?~1tv' 1'1i 1;:, •1m 3 6 :~n~o n•1 ~n1llo n•1 ~·1m:::i1 ~n·110~0

11i1''?.!.l 11tv1 4 6 :11;i•?.!.l rp?o1 ~m10 ':l:::l1 ·~p?01'1 ·~:i·10 rp?o1 tv::i:i ~o·p? 11m r1~tvo ~?1 i1i1'1 ~:i?.!.lo 11' ~1'1~1 ~n??ll n· r'?:::ino1 :1om 1in1 10~1 ?~1tv•:::i

6: 1 Then the Israelites did what was evil before0 the Lord, so the Lord delivered 0 them into the hand of the Midianites for seven years. 6:2 And the hand of the Midianites prevailed over Israel. On account 0 of the Midianites the Israelites made for themselves hiding-places900 in the mountains, the caves and the strongholds. 901 6:3 And whenever 902 896 E.g.,

TJon Isa. 1:24; 4:3; 16:5; 33:14. MTeh 11:6 just quoted, and parallels. Cf. Isa. 30:26. 898 According to SifBam §140 (27:20) the splendour of Moses' face is the sun and that of Joshua's is the moon. Cf. M.J. M0 Namara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27), Rome 1966, 224. 899 GxlmRBCNJQOa; WM have tl;:::lip 1:::l.tl'r.l'?r.l. See above, on 3:31. 900 The hapax legomenon iliil)l':l, "den" probably denotes a subterranean space (HALAT, 567) and is adequately interpreted as a "hiding-place". Josephus, Ant. V.211 represents it with u7tov6µou~, "underground passages". Pesh has the generic r