Volume Narratology and the Pentateuch Targums: A Methodological Experiment 9781463235048

Citation preview

Narratology and the Pentateuch Targums

Biblical Intersections

9

This series explores biblical literature as a product and a reflection of the world in which it was produced. In addition to studies that take an historical approach, monographs and edited collections also examine the biblical text from alternative perspectives, including social-scientific, theological, literary, and cultural studies approaches.

Narratology and the Pentateuch Targums

A Methodological Experiment

Simon Lasair

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2012

‫ܝ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61143-489-7

ISSN 1943-9377

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Preface ....................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................... xi Abbreviations ......................................................................................... xiii Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1. What is Targum Studies ............................................................. 2 1.2 The Word ‫ תרגום‬................................................................... 3 1.2 Targum Texts....................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Targums to the Pentateuch ............................................ 7 1.2.2 Targums to the Prophets .............................................. 12 1.2.3 Targums to the Writings ............................................... 13 1.2.4 A Note on English Translations of Targums ............ 13 1.3 Types of Targums ............................................................. 14 1.3.1 Type A Targum—“Close” Relationship with the HB ..................................................................... 14 1.3.2 Type B Targum—“Distant” Relationship with the HB ..................................................................... 16 1.3.3 Targums of Targums ..................................................... 17 1.3.4 Recent Developments in the Genre Question .......... 17 1.4 Modes of Studying Targums ........................................... 18 1.4.1 Textual Criticism ............................................................ 18 1.4.2 Source Criticism ............................................................. 20 1.4.3 Comparative Midrash .................................................... 21 1.4.4 Translation Technique .................................................. 21 1.4.5 Hermeneutics.................................................................. 23 1.4.6 Aramaic Language Studies ............................................ 24 1.4.7 Historical Theology ....................................................... 26 1.5 Important Questions in Targum Studies....................... 26 1.5.1 What is the Relationship Between Targum as an Oral Phenomenon and Targum as a Written Phenomenon? ........................................... 27 v

vi

1

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS 1.5.2 In What Context Did the Phenomenon of Targum Emerge? ....................................................... 28 1.5.3 What Were the Social/Religious/Historical Functions of Targum? .................................................. 29 1.5.4 What is the Relationship Between the Written Targums and the Corpus of Jewish Literature Called “Rabbinic”? ..................... 29 1.6 Important Questions for my Study ................................ 31 1.6.1 What is the Hermeneutic Orientation of the Targums vis-à-vis the HB? ............................... 31 1.6.2 To What Extent Can the Targums Be Called Translations?.................................................................... 32 1.6.3 To What Extent Were the Targums Appropriated as Narratives in Various Social and Historical Contexts? ............................................... 34 2. What is Narratology? ................................................................ 34 2.1 A Brief Definition of Narratology.................................. 35 2.2 The Scope of Narratology ............................................... 35 2.3 On the Possibility of Using Narratology to Study Biblical and Related Literature ..................... 36 2.3.1 Alter, Sternberg, and Bar-Efrat.................................... 36 2.3.2 The Critiques of Esther Fuchs and MiekeBal ........... 37 2.3.3 Possible Conceptual and Methodological Problems .......................................................................... 37 3. How Might Targum Studies and Narratology Interface? ... 39 3.1 Ideas and Issues................................................................. 39 3.1.1 Targum as a Narrative Kind of Literature ................. 39 3.1.2 Narrative in the Synagogue Context ........................... 40 3.1.3 Narrative in Rabbinic Academies ................................ 42 3.1.4 Targum as Popular Literature ...................................... 43 3.2 Further Problems .............................................................. 44 4. The Plan of the Project ............................................................ 45 4.1 The Nature of my Study .................................................. 45 4.2 The Progression of the Argument.................................. 45 Basic Concepts and Applications ................................................ 47 1. Some Basic Concepts of Bal’s Narratology .......................... 47 1.1 The Fabula Level and Action........................................... 48 1.2 The Story Level and Focalization .................................... 51 1.3 The Text Level and Speech .............................................. 54 1.4 Summary ............................................................................. 57

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

3

4

vii

2. Basic Moves of a Narratological Approach to the Targums ...................................................................... 58 2.1 The Fabula Level of Narrative: Conflict, Causality, and Location ................................. 58 2.2 The Story Level of Narrative: Character, Focalization, and Anachrony..................... 64 2.3 The Text Level of Narrative: Levels of Narration, Non-narrative, and a Perceptible Narrator ............................................ 69 3. Combining Levels of Analysis................................................. 72 4. Conclusions ................................................................................ 80 5. Postscript on O and the Narratological Approach .............. 80 Two Examples of Narratology at Work ................................... 83 1. Explicit Development of a Particular Theme ....................... 84 2. Genesis 39 PJ ............................................................................. 85 2.1 Comparison with the HB...............................................104 3. Conclusions ..............................................................................107 4. Postscript on the Macro-Hermeneutics of the Genesis 39, PJ Episode ..........................................107 Narratology and Other Approaches to the Targums ............115 1. A Complementary Concept ...................................................116 2. Targumic Passages and Pre-Existing Traditions ................118 3. Narratology and Other Kinds of Targumic Phenomena ...................................................134 3. Conclusions ..............................................................................144 Bridging Narrative and History: Narratology and Gender ...147 1. Narratology and Gender ........................................................147 2. Some Further Methodological Considerations...................148 3. Numbers 12, N ........................................................................150 3.0 Text: Numbers 12, N .....................................................152 3.1 Miriam and Collective Agency ......................................154 3.2 Aaron as Miriam’s Advocate .........................................157 3.3 The Final Word from the Narrator ..............................159 3.4 Miriam’s Rebellion as a Gendered Event ....................161 3.5 Contextual Considerations ............................................162 4. Genesis 16, PJ ..........................................................................163 4.0 Text: Genesis 16, PJ........................................................164 4.1 Sarai as Reproductive Agent..........................................166 4.2 Hagar as Reproductive Agent .......................................169

viii

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

4.3 God’s Role in the Episode ............................................172 4.4 Contextual Considerations ............................................173 5. Genesis 39 Revisited ...............................................................175 5.1 Masculinity in Late Antique Greco-Roman and Jewish Cultures ......................................................175 5.2 A Gendered Interpretation of Genesis 39, PJ ............177 6. Conclusions ..............................................................................180 5 Conclusion ....................................................................................183 Bibliography ..........................................................................................187 Index .......................................................................................................201

PREFACE This book is the revised version of my PhD thesis completed in 2008 at the University of Manchester in the UK under the supervision of Prof. Alexander Samely. This thesis, and this book, were written due to my perception that the field of Targum Studies could be well served by exploring methodologies that are more in keeping with some of the developments in humanities research that originated in the latter half of the twentieth century and have continued to be developed into the early twenty-first century. To date, targum scholars have tended to rely upon philological methodologies, which, although helpful in resolving questions concerning texts and textual origins, are no longer in step with what is happening across the broader scope of academic research. Although this criticism on my part could appear to be a call to trendiness, the methodology I am proposing in this book has a tradition originating in the 1960’s and 1970’s at the height of structuralism. Though many branches of academic research have moved beyond the structuralist impulse, I believe Narratology can be of use to targum scholars, primarily because many of the targums, the Pentateuch Targums in particular, consist mainly of narratives. It is therefore my belief that we must somehow give a theoretical account of narrative in the targumic context, and begin exploring what some of the historical implications of such accounts must be. This book is only the beginning of this kind of research. Herein I lay out one of the principal conceptual frameworks that has been accepted by narratologists since the 1980’s. Then I apply this framework to the Pentateuch Targums, uncovering structures and problems that have been given scant attention in the Targum Studies research literature. The discovery of these new structures raises a host of important issues for targum researchers, as well as for those engaged in the research of post-biblical Jewish literature. For if we take these discoveries seriously, it becomes necessary to foreix

x

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

ground the problem of coherence in targumic literature, asking what the theoretical and historical significance of various kinds of coherence structures might be. This foregrounding of the coherence problem, I believe, calls for a wholesale re-evaluation of the relationship between targumic literature and the Hebrew Bible, as well as for an attempt to re-think the social and historical roles of the targums. Furthermore this research highlights the ongoing problem of the relationship between the targums and rabbinic literature, a problem for which there is no established consensus. As a result of these various innovations, I believe this book will be of interest to many involved in targum research, as well as to those investigating Qumran translations of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the larger phenomenon of re-written Bible. It is my hope that this research will provoke a serious kind of methodological questioning that I also hope will draw scholars into a broader discussion concerning the relevance of targum research within the context of larger trends within the humanities and how the humanities might be able to respond to some of the most urgent social and political problems of our times. The times are ripe for engaged scholarship. And, though this book may seem at first to be a detached attempt to work through an abstract methodological issue, it is my hope that the employment of the methodology herein might provide a means for precisely the kind of social and political engagement needed from academics working on Jewish late antiquity. Simon Lasair 4 September 2012

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book could not have been written without the incredible support of many people. Alex Samely who supervised this project during the PhD phase of it. Robert Hayward and Philip Alexander who examined the PhD and who first recommended it be published. Francis Landy for his ongoing suggestions and support during the various phases of this project, both during the PhD phase and beyond. To Paul Flesher, Willem Smelik, and Alinda Damsma who all supported the publication of this project. To Katie Stott and Melonie Schmierer-Lee who oversaw the preparation of the manuscript. To Rabbi David Kunin with whom I studied various kinds of Jewish literature. My colleagues at St. Thomas More College who have been especially encouraging about my work, particularly Mary Ann Beavis, Sharon Wright, Mike Cichon, and Alan Reese. To my parents Gord and Louise Adnams and my parentsin-law Gerry and Leda Halliday, for their ongoing support. To my wife Bronwyn Lasair for her constant love and the occasional kick in the pants. Finally, this book is dedicated to my Grandmother Jean Eileen Adnams who taught me the joy of laughter and the beauty of narrative. Her memory always has been, and always will be, a blessing.

xi

ABBREVIATIONS Ant. b. B. Bat. Bav. Qam. CAL Exodus R. Gen. R. HB m. Mak. Meg. MS/MSS N O Pesah. PJ PRE Tg. 2TJ Yad.

Josephus Antiquities Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra Bava Qamma Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Exodus Rabbah Genesis Rabbah Hebrew Bible Mishnah Makkot Megillah manuscript/manuscripts Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Pesahim Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Pirké de Rabbi Eliezer Targum Tosefta Targum Jerushalmi Yadayim

xiii

INTRODUCTION This book is a methodological experiment. It asks: What can narratology offer the field of targum studies? A targum is, at its most basic interpretation, an early Jewish Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (HB). Yet targums also contain substantial expansions on the biblical narrative in addition to their translations. Since the targums add material to the biblical narrative while translating it, there are several problems in defining the targumic genre. These problems will be addressed in the context of this introduction. They will also play a large role throughout this book. To summarize: the targums change the dynamics of the biblical narrative. Narratology is a literary critical field of enquiry that identifies certain kinds of literary structures as being important for understanding narratives, both in their particularity, as well as more generically. I can now re-state the primary research question with more precison: How can the analytical tools developed by narratology illuminate the unique features of the targumic narratives, assuming that these narratives differ in certain respects from the narratives found in the HB? As the chapters of this project unfold the answers to this question will, I hope, become clear. One of the first issues that will be encountered in the following pages is the question of the degree to which the targums present coherent narratives. As will be demonstrated in both Chapters 2 and 4 there are some instances where the targumic narratives are extremely coherent, perhaps even as coherent as the HB narrative. This finding then leads to the idea that the individuals or groups who created the targums might have intended to create this coherence on a macro-scale. In many ways this idea questions the consensus that has dominated targum studies up to this point. This consensus states that coherence was only a concern on the level of the sentence, or the verse. In contrast, I will argue that by using a narratological approach, different kinds of coherences can be re1

2

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

vealed in the targumic narratives, to the extent that it becomes possible to ask: what were the basic units of meaning that the targumists sought to engage with? Might they have intended to engage with episodes in their entirety, as well as with individual words and sentences? When these questions are applied to targumic literature, the results are both exciting and profound. For not only does this research have the potential to overturn some of the long-held ideas of targum scholars. But it also opens up new avenues for methodological exploration, precisely due to the kinds of issues raised herein. In this introduction, however, several preliminary matters need to be dealt with. First: What is Targum Studies? I have already indicated that targums are a unique kind of literature that is difficult to define generically. As a result, I will need to provide some discussion concerning the nature of targums and some of the ways they have been studied in the past. Second: What is Narratology? The definition I articulated above for narratology is highly provisional. In the pages below I will need to articulate a more concrete definition of this field, taking into account its diversity and how it has been used to study biblical and related literature. Third: How might Targum Studies and Narratology interface? This is the question that will occupy most of this book. In this introduction I will therefore outline some of the ideas and questions informing this investigation. Furthermore, I will indicate how they contribute to the formal problematic that will be explored in the chapters that follow. Fourth and finally: The Plan of the Project. In this section I will describe how the book proceeds from one chapter to the next. In some ways this book does not follow a formal argument. It rather explores methodological questions and problems that can be raised in response to the approach that is being articulated herein. Since this is somewhat out of the ordinary, the coherence of this project will require some explanation.

1. WHAT IS TARGUM STUDIES In this section I will outline some of the aspects of targums and targum studies important for this project, and deal with the word that gives the genre its name. The section will contain six subdivisions, each addressing various issues in the field of targum studies, as well as raising important questions for my research.

INTRODUCTION

3

1.1 The Word ‫תרגום‬ The word ‫( תרגום‬targum) does not occur in the HB. The related verb ‫( תרגם‬tirgem), however, does occur in the HB in the passive participle form ‫מתרגם‬, in Ezra 4:7 to indicate that a letter from king Artaxerxes was translated into Aramaic. In 1963 Rabin argued that this Hebrew word originated with the Hittite word tarkummai-, which means “to announce, explain, translate”.1 Rabin further argued that in Akkadian the word targumannu “was formerly derived from the Semitic rgm ‘to speak’”.2 According to Rabin, it is from this Akkadian word that Hebrew received ‫תרגם‬. Rabin concludes his section on this word with the following sentence: “Though these reasons are not compelling, they weigh in favor of the assumption that Semitic borrowed the word from or via Hittite.”3 Unfortunately Kloekhorst’s 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon does not include tarkummai-, or any other related word, which casts doubt on Rabin’s hypothesis.4 There may be some semantic similarity between ‫ תרגום‬and the Greek word hermeneia and the Latin interpretatio. However, when ‫ תרגום‬and ‫תרגם‬ are viewed within the context of post-biblical Jewish literature, they are given a specifically Jewish nuance, as will be shown below. In other words, these Hebrew words describe specifically Jewish phenomena of translation or interpretation.5 Furthermore, the use of the word ‫ תרגום‬as a descriptor for the targumic genre is problematic for reasons that will become apparent shortly. In post-biblical Jewish literature the verb ‫ תרגם‬is more frequent than the noun ‫תרגום‬. For instance, in the Mishnah (ca. 200 CE) alone the verb appears eleven times in various places: Meg.

Rabin, “Hittite Words in Hebrew,” 134. Ibid., 135. 3 Ibid., 136. 4 Kloekhorst, Etymological Dictionary. 5 This statement is consistent with some of Derrida’s more general findings concerning language and language use. Cf. Derrida, Of Grammatology. 1 2

4

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

4:6, Meg. 4:10, San. 5:1, Mak. 1:9.6The noun also appears in the Mishnah, but only three times, in Meg. 2:1 and Yad. 4:5.7 In the case of the verb, the meaning is “to translate or interpret”, whereas in the case of the noun, the word usually refers to the Aramaic Targums, the written forms of which are the topic of this book. Among the established Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons for postbiblical Jewish literature, however, there is some disagreement concerning the respective meanings of ‫ תרגם‬and ‫תרגום‬. According to Jastrow, the absolute form of the Aramaic noun (‫ )תרגום‬means “interpretation, translation, version, especially Targum”, whereas the emphatic form of the noun (‫ )תרגומא‬means, according to his first definition, “loud speech”.8 His second definition of this form of the noun is in consonance with his definition of the noun’s absolute form.9 His definition of the Hebrew verb, however, is “to deliver” or “to proclaim”. Yet he also states that the Hebrew verb can mean a) “to explain, interpret” or b) “to translate orally (in Aramaic) what has been read from the Scriptures in the original”.10 In the hithpael form it means, according to Jastrow, “to be translated, interpreted”.11 For the Aramaic verb, Jastrow has the following: 1) “to read”, 2) “to interpret, translate, explain”.12 Sokoloff has slightly different definitions in his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. According to him, the Aramaic noun means “translation, especially Aramaic Bible translation”.13 Similarly, according to Sokoloff, the Aramaic verb means, “to translate”.14 In contrast, Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic provides more specific definitions for these terms. According to this latter publication, the noun These references were generated from Accordance for Mac CD-ROM, specifically from the transcription the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah that is contained therein. 7 Ibid. 8 Jastrow, Dictionary, 1695. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., 1695–96 13 Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 590–91. 14 Ibid., 591. 6

INTRODUCTION

5

means, “Aramaic version, interpretation . . . 1) Aramaic version . . . 2) the Aramaic portions of the Bible . . . 3) interpretation”.15 And again, the verb means specifically, “to translate into Aramaic, explain”, or “to translate a biblical passage into Aramaic”.16 Since Sokoloff’s dictionaries take into account the regional distribution of these words’ respective lexicographies, it becomes obvious that there is no single stable lexical meaning that can be assigned to these words for all geographical (and historical) contexts. Smelik confirms this in a 2001 article where he observes a distribution of meaning for the term ‫ תרגום‬between the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.17 According to Smelik in the Jerusalem Talmud the term ‫ תרגום‬can at times refer to a Greek translation of the HB, just as much as it can refer to an Aramaic translation.18 Also, Smelik states that the verb ‫ תרגם‬refers to translation into Aramaic in the Jerusalem Talmud in the majority of cases, whereas in the Babylonian Talmud the majority of its uses refer to the interpretation of halakhic traditions.19 Furthermore, in each Talmud there are value judgments attached to each instance of ‫ תרגום‬and ‫תרגם‬. Smelik writes, “When we abandon mere statistics and have a closer look at the appreciation of the translations in the Yerushalmi, we find that praise is reserved for Greek translations, whereas Aramaic translations are deemed impossible, rejected, or corrected”.20 In contrast, “the Bavli relates the translational activity to Aramaic versions and rabbinic authorization”.21 Flesher and Chilton according to their recent introduction to the targums might state that this is due to the reception of the Aramaic language in Babylonia.22 These distinctions in the uses of these key terms demonstrate the difficulty in using either ‫ תרגם‬or ‫ תרגום‬to help define the targumic genre. The verb can mean “to translate” or “to interpret” or Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 1231. Ibid. 17 Smelik, “Language, Locus, and Translation,” 199–224. 18 Ibid., 201–5 19 Ibid., 201. 20 Ibid., 203. 21 Ibid., 205. 22 Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 277–79. 15 16

6

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

“to explain”, and the noun too has been demonstrated to have multiple referents. In any case, the semantics of these words still cannot be used to define the targumic genre, since the targums themselves never use the verb ‫ תרגם‬or the noun ‫ תרגום‬to describe what they are doing with the HB. Similarly, when applying the meanings of these terms to actual targums, as some have done, problems are compounded, because the targums manifest several phenomena that cannot be captured completely by these terms.23 To clarify the difficulty one could ask, in what senses are targumic documents translations? In what senses are they interpretations? Is there a phenomenological distinction between the activities of translating and interpreting that justifies using both English terms to describe targumic literature? What do targumic documents reveal about themselves in themselves that allows scholars to describe and delimit the targumic genre? As will become apparent in what follows, the question of the targumic genre remains open in the context of the secondary literature. Furthermore, we shall see that when scholars have answered this question in the past, the answers have been largely pre-determined by the methodological framework employed by them. This last statement is by no means a criticism of previous scholarly work in defining the targumic genre. Rather it is intended to show the limitations of such enquiries, and to point out one of the most significant difficulties in my own research. Since my study is in part concerned with the question of the targumic genre, the methodology I employ will play a large role in determining the type of answer I generate. As I implied by my remarks above, for me the evidence for determining the limits and the dynamics of the targumic genre must come from the targums themselves. For this rea-

Too often these terms, as well as their English translations, have been used uncritically to describe some of the formal aspects of targumic literature. Since “translation” and “interpretation” are often left uninterrogated, scholars make the mistake of using these terms in a technical sense when they are, in fact, vacuous in terms of their technical use. For such an uncritical use of these terms see, Flesher, “The Targumim in the Context of Rabbinic Literature,” 611–29. 23

INTRODUCTION

7

son I now turn to an identification of targum texts, which will be followed by a formal classification of different types of targums. 1.2 Targum Texts Nearly every book of the HB has an accompanying targum. The exceptions are Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. Since this is the case I will briefly outline what targum texts are available for each section of the HB.

1.2.1 Targums to the Pentateuch There are three complete targums to the Pentateuch: Targum Onqelos (O), Targum Neofiti(N), and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (PJ). By complete I mean that every verse of the Pentateuch is represented in these targums in one way or another. Of these targums probably the best known is O since it is mentioned several times in the Babylonian Talmud (cf. in particular b. Meg. 3a), and continues to be reprinted in rabbinic Bibles, even in modern times. Because of its popularity, O has several textual traditions representing both eastern and western provenances.24 To date Sperber’s edition of O25 has remained the standard critical edition to which most scholars refer. More recently, however, texts of O have been reproduced electronically on the Accordance for Mac software platform,26 and in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) online database.27 It remains to be seen as to whether a new printed edition of O will be forthcoming in the near future. Of the complete targums to the Pentateuch O is the least expansive in its representation of the HB narrative. This does not mean that it is completely devoid of expansive elements.28 However, when compared with N and PJ, O Sperber, Onqelos, xvi–xvii. Ibid., 1–357. 26 Accordance. 27 Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/, (accessed on 18 June 2008) 28 For a study of some of the expansive elements in O see Vermes, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum,” 127–38. See also Bowker, “Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos,” 51–65, and Aberbach and Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos on Genesis 49. 24 25

8

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

contains relatively fewer narrative expansions. The translations of O in the chapters that follow are based on both the Sperber edition and Accordance version. PJ is also quite well known, not necessarily due to its wide circulation—although it is printed in some rabbinic Bibles—but more so due to its long association with the authorship of Jonathan ben Uziel. This ascription of authorship is likely due to the fact that the editio princeps bears the abbreviation ‫ ת’’י‬on the title page, probably intending to designate the targum as Targum Yerushalmi. However, throughout much of its history ‫ ת’’י‬was thought to stand for Targum Jonathan. Since the targum to the Prophets is known as Targum Jonathan, and the designation Targum Yerushalmi is the more likely for this targum to the Pentateuch, this targum is called Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, acknowledging both the traditional ascription as well as the ascription’s unlikelihood. There is one manuscript of PJ housed in the British Museum in London and it is catalogued as Add. 27031. There is also an extant editio princeps in Chamishah chumshe Torah, published by Asher Forins, Venice 1590– 91,29 which scholars have consulted in preparing critical editions of PJ. There are three modern critical editions of PJ. The first appeared in 1903 and was prepared by Ginsburger.30 According to Clarke, this early edition contained many typographical errors, causing it to misrepresent the MS in many instances.31 The same can be said of Reider’s edition which appeared in 1972.32 The most recent and reliable edition of PJ is the one prepared by Clarke in collaboration with Aufrecht, Hurd, and Spitzer.33 This edition was published in 1984 and was printed together with a concordance. Again, electronic texts of PJ have been produced by the Accordance platform and by the CAL project.34 Of the complete targums to 29

Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,”

219. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan. Clarke, Aufrecht, Hurd, and Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch, vii. 32 Reider, Pseudo-Jonathan. 33 Clarke, Pseudo-Jonathan. 34 Accordance; CAL. 30 31

INTRODUCTION

9

the Pentateuch, PJ is the most expansive, being nearly twice the length of O. In the chapters that follow, the translations of PJ are based on both the Clarke edition and the Accordance version. The last complete targum to the Pentateuch is N, which was re-discovered in 1957 in the Vatican Library by a student of Diez Macho, where it had been mis-catalogued as a manuscript of O. There is one critical edition of this targum, prepared by Diez Macho, published in five volumes between 1968 and 1979.35 In addition to containing the Aramaic text of N, each volume also contains translations of N into Spanish, English, and French. Again, Accordance and the CAL project have produced their own texts of N for electronic use.36 The Accordance platform also contains an English translation of N prepared by Clem.37 Although N is more expansive than O, it is not as expansive as PJ. Nevertheless, N and PJ have many expansions in common. These parallels are noted when they exist for the selected passages throughout my book. In the chapters that follow the translations of N are based almost entirely on the Accordance version. Because these targums represent every element of the HB narrative in their texts in one way or another, I have chosen to use N, PJ, and O as the basis of my research, drawing most of my examples from N and PJ. To demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the narratological approach, continuous narratives are needed. These targums contain such narratives, in contrast to the Fragment Targum and the Geniza Fragments which will be discussed below. Given the privileged position of N, PJ, and O in my research, it is worth discussing these complete targums in more depth than the other targums just mentioned. As far as the dates and provenances of N, PJ, and O are concerned, their written forms are most often dated to approximately 200 CE – 800 CE.38 This being stated, N and PJ are only available to us in Medieval manuscripts, which should caution scholars Díez Macho, Neophyti I. Accordance; CAL. 37 Accordance. 38 For an excellent discussion concerning the issues involved in dating these targums see York, “The Dating of Targumic Literature,” 49–62. 35 36

10

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

against assigning them too early a date. Flesher has recently argued that a Proto-Onqelos targum probably existed before these dates in a Palestinian context.39 This argument is based mostly on the translational features that O shares with N and PJ which suggest that O predates the latter two targums, even though N is usually dated quite early. Although there is much merit to Flesher’s hypothesis, it is based entirely on literary evidence uncovered by source critical methodologies, rather than on the basis of actual manuscripts. When looking at the extant witnesses of O, therefore, Vermes’ hypothesis that the extant form of O is a Babylonian redaction of a previous Palestinian targum is probably true, even though there is no consensus on this issue.40 As for N and PJ, their provenance is almost certainly Palestinian, although Flesher would argue that PJ is not Palestinian for a variety of formal rather than historical reasons.41 In terms of dates, there is almost universal consensus that N is quite early, even earlier than the Babylonian redaction of O.42 As for the date of PJ, this issue has been contested most famously in a debate between ShiFor some recent studies on this topic see Flesher, “Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum?,” 35–79; Flesher, “The Translations of Proto-Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums,” 75–100; Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of Priests?,” 467–508. 40 Vermes, “Haggadah in Onkelos,” 138. For further perspectives on this issue see, Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch, 11– 15; Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 191–95; Kutscher, “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon,’” 9–11; Cook, “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan,” 142–56; Greenfield, “Standard Literary Aramaic,” 280–89; Müller-Kessler, “The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia,” 181–98 41 Flesher, “Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum?,” 37–44. 42 Díez Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum,” 222– 45; Boccaccini, “Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document,” 254– 63; York, “The Dating of Targumic Literature,” 49–62. Kaufman notably disagrees with an early date for N. He writes, “Whatever the Palestinian Targum is, Neofiti is a late, eclectic edition of it and is, moreover, a carelessly written manuscript that is to be treated accordingly.” Kaufman, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology,” 123. 39

INTRODUCTION

11

nan and Hayward.43 In this debate, Hayward argued that PJ should be given an early date based on its relationship with Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (PRE); Hayward sees PRE being dependent on PJ for some of its narratives. In contrast, Shinan argues that PJ should be dated late due to its highly literary rather than oral character. For the purposes of this thesis, I will be assuming that PJ has a late date, since its final redactional layer suggests a date after the Islamic conquest.44 This emphasis on the final redactional layer of PJ, as well as of the other targums, is important for the methodology of this study. There are two other targums to the Pentateuch which are worth mentioning at this point, even though they will not play any role in this study. The first is the Fragment Targum which has been published in various editions, most recently by Klein in 1980.45 The second is the targum fragments found in the Cairo Geniza, published by Kahle in 1967 and Klein in 1986, respectively.46 In the case of the Fragment Targum, the targum is selective concerning which parts of the HB will be represented in the MS. These parts include some translational passages as well as some narrative expansions that are shared by both N and PJ. There is no explanation as to why certain parts of the HB narrative have been represented in this MS, whereas other parts have not. Alexander argues that it is possible that the Fragment Targum evolved to preserve the Palestinian narrative expansions in a context where O, by and large, did not preserve them, even though the latter became the official targum of the rabbis.47 In the case of the Geniza fragments, although these have been collected into critical editions, all that is left of these once complete targums are manuscript fragments. Since neither the Fragment targum nor the Geniza fragments provide conSome articles related to this debate are Shinan, “The Palestinian Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions,” 72–87; Hayward, “Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” 31–55. 44 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 219 45 For full MSS details see Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 220–21, and 251. 46 Ibid., 220 and 251. 47 Ibid., 221. 43

12

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

tinuous narratives, they will not be included in this study; narratology would only be of limited use with such documents. The only other targum worth mentioning at this point is the Targumic Tosefot, since they will be mentioned briefly in Chapter 3 below. The Targumic Tosafot are texts that have been written into the margins of manuscripts of O, usually reflecting a Palestinian interpretative tradition. In most cases these insertions are explicitly labeled “Tosefta” or “Tosefta Yerushalmi”.48 Vermes has used these traditions on several occasions in his source critical and historical theological studies involving various targumic passages.49

1.2.2 Targums to the Prophets There is one targum to the Prophets, Targum Jonathan. Like O this targum was quite popular in ancient times, being quoted in the Babylonian Talmud on several occasions (cf. e.g. b. Pesah. 68a and b. Bav. Qam. 3b).50 Also like O, Jonathan is represented in several MSS attesting to both eastern and western traditions of transmission. Sperber’s editions of the former and latter prophets remain the standard texts of Jonathan to which most scholars refer in their studies.51 Recently both Accordance and CAL have compiled versions of Targum Jonathan for electronic use.52 Furthermore, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman has begun work on an online critical edition of Targum Samuel.53 Although this work is still in the development stages, it already provides a format and comprehensiveness that promises much for the future of online critical edition publication. In terms of its expansiveness Targum Jonathan does not differ much from O. By and large it presents a fairly literal verAlexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 221. Cf. e.g. Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis XXII,” 216–17. 50 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 223. 51 Sperber, The Former Prophets; Sperber, The Latter Prophets. In her 2002 commentary on Targum Samuel, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman uses the Sperber edition, as well as other texts compiled by other scholars and herself, as the basis of her study: van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel. 52 Accordance; CAL. 53 van Staalduine-Sulman, “Targum Samuel, http://targum.nl/ THUKCe/kritiek/critical.aspx (accessed on 18 June 2008). 48 49

INTRODUCTION

13

sion of the HB text in Aramaic. However, in the Latter Prophets, there are a higher proportion of expansions to be found than in the Former Prophets, demonstrating that the framers of this targum were not strictly literal in their Aramaic rendering of the HB narratives and poetry.

1.2.3 Targums to the Writings As indicated above, there are no targums to the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, or Daniel. However, there are targums to the other books in the Writings section of the Hebrew canon. Each targum seems to have been produced independently, and each also has eastern and western textual witnesses.54 As with O and Jonathan, Sperber has produced an edition of the Writings. But this edition only includes Chronicles, Ruth, Canticles, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.55Accordance has reproduced texts of some of the writings as well, whereas CAL represents them in their entirety.56 A recent example of a print edition of one of the targums to the writings is Beattie’s preliminary edition of Targum Ruth in the Clarke memorial volume, edited by Flesher.57 With regard to the formal characteristics of the targums to the writings, Alexander notes, Proverbs and Chronicles are non-expansive. Psalms and Job contain numerous aggadic plusses. However, it is in the Megillot that the greatest degree of paraphrase is to be found, particularly in Lamentations, Song of Songs and Esther. Targum Sheni to Esther is the most expansive of all the targumim. 58

1.2.4 A Note on English Translations of Targums For all the targums to the various books of the HB, English translations are in the process of being prepared under the editorship of McNamara, comprising what is called The Aramaic Bible series, Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 224–25. Sperber, The Hagiographa. 56 Accordance; CAL. 57 Beattie, “The Targum of Ruth,” 231–90. 58 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 225. 54 55

14

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

published in the UK by T&T Clark. As of 2008, this series was completed. 1.3 Types of Targums In his essay on the targums in Mikra, Alexander classifies the extant targums into two types, which he calls Type A Targum and Type B Targum, respectively.59 Samely later developed this classification in a 1993 article, describing what he understood to be a “close” or “distant” relationship between targum texts and the HB.60 In what follows I will draw upon the terms of both scholars to discuss some of the ways in which targums have been classified in the past.

1.3.1 Type A Targum—“Close” Relationship with the HB Using the PJ version of Genesis 4 as the basis of his classification, Alexander makes the following comments about Type A targum: Even a cursory reading of this passage from Pseudo-Yonatan will show that it does not offer a translation of the Hebrew, in any normal sense of that term: it is a paraphrase. Two important points about the nature of this paraphrase should be noted. First [his italics], when expansions occur they are presented in such a way that they can be bracketed out, leaving behind a viable one-to-one rendering of the original. This is the distinguishing characteristic of type A targum: it consists of a base translation + detachable glosses . . . Second, the expansions are unevenly distributed. Sections of the text are rendered more or less literally; others are expanded many times over.61

Although there are some problems with Alexander’s uses of the terms “translation” and “paraphrase” in so far as there is significant conceptual overlap between these two terms that Alexander does not articulate, the general description of this type of targum is by Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 229–37. Cf. also Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?,” 71–89. 60 Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 182–85. 61 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 231. 59

INTRODUCTION

15

and large accurate. The complete targums to the Pentateuch fit this pattern, as does the targum to the Prophets. Samely adds further nuance to this classification when he writes in a 1999 article concerning the Pentateuch Targums, The coverage of Scripture is in principle comprehensive for a given work, not selective (the interesting exception being the Fragment Targum). The segments are not rearranged. The overall sequence of topics, whether narrative or normative, is the same as in Scripture, or, put more precisely, the thread of that sequence is always picked up again. Let us call this format which, while flexible, nevertheless keeps in touch with the Scriptural wording in its main translational segmentation (the sentence), the targumic shadow of that sentence [his italics].62

According to both these scholars, then, the targums of this type follow the narrative and normative content of the HB in a fairly close fashion, representing, in one way or another, every element of the HB in the Aramaic rendering.63 This does not eliminate the possibility of targumic narrative expansions, as Alexander makes clear. Instead, it defines one of the basic characteristics of targums of this type. Narrative expansions occur within the context of continuous trans-linguistic rendering64 of the HB narratives and norms. Often there are no formal markers in the targum text to delimit where the trans-linguistic rendering ends and the narrative expansion begins. However, when comparing targum texts to the HB, the distinctions are usually quite evident. This idea that the complete targums to the Pentateuch offer a continuous narrative is one of the departure points for my project. Narratological analysis of

Samely, “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality,” 103. For Samely’s first use of the term “shadowing” see, Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 183. 63 Cf. Samely’s description of the “close” relationship between the HB and some targum texts in Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 182. 64 I explain my use of this term in §0.4.4 below. 62

16

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the targums would not be possible if the targumic narratives were not continuous.65

1.3.2 Type B Targum—“Distant” Relationship with the HB Where type A targum was defined by continuous trans-linguistic rendering of the HB narratives and norms, type B targum offers a very different set of characteristics. As Samely writes of this type of targum, At the other end, there are targumic renderings which change the overall shape of a [HB] verse beyond recognition, and only isolated elements of the Hebrew find their (new) place in a structure created by the targumist. Other aspects of the relationship concern the question whether all lexical elements of the Hebrew are somehow represented, or whether some have been omitted; and also whether those that are taken up appear in their original sequence or not.66

Alexander complements these comments with his brief description of type B targum, albeit while still using the problematic terms “translation” and “paraphrase”: Type B targum, like type A, is paraphrastic, but it displays a fundamental difference in form. In type A a viable one-to-one translation of the Hebrew can be extracted from the paraphrase by bracketing out the additions. In type B a base translation cannot be recovered: the translation is dissolved in the paraphrase.67

In their descriptions of type B targums, both Alexander and Samely agree that they are best characterised by the targums to the writings, in particular the targums to the five Megillot.68 Since type B targums play very little role in my own research the precise dynamics of their renderings need not be further discussed. NeverThe full significance of this assertion will become evident in §3 below. 66 Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 183. 67 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 234. 68 Ibid., 234–37; Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 183. 65

INTRODUCTION

17

theless, it is important to note the differences between type A and type B targums, in that both types of targums are considered to be an integral part of the targumic genre. Since this is the case, some of the difficulties in determining the precise characteristics of the targumic genre as a whole should now be at least in part evident.

1.3.3 Targums of Targums I have included this section here because it again illustrates part of the difficulty in defining the targumic genre. In a 2002 essay in the Clarke memorial volume, Alexander discussed several targums of Targum Song of Songs—he is the one who designated these documents targums.69 Each of these documents consisted in translating Targum Song of Songs into languages other than Aramaic, yet they still manifested several so-called “non-translational” phenomena that were similar to phenomena found elsewhere in targumic literature. In describing this corpus of documents, Alexander demonstrated that a targum might not necessarily be an Aramaic translation of the HB.70 Instead the boundaries of the targumic genre could be much more inclusive than originally thought. Nevertheless, Alexander has told me privately that it is only for Targum Song of Songs that this phenomenon exists.

1.3.4 Recent Developments in the Genre Question In a 2010 article I argued on the basis of translation theory that the term translation could be applied to the targums as a whole since many of the phenomena that theorists have discovered in modern translations bear some resemblance to targumic phenomena.71 Houtman and Sysling, although their book was published before my article, seem to be moving in this direction with a fourfold clasAlexander, “Notes on Some Targums of the Targum of the Song of Songs,” 159–74. 70 In many ways Samely anticipated this claim in his study on the Aramaic targum of the Amidah. Samely, “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein,” 175–264. 71 Lasair, “Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic Problem.” 69

18

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

sification of targumic translation techniques.72 Although the register of this latter discussion is not quite of the order where one can describe the genre as a whole, Houtman and Sysling do provide some helpful tools for the analysis of targums as translations. 1.4 Modes of Studying Targums In this section my goal is to survey representative trends in scholarship rather than to be comprehensive; I will not give a complete overview of the ways in which targums have been studied in the past. Instead I will indicate some of the more significant areas of study, citing a selection of sources from the secondary literature as examples of the kind of study in question. To facilitate this examination, I have divided this section into sub-sections: (1) Textual criticism, (2) Source criticism, (3) Comparative midrash, (4) Translation techniques, (5) Hermeneutics, (6) Aramaic language studies, and (7) Historical theology. Since my project focuses primarily on the targums to the Pentateuch, most of the secondary literature cited in this section will pertain to those targums. However, publications on the other targums will be cited when they are deemed relevant to the discussion below. The methodological approaches I have identified should not be considered mutually exclusive. There is, in fact, significant overlap between some of these approaches. As a result, the divisions indicated here should be viewed as heuristic, rather than as hard and fast distinctions.

1.4.1 Textual Criticism In some of the earlier stages of targum studies the goal of textual criticism was in line with lower criticism: it was to define and articulate the textual families of the targums based on extant textual witnesses. From that information the secondary goal of textual criticism was to reconstruct the non-extant targumic ur-texts. This was especially the case for a targum like O which has several textual witnesses testifying to at least two textual traditions. This desire to find an ur-text can be seen in the preparation of the critical appa-

72

Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions.

INTRODUCTION

19

ratus of Sperber’s edition of O.73 Similarly it is reflected in Alexander’s statement concerning O: “The aim of the text-critic must be to recover the Babylonian form of the targum.”74 In contrast to O, matters are more complicated for N and PJ since there is only one textual witness for N, and two witnesses for PJ, the London MS and the editio princeps. This situation has caused a confusion between higher and lower critical studies of these targums. Levy has written what he calls a complete textual study of N.75 However, this study often employs higher critical methodologies to solve problems that are raised by the text of N. Similarly, Cook has raised questions concerning the textual development of PJ in a recent article.76 Like Levy, he does not rely on a multitude of MSS, but rather on the single text that has been based on the London MS. Hence there is no attempt to reconstruct the history of N or PJ’s texts based on extant sources. Rather all the reconstructive efforts are based on evidence found exclusively within the single copies of these targums. In such a situation, lower criticism is not evident. Although there is still often an emphasis placed on recovering targumic ur-texts in both higher and lower critical studies, there has been a shift in some of the textual scholarship on targums. For some scholars the goal of textual criticism on the targums has become the definition and delimitation of the different textual families without reconstructing the ur-text. To reconstruct an ur-text would entail privileging one textual tradition above another, and this methodological move cannot be justified based on the available evidence. A fine example of this kind of study is van StaalduineSulman’s online critical edition of Targum Samuel, which also provides an interesting point of contrast to the approach of her earlier commentary on the same targum.77 In all, this shift is in consoSperber, Onqelos, introduction. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 218. 75 Levy, Targum Neophyti I. 76 Cook, “The ‘Kaufman Effect’ in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum,” 123–32. 77 van Staalduine-Sulman, “Targum Samuel;” van Staalduine-Sulman, Targum Samuel. 73 74

20

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

nance with a more general theoretical change within the broader field of textual criticism. See Greetham’s Theories of the Text for a good overview of some of the dynamics of this newer approach.78

1.4.2 Source Criticism There are two ways in which the targums have been studied source critically. The first is in conjunction with specific passages, insofar as scholars have attempted to determine the sources of particular narrative expansions. Vermes has contributed a great deal to this discussion in several articles.79 Similarly Shinan has added to the methodological discussion of this topic when asking the question of when has a targum been the source for a particular midrash, and when has a particular midrash been the source for a particular targumic narrative expansion?80 In contrast, Flesher in his recent studies of O and Proto-Onqelos, exemplifies the second mode of targumic source criticism.81 In these studies Flesher compares the complete targums to the Pentateuch and finds a redactional layer underlying each of their trans-linguistic (i.e. “translational”) portions that bears a striking resemblance to O. Because this redactional layer predates the Babylonian redaction of O, Flesher calls it Proto-Onqelos, to which he assigns a Palestinian provenance. In many ways the implications of this kind of study are much more far reaching than the other kinds of studies mentioned in this section. For in extracting this underlying redactional stratum, Flesher has made it possible to construct an overall history of the Palestinian targums to the Pentateuch. Where these studies run into problems, however, is in their large-scale dependence on statistical evidence, Greetham, Theories of the Text, cf. especially ch. 1, “Ontology: Being in the Text”, and ch. 2, “The History of the Text”. 79 Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis XXII;” Vermes, “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16,” 92–126; Vermes, “Haggadah in Onkelos.” 80 Shinan, “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah,” 203–17. 81 Flesher, “Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch,” 103–34; Flesher, “Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum?;” Flesher, “The Translations of Proto-Onqelos;” Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of Priests?” 78

INTRODUCTION

21

which can tend to mask some of the more subtle dynamics of the passages lying behind the quantitative analysis. As a result, a more thoroughgoing analysis of the Pentateuch targums will have to be conducted before Flesher’s hypotheses can be adopted without question.

1.4.3 Comparative Midrash In many studies the narrative expansions of the targums have been placed alongside other early Jewish literature dealing with similar topics, either halakhic or haggadic. Often this examination of parallel passages or topical discourses is done with the goal of determining how the targums contributed to ancient views concerning a particular topic. Vermes has contributed to this field,82 as has Shinan,83 Alexander,84 and to a lesser extent James Kugel,85 to name a few examples. Fraade has also raised some important methodological questions concerning this field of research.86

1.4.4 Translation Technique One of the pervasive questions in targum studies is: Where does the distinction between translation and interpretation lie in the targumic renderings of HB narratives and norms? I have already used the term “trans-linguistic renderings” to designate the portions of the targums that have traditionally been called “translation”. I have done this intentionally to problematize the term “translation” in conjunction with such passages. As I will explain further below, these passages cannot be called “translation” in the conventional meaning of that term, because the word-for-word shadowing of the HB text does not automatically equate “translation” for a variety of Cf. e.g. Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis XXII;” Vermes, “Haggadah in Onkelos.” 83 Cf. e.g. Shinan, The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian” Targumim on the Pentateuch. 84 Cf. e.g. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” 85 Cf. e.g. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. 86 Fraade, “‘Comparative Midrash’ Revisited,” 4–17. 82

22

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

reasons that will be discussed below. Yet there is no doubt that such passages manifest a noticeable amount of trans-linguistic activity: the text of the HB is being rendered into Aramaic in one form or another. As a result, I prefer, at this stage, to use the term “trans-linguistic rendering” rather than “translation” to describe such passages. However, since the trans-linguistic renderings contained within the targums have often been called “translation”, much effort has been exerted to describe the translation techniques of the various targums. This fact is attested in every volume in The Aramaic Bible series (ed. McNamara). Each volume contains a section in the introduction addressing the “translation technique” of the targum in question. However, given that the question of “translation technique” is closely related to the question of hermeneutics or interpretation, these sections possess limited clarity in their topic and scope. Smelik states this conceptual problem quite succinctly in the title of a 1998 article: “Translation and Commentary in One”. Similarly, Klein’s famous articles on translation techniques blur the distinction between “translation” and “interpretation” to the extent that the assumed boundary between the two phenomena is almost erased.87 This phenomenon can also be observed in more recent articles, such as Kvam’s essay in the Clarke memorial volume.88 Finally, the question concerning the hard and fast distinction between “translation” and “interpretation” is neatly summed up by the title of a 2004 article by Dray: “Is Subtlety in Translation the Reason for the Targumic Use of Various Verbs of Fleeing?” Furthermore, Alexander attempts to distinguish between studies of translational techniques and hermeneutics in the targums in his introduction to Targum Lamentations.89 This attempted distinction, in my opinion, is by and large unsuccessful.90 In my view, the conceptual and methodological problems generated by attempting to Klein, “Converse Translation,” 515–37; Klein, “The Preposition qdm,” 502–7; Klein, “Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim,” 134–40 88 Kvam, “Come, Let the Two of Us Go out into the Field,’” 97–103. 89 Alexander, Targum Lamentations, 38–41. 90 For a full-length discussion of this issue see my “Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic Problem”. 87

INTRODUCTION

23

maintain a distinction between “translation” and “interpretation” could be brought into sharp relief by exploring the conceptual overlap between the two. I suggest putting the question as follows: Is it possible to find terms to describe what appear to be different targumic attitudes toward the HB text (“translation” and “interpretation”) on the one hand, while on the other hand using a single term (“translation” vs. “interpretation”) to describe the entirety of targumic phenomena with some conceptual clarity? Again this raises the knotty question of the targumic genre, which, at this point, has not been answered adequately.

1.4.5 Hermeneutics As I just indicated, I believe the distinction between “translation” and “interpretation” is very fluid, if not non-existent. In my reading of the scholarship, publications examining “translation techniques” in the targums have inadvertently contributed to the field of hermeneutics and vice versa. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish different emphases in these kinds of studies. Those dealing with “translation”-related topics often address the ways in which specific Hebrew words or phrases have been rendered in Aramaic in the targumic context. I have listed some examples in the preceding section, pointing out some of the conceptual difficulties associated with them. In contrast, those concerned with “hermeneutics” or “interpretation” are most often concerned with what phenomena in the HB text provided specific justifications for the creation of particular narrative expansions. In this latter kind of study, Samely has produced some pioneering publications, using discourse analytical terms and concepts to describe how the targums have modified and interpreted the HB text.91 In a 1999 article, however, Samely argues that “translational rendering” is a certain kind of hermeneutic attitude manifest in the targums.92 Samely’s concept of “translational rendering” should not be understood as a naïve use of the Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums. Some earlier efforts in this field were made by Patte in, Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. 92 Samely, “Scripture’s Segments,” 100–15. 91

24

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

term “translation”. Rather what he offers is a nuanced interpretation of the inter-linguistic phenomena of the targums with specific reference to their representation of the HB text in Aramaic. Despite this nuanced discussion, Samely still allows that the targums may manifest other hermeneutic attitudes in their texts and narratives, two of which he describes earlier in his article.93 It is also interesting to note that this use of the term “translation” marks a shift in Samely’s thinking. In a 1994 article, Samely deliberately avoided using the term “translation”, opting instead to use the term “rewording” and the phrase “transposition of the biblical lexicon into another lexicon, which happens to be Aramaic, instead of being rabbinic Hebrew”.94 This shift in thinking, I believe, reflects a tacit admission concerning the problematic applicability of the term “translation” in the targumic context, especially when “translation” is used in its everyday meaning. As will become evident in §1.6.2, the term “translation” can encompass phenomena that targum scholars have typically called “interpretative”, as well as those which have typically been called “translational”. As a result, the question of the hermeneutical orientation of the targums can be seen to be at the core of the question of the targumic genre. If the targums are going to be called “translations”, this term will need some unpacking, concerning how it describes the targums’ relationships with the HB, as well as how it might impact upon scholarly understandings of how the targums were received.95 A narratological approach to the targums raises precisely these questions, as will become evident in chapters 2, 3, and 4 below.

1.4.6 Aramaic Language Studies In the “translation”/“interpretation” debate, one of the crucial questions is the relationship between Biblical Hebrew and targumic Aramaic. While there is no question that the language of the targums is very close to Biblical Hebrew, there is also no question that Samely, “Scripture’s Segments,” 102, cf. 87–100. Samely, “Is Targumic Aramaic Rabbinic Hebrew?,” 99. 95 For an interesting essay on how the targums might have been received see Flesher, “Targum as Scripture,” 61–75. See also my forthcoming “Targum and Translation”. 93 94

INTRODUCTION

25

targumic Aramaic has unique features in the world of ancient Aramaic, largely due to the degree to which it is related to the language of the Bible. As a result, the targums can make significant contributions to the history of the Aramaic language. Thus Dalman gave O a prominent role in his grammar of Palestinian Aramaic.96 The resulting controversy over O’s language also gave rise to the belief that there was a phenomenon called Standard Literary Aramaic, a term coined by Greenfield.97 Recently Cook has questioned the Standard Literary Aramaic hypothesis, arguing that O’s language most likely originated somewhere between Palestine and Babylonia.98 In one of the most recent contributions to this debate MüllerKessler has argued that O’s dialect is Babylonian.99 At the same time, there are other kinds of contributions made to this field in the form of grammatical and syntactic studies of certain targumic dialects. For example Butts recently made a study of the verbless clause in N.100 Similarly, Golomb has written a grammar of N.101 See also some of Kaufman’s linguistic studies.102 The targums have also made significant contributions to the ongoing lexicographical description of Jewish Aramaic, both for the Palestinian and Babylonian contexts. The CAL project and the dictionaries of Jastrow and Sokoloff all attest to this fact.103 Flesher and Chilton include a lengthy discussion of the Aramaic language in Judaism in their introduction to the targums.104

Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch. Greenfield, “Standard Literary Aramaic.” 98 Cook, “New Perspective.” 99 Müller-Kessler, “The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos.” 100 Butts, “Observations on the Verbless Clause in the Language of Neophyti I,” 53–66. 101 Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti. 102 Cf. e.g. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century CE texts,” 118–41. 103 CAL; Jastrow, Dictionary; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. 104 Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 267–82. 96 97

26

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

1.4.7 Historical Theology As with many of the other sub-fields examined in this section there are a variety of ways in which the targums have been used for enquiries into historical theology. Several decades ago the tendency was to use the targums to trace certain theological motifs in early Jewish literature, including the New Testament. Vermes contributed a great deal to this kind of enquiry,105 as did Le Déaut106 and McNamara.107 Although this kind of research continues to a certain extent, there has again been a shift in the field wherein the emphasis is now being placed on the theological value of certain motifs within certain targums. Hayward,108 and Chester109 provided early examples of this kind of work with their studies of the Memra and divine names in the targums. For other studies of this kind see Hayward and Mortensen’s respective contributions to the Clarke memorial volume,110 as well as Houtman’s 2005 article.111 1.5 Important Questions in Targum Studies Now that I have sketched out some of the strands of targum scholarship, it is possible to ask more generally, What are some important questions for the field of targum studies as a whole? In this section I identify four questions that many targum scholars have addressed over the years. Yet these questions in many ways remain unresolved. They are historical questions, which indicates the problematic position of the targums within the world of early Jewish literature.

Cf. e.g. Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis XXII.” Cf. e.g. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale. 107 McNamara, Targum and Testament; McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch. 108 Hayward, Divine Name and Presence. 109 Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. 110 Hayward, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Bread of the Presence,” 115–28; Mortensen, “Pseudo-Jonathan’s Temple, Symbol of Judaism,” 129–37. 111 Houtman, “The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah,” 3–14. 105 106

INTRODUCTION

27

1.5.1 What is the Relationship Between Targum as an Oral Phenomenon and Targum as a Written Phenomenon? This question is important for targum scholars because rabbinic literature seemingly indicates that Targums were delivered orally within the context of synagogue services (cf. some of the Mishnaic and Talmudic passages cited above). However, the primary evidence that we have for the phenomenon of Targum is the written targums that were identified in §0.2 above. Thus to ask the question of what is the relationship between the oral and written targums is in some ways to inquire into the structures that made the targumic portion of the synagogue service possible. It is also to ask, Under what conditions and influences were the written targums produced? At this point I will only discuss the question of oral elements in the written targums. This is the only internal evidence we have concerning the conjunction of oral and written modes of discourse production in targumic literature. The ancient synagogue services are lost to us and are only recoverable through reconstruction. There is no evidence that can be directly derived from the services of the ancient synagogue themselves. For some scholars it is important to maintain that the written targums are some sort of record or transcription of the oral delivery of the targum within the context of the synagogue service. Shinan, one representative of this view, has held this position so strongly that he has argued that PJ is not a “true” targum due to its highly literary as opposed to oral character.112 An example of a targum that manifests oral characteristics is N, partially due to its highly repetitive narrative expansions, as well as the fact that it does not repeat certain narrative motifs once they have been introduced. Shinan contrasts this to PJ’s sustained development of narrative motifs.113 Other scholars have a more complex view of the relationship between oral targum and written targums. For example, Smelik in a 2003 essay examines a number of different phenomena Shinan, “The Palestinian Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity.” Cf. also Shinan, The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian” Targumim on the Pentateuch, conclusions. 113 Shinan, “The Palestinian Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity. 112

28

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

relating to orality and targum transmission. These phenomena range from the Talmudic regulations governing targumic performance in the synagogue, to concrete text-critical issues that would seem to indicate an oral transmission of certain targums (in Smelik’s case O and Jonathan).114 What Smelik’s article demonstrates is a complex relationship between orality and written phenomena in the targums, insofar as the two likely informed and contaminated each other.

1.5.2 In What Context Did the Phenomenon of Targum Emerge? In previous generations of targum scholarship it was assumed that the phenomenon of Targum could be traced back to biblical times, specifically on the basis of Nehemiah 8:2, where Ezra the priest is reported to have read the book of the law in a manner that the people could understand. This vague reference to a public delivery of the Torah does not provide conclusive evidence concerning the origin of either oral or written targums. In response to this question of origin, Alexander has written that rabbinic literature indicates three social sites of targum use: (a) synagogue; (b) private devotion; (c) school.115 York has also examined the question of where the targums were used, stating that they were most likely used in schools as well as in the synagogue.116 At present the synagogue/school hypothesis is in the process of being revisited, particularly by those who argue that the targums played an ideological and/or political role.117

114

Smelik, “Orality, Manuscript Reproduction, and the Targums,” 49–

81. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 238; Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” 116 York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School,” 74–86. 117 Cf. e.g. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Cf. also my review of this study. 115

INTRODUCTION

29

1.5.3 What Were the Social/Religious/Historical Functions of Targum? As already indicated, the answers to the question in this section are related to the answers provided to the question in §1.5.2. Assuming for the moment that the targums originated in the synagogue, there are a variety of responses concerning what their function was. Flesher has argued that they were scripture for the people in the synagogue who could no longer understand the language of the HB.118 Similarly Greenspahn has argued that the targums were translations that were created to make the HB understandable for women and children and others who would not have been able to understand it.119 Taking quite a different approach, Fraade argued in 1992 that the targums were created to distinguish between the HB and its interpretations.120 Smelik adopted this view and expanded upon it in a 1999 article.121 In addition to these views, Alexander has argued that the targums, specifically O and Jonathan were used in the beit sefer to teach rabbinic Jews the language of the HB.122 Finally, Mortensen has argued that PJ in particular was created to renew the priestly profession in an early Jewish context where the temple had been destroyed, but had the potential to be rebuilt.123 All of these hypotheses have merit to them, which is why at this point I will not favour one above another.124

1.5.4 What is the Relationship Between the Written Targums and the Corpus of Jewish Literature Called “Rabbinic”? Since targumic literature has typically been associated with the synagogue, its relationship to rabbinic literature has been difficult to

Flesher, “Targum as Scripture.” Greenspahn, “Why Jews Translate the Bible,” 179–95. 120 Fraade, “Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum,” 253–86. 121 Smelik, “The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations,” 251–55. 122 Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” 123 Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Cf. also my review of this volume. 124 I will explain my position in relation to these positions in §3 below. 118 119

30

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

describe.125 Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that the targums contain many narrative expansions that are paralleled in various places in rabbinic literature (by this I mean the talmuds, midrash, etc.). However, in their forms, the targums do not manifest many of the features that are definitive of rabbinic literature.126 Thus the targums have sometimes been treated as a separate yet related kind of literature. However, this orientation has changed in recent scholarship, wherein some scholars are more than willing to state that the targums are a kind of rabbinic literature.127 Other scholars, in contrast, have argued that the targums are priestly in origin,128 which again raises the question of the precise relationship between the targums and rabbinic literature. Despite these various hypotheses, there is a lack of historically reliable evidence from which this matter can be decided once and for all. Without arguing explicitly that the targums are rabbinic, it would seem that a reasonable solution might be to state that the targums belong to a cultural matrix shared with rabbinic literature. This statement has the advantage of leaving the question open, while at the same time explaining the extensive parallels between the targumic narrative expansions and rabbinic literature. Although I find some of the current arguments for a priestly origin of the targums unconvincing,129 I still wish to entertain the possibility that the targums emerged independently of rabbinism. There are a number of possibilities for how this might have happened which I will not explore in this context. However, this idea is in line with the theories of several scholars who argue that rabbinic Judaism did not achieve its authorita-

125

This difficulty is explored in Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Liter-

ature. For an excellent introduction to many of these features see Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought. 127 Cf. e.g. Zetterholm, “The Attempted Murder by Laban the Aramean,” 453–66. 128 Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of Priests?;” Mortensen, Priesthood. 129 See my review of Mortensen’s volume. 126

INTRODUCTION

31

tive status until the middle ages.130 For this reason I have chosen to provisionally adopt the median position I have already articulated. 1.6 Important Questions for my Study After the survey of important questions for the field of targum studies in §1.5, I can now outline the specific questions that are important for my study.

1.6.1 What is the Hermeneutic Orientation of the Targums vis-à-vis the HB? As should have become evident in §1.4.4 and §1.4.5 above, the question of the hermeneutic orientation of the targums toward the HB is complex. As I outlined in the two sections already mentioned, this issue is very much intertwined with the problem of the extent to which the targums may be called translations. I will deal with this latter question in §1.6.2. However, at this stage there are two issues that need to be addressed. First, Do the targums manifest multiple hermeneutic attitudes? And second, What is the basic unit of meaning in targumic literature? These questions will be thematised throughout the entirety of my project. In the following discussion I will therefore give only provisional answers. Concerning multiple hermeneutic attitudes in the targums, I must first affirm the long held position that the targums are a hermeneutic or interpretative kind of literature. This is true not only of the narrative expansions found in targumic contexts, but also of the so-called “translational” or strictly inter-linguistic portions of the targumic narratives. In this respect Samely and I are in agreement.131 I even agree that the formal characteristics of the targums indicate that the targumists were interacting with the HB in different ways at different times. At times they produce the shadow of the HB text that has been mentioned before. At other times they Cf. e.g. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE; Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis,” 1–17; Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. 131 Cf. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech; Samely, “Scripture’s Segments.” 130

32

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

produce narrative expansions. Yet the question is: Do these formal differences justify the claim that there are different hermeneutic attitudes manifest in the targums? My preliminary response is: no. However, since this question is tied up with the problem of the meaning of “translation”, I will address this issue more completely in the next sub-section. What is the basic unit of textual meaning according to the targumists? In response to this second question Samely has argued that the basic unit of meaning for the targumists is the biblical sentence, or in many cases the biblical verse.132 This position would seem to be borne out by the evidence examined by Samely in The Interpretation of Speech. However, some of Samely’s findings are called into question by the evidence gathered in this study. In particular the narratological interpretation of Genesis 39, PJ found in Chapter 2 below suggests that the hermeneutical agenda of the targumists might have been more global in its outlook. By this I mean that the targumists may have intended to interpret or transform narrative episodes in their entirety, rather than just singular biblical verses. In this way the coherence structures created by the targumists can be seen to extend beyond the bounds of a single verse and encompass entire episodes, at least in some of the examples examined in this study. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the targumists may have desired to create some kinds of coherence between individual verses and the biblical narrative as a whole. As a result, the units of meaning engaged with and restructured in the targumic narratives may, in fact, be larger than Samely envisaged.

1.6.2 To What Extent Can the Targums Be Called Translations? This too is a complex question. This is true for at least two reasons. First, the presence of narrative expansions in the targums does not allow the scholar to see the targums as conforming to conventional understandings of the term “translation”. The word used to describe such phenomena in the targum studies literature has most typically been “interpretation”. As shown above, however, the dis132

Samely, “Scripture’s Segments,” 107–15.

INTRODUCTION

33

tinction between these two terms collapses since translation is always also a hermeneutic, hence interpretative, activity. This conceptual insight creates significant problems for using the terms “translation” or “interpretation” with any real descriptive value with the targums. The second reason it is difficult to call the targums translations is because in many ways the targumic shadow of the HB text cannot be called translation either. Samely called it “translation” in “Scripture’s Segments” because it involves a comprehensive trans-linguistic activity. Yet trans-linguistic activity is not necessarily sufficient to justify using the term “translation”. To explain, word-for-word literalism is often not called translation. For example, the Greek–English interlinear New Testament does not present a translation in the conventional sense of the term. Instead it generates an English shadow of the Greek text, similar to the Aramaic shadow of the HB text. However, the interlinear New Testament does not present comprehensible English sentences. Instead, the reader must decode the meaning of the resulting text and attempt to make sense of it in his or her own way. Even then, the literary as well as the nuanced semantic and lexical meanings of the New Testament text are lost. This concrete situation in the modern world, however, does not take into account the close linguistic relationship between Hebrew and targumic Aramaic. The Aramaic of the targums is very close to the language of the HB. This close relationship allows for the transfer of lexemes between Hebrew and targumic Aramaic, even though there might be a slight, or sometimes dramatic, shift in semantic meaning. In some senses this phenomenon can be called “translation”, but in some other senses it cannot. This problem is further compounded by the syntactic structures of Aramaic. These structures allow for the close shadowing of the HB text that is characteristic of the Pentateuch targums. Again, this formal relationship between the HB and the targums defies the tidy generic definition often assumed when using the descriptive term “translation”. The kind of “translation” manifest in the targums must therefore be understood to be a modification of the term “translation” as it is conventionally interpreted. The term “translation” when applied to the targums must always be put in between inverted commas, indicating its unusual and problematic nature. It is possible to describe the targums as “translations”, but only with numerous qualifications and caveats. Nevertheless, the targums can

34

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

provide interesting insights into the more general problem of the nature of translation as an inter-linguistic, inter-cultural, and literary phenomenon.133 I have explored some of these issues in my articles “Theorizing in the Absence of a Theory” as well as “Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic Problem”.

1.6.3 To What Extent Were the Targums Appropriated as Narratives in Various Social and Historical Contexts? This question is related to the issues explored in §1.5.3 above. If the targums functioned as linguistic teaching tools or in some other such way, it may be that their narratives were give secondary priority. However, if the targums were a means to convey the HB narratives and their interpretations to audiences who would not understand the HB otherwise, it is likely that they were appropriated as narratives. This is even the case if they were read antiphonally with the HB, as per the rabbinic rules for the delivery of translations in the synagogue (cf. m. Meg. 4:4).134 Even if the targums did not universally function in this way, it is likely that in at least some contexts their narratives were appropriated as narratives. As a result, a narratological approach is quite well suited for the purposes of targum studies. Not only will it be able to identify how the targumic narratives might have been interpreted in various contexts. But it will also allow scholars to raise and refine many of the methodological and historical questions that have been present in the field. It is this latter task that this project begins to embark upon. I will describe how this will be attempted in §4 below. With all these things in mind it is now possible to flesh out what I mean by the term “narratology”, and how I will apply it to the targumic texts.

2. WHAT IS NARRATOLOGY? In this section I will give a preliminary account of the basics of narratology and the kinds of questions it asks of narrative texts. For a more comprehensive overview of the concepts and terminology For an excellent exploration of this problem see Robinson, What is Translation?; cf. also Baker, Translation and Conflict. 134 More on this in §3.1.2 below. 133

INTRODUCTION

35

that will be used throughout this study, I refer the reader to Chapter 1 below. 2.1 A Brief Definition of Narratology As I indicated in the opening paragraphs to this introduction, narratology is a literary critical field that identifies certain kinds of structures as being significant for the creation of meaning narratives. These structures mostly encompass phenomena that are found within the narratives themselves, but they can also include dynamics that are found between the narratives and their readers.135 As such, narratology focuses on the specific mechanics that allow narratives to communicate, both as self-contained literary phenomena, and literary phenomena that function within certain social and historical contexts. Typically narratology has emphasised the former question in research rather than the latter.136 However, both strands can be found in narratological literature.137 2.2 The Scope of Narratology Typically narratology has had an explicit theoretical orientation. This has led in a variety of different directions. One direction has been toward structuralism, as typified perhaps by Genette and Bal.138 Other kinds of narratology, while still being focused on narrative structures and theory, tend to emphasise narrative as rhetoric, and particularly how readers engage with narrative.139 Narratology has also been used quite successfully for the purposes of gender criticism.140 Furthermore, an emerging horizon of narratological studies is the possibility of constructing a postcolonial narratoloThis tension is a recurring theme in Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. 136 Cf. Genette, Narrative Discourse. 137 For some recent trends and questions in narratology see Phelan and Rabinowitz, eds., A Companion to Narrative Theory. 138 Genette, Narrative Discourse; Bal, Narratology. 139 Cf. e.g. Phelan, “Narrative Judgments and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative,” 322–36. 140 Mieke Bal has been an exemplar in this area of research. Cf. e.g. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry. 135

36

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

gy.141 Thus narratology has a very broad scope, although one common denominator between all kinds of narratological studies is the identification and articulation of narrative structures. Another common denominator is the emphasis on theory, arguing the general from the particular. In terms of the present study, this latter procedure is problematical due to the nature of biblical and targumic literature. These difficulties will be further discussed in §2.3.3 and §3.2 below. 2.3 On the Possibility of Using Narratology to Study Biblical and Related Literature Some scholars have used narratology to study the HB and its related literature. This course of research is not without its problems, however. In this section I will briefly discuss some of these studies and then raise some of the conceptual problems that attend them.

2.3.1 Alter, Sternberg, and Bar-Efrat Three scholars who have used narratological approaches to study the HB are Alter, Sternberg and Bar-Efrat.142 In terms of their methodological outlooks, the studies of these scholars are fairly similar. Out of this research valuable concepts have emerged for the analysis of biblical type-scene texts, and programmatic gapping/gap-filling in the biblical narrative, to name just three. By attending to the subtle dynamics of the biblical narratives these scholars have provided the academic community with helpful tools and methods for approaching the HB from a literary perspective. Furthermore, although their description of the ideology of the biblical narrative has not been universally accepted,143 this description has provided a starting point for informed and, at times, passionately heated, discussions concerning what the HB is communicating through its narratives.

Cf. e.g. Prince, “On a Postcolonial Narratology.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative; Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible. 143 Cf. §2.3.2. 141 142

INTRODUCTION

37

2.3.2 The Critiques of Esther Fuchs and Mieke Bal Part of the reception of Alter and Sternberg’s studies, in particular, has been the feminist critiques generated by Fuchs and Bal.144 These scholars have argued that studies like Alter’s and Sternberg’s, and others, have failed to take into account the overwhelming masculinist ideology of the HB. Fuchs in particular has written that the HB systematically excludes women’s perspectives from its narratives, except when the perspective of women supports the national and masculine ideologies of the HB.145 Seeing this aspect of the HB as being a constituent part of the HB’s narrative structures, Fuchs goes on to analyze how this dynamic plays itself out in various contexts in the HB. Bal, in her approach to the book of Judges, is no less critical, arguing that most male scholars have focused on the surface historical coherence in this biblical book. But for her there is also a kind of counter-coherence, which revolves around issues of gender and the treatment of women, especially in instances involving violence and women.146 What Fuchs and Bal ultimately demonstrate is that narratology is not an ideologically neutral field. Quite the opposite: narratology can be used to bolster both masculinist and feminist causes, both consciously and unconsciously. In what follows, these specific debates will not figure much. Nevertheless, Chapter 4 will focus on gender as a single issue that can be examined in the targums, using narratology as a means for pursuing historical questions. As a result, the feminist interpretations of the HB mentioned in this section will play some roles in this study.

2.3.3 Possible Conceptual and Methodological Problems In 2005 Richter wrote the following about the possibility of a biblical narratology: The term “biblical narratology” is an oxymoron, particularly if we come to biblical narrative not from an ideological perspecCf. Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative; Bal, Death and Dissymmetry. 145 Cf. the introduction to her Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative. See also her “A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1–2.” 146 Bal, Death and Dissymmetry, introduction. 144

38

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS tive but from the angle of the formal features that are peculiar to it. Contemporary narratologies, both rhetorical and structuralist, in the style of Phelan and the style of Fludernik, were created to operate on the complexities of works like Absalom, Absalom! rather than the book of Samuel. That is, their analyses were designed for works of narrative artistry that are wholes rather than totals, that are written by identifiable authors about whose lives and attitudes information can be discovered, or— in the case of anonymous works—by authors who can be placed with some confidence both geographically and historically. They presume that the texts of these works can be established, that omissions, transpositions, and additions imposed by later redactors have not warped them almost beyond recognition. They presume that we can easily intuit whether a given narrative is intended to be read as fiction or as fact or an intricate combination of the two. They further presume that we can understand in at least a rough and ready way the system of genres within which a given narrative text has its place. They presume that we are free to locate the meaning of a text using rules of notice, signification, configuration, and coherence, that is, the usual rules for the interpretation of secular narratives identified and elucidated by Rabinowitz, rather than special rules of interpretation that derive from exterior systems of belief. None of these things is true of biblical narrative—which is kind of scary.147

By the end of his essay Richter aptly demonstrates that when approaching ancient literature such as the HB, narratological questions must be adapted and modified to match the dynamics of the literature being analysed. If the scholars mentioned in the preceding sub-sections have explored these issues, it is by and large without the knowledge of their readers, since methodological discussions are few and far between, especially in the works of Alter, Sternberg, and Bar-Efrat. In contrast, Bal makes methodology one of her explicit themes. Her approach to this problem is to engage in interdisciplinary discussion, using both philology and anthropology to 147

Richter, “Genre, Repetition, Temporal Order,” 285.

INTRODUCTION

39

complement her narratological approach. Fuchs, in contrast, does not engage this kind of discussion much, rather focusing her critiques on the sexual politics of the HB narratives and their modern scholarly interpreters. In my thesis, Chapter 4 will focus explicitly on some of the specific limits of the narratological approach when applied to targumic literature. Although I will not explicitly solve many of the problems encountered in that chapter, I will demonstrate how narratology can approach such phenomena, recognizing that further methodological discussion will have to occur before perfect solutions can be found.

3. HOW MIGHT TARGUM STUDIES AND NARRATOLOGY INTERFACE? There are several ideas and issues informing the narratological approach used in my research. In this section I list these ideas and then further explore some of the possible problems created by such an approach. 3.1 Ideas and Issues One idea that remains constant through the following list is that the Pentateuch targums are a kind of narrative literature. How would these narratives have been received in various social contexts? And, how do we determine the function of targumic literature? The questions in this sub-section thus recall the issues examined in §1.5.3. In the present section I seek to tease out how the targums might have been appropriated as narratives in a variety of different social contexts.

3.1.1 Targum as a Narrative Kind of Literature For the current purpose it is necessary to recall Samely’s concept of the targumic shadow of the HB text. This shadow, I would argue, not only secured the transference of Hebrew lexemes, morphemes, and syntactic structures into Aramaic targums. It also ensured that the HB forms of literature would be carried over into the targumic context. Thus the broad outlines of the HB narrative remain intact in Pentateuch targumic literature. There is a verse-to-verse, if not word-to-word, correspondence between the content of the HB narrative and some of the content of the targumic renderings of that narrative. It is true that at times (sometimes often) the targums

40

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

will have represented an HB verse with a narrative expansion. But as discussed in §1.3.1 above, the Pentateuch targums generally keep the narrative expansions separate from what Alexander calls the base translation. And even when there are narrative expansions, the narrative expansions are usually presented as being continuous with the surrounding co-text (there are some exceptions). As a result, the narrative form of the HB is carried into the targumic context, and as such the targums can be read as narratives. This does not ignore the fact that some of the HB’s narrative structures have been altered in the targums through their narrative expansions. On the contrary, the narrative interventions prove the point. Hence the fundamental form of the Pentateuch targums is narrative.

3.1.2 Narrative in the Synagogue Context Above I discussed the possibility, if not likelihood, that the targums were read antiphonally with the HB in the synagogue context. By this I mean that the one person would read a passage from the HB and then a translator would respond with a translated version. The rabbinic text usually used to substantiate this practice is m. Meg. 4:4. In the secondary literature this passage has often been interpreted to refer to the practice of Targum in the synagogue context.148 Yet the Mishnah text is not unambiguous; it may or may not be referring to the practice of Targum. However, if it is referring to the practice of Targum, one could argue against the appropriation of the targums as narratives on the basis of antiphonal reading. One could state that this kind of reading distracted the hearers from constructing coherence between the recited portions of the targum. Yet I would argue that the opposite is also true: if the targums were created to ensure that those who did not understand the language of the HB would be able to appropriate the HB narratives, then coherence must have been constructed in the midst of antiphonal reading and recitation, and perhaps even because of it. By presenting the HB narrative in translation verse by verse, as the Mishnah passage suggests, hearers of the targum could have very Cf. e.g. Smelik, “Orality, Manuscript production, and the Tarugms,” 53. 148

INTRODUCTION

41

easily constructed coherence between the recited portions of targum. They just would have had to wait for the next portion of the targum to be recited while the HB passage was read. This argument can be developed further when taking the probable multilingualism of the synagogue into account.149 If members of the synagogue had competence in both Hebrew and Aramaic, then it would have been possible for them to follow the progression of the narrative without interruption. Furthermore, even if these linguistic competencies were variegated, the targumic shadow of the biblical text would have allowed those not competent in biblical Hebrew to create connections between the targum and the HB. This argument works well with Flesher’s idea that the targums might have functioned as scripture for audiences whose members had various competencies with biblical Hebrew.150 There is a difference between this view and the view articulated by Fraade. Fraade argues that the targums were created to distinguish between the HB and their derivative interpretations.151 Concerning this issue, my view combines elements from both Flesher and Fraade. I will concede to Fraade that it is possible that the targums were created to make the distinction between the HB and its interpretation. However, when it came to how the targums were received, it is likely that for many of the targums’ hearers the HB and the targumic interpretations became fused. The close connection between the Hebrew and Aramaic lexemes and morphemes (i.e. the targumic shadow of the HB text) blurs the strong distinction that Fraade wishes to maintain between the HB and the targums. Certainly the targumic narrative expansions would have been noticeably different from the HB narrative. But even in these instances the different narratives could have become fused. In the synagogue context they would have been kept distinct. But in the memories of the synagogue members, the strong distinctions between the HB and its interpretations could very well become lost, unless they were constantly reinforced in discussion and practice. Therefore, given that we know little concerning the social institutions surrounding the targums, there is no way to tell how they Flesher, “Targum as Scripture;” Fraade, “Rabbinic Views.” Flesher, “Targum as Scripture.” 151 Fraade, “Rabbinic Views.” 149 150

42

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

might have been received and remembered. Eliminating the possibility of narratives becoming fused, then, would be, at least, premature. Admittedly, this is an argument from silence. However, foreclosing the discussion in either direction would do an injustice to the lack of evidence.

3.1.3 Narrative in Rabbinic Academies In the context of rabbinic academies one might suppose that the differences between the HB and the targums were very clearly perceived. But the situation is more complex since the targums likely played a different role here than in the synagogue. In §1.5.3 I mentioned Alexander’s hypothesis that the targums, particularly O, might have been used as a tool to teach rabbinic Jews the language of the HB.152 If this is indeed what happened, it is likely that the targumic narratives were not appropriated as narratives. Instead, the Aramaic shadow of the HB text would have been emphasized in this context, since it is this shadow that would have formed the basis of O’s didactic function. However, Alexander states that the targums probably would have played this role within the context of the beit sefer. Within the context of the beit midrashit is probable that they would also have been viewed as representatives of certain midrashic traditions—narrative expansions—that, at the time, may or may not have been attested elsewhere. As such, the narrative content of the targums would have been highly valued, albeit perhaps not for any narrative continuity it might have had. What might have been emphasised was specific narrative expansions for particular verses, or particular Aramaic renderings of certain Hebrew words. As a result, it is possible that in the beit midrash the targumic narratives would have been appropriated more as small units of meaning than as whole narrative shapes. However, this is speculative. As will be demonstrated in chapters 2 and 4, there are indications in some targumic narratives “the targumists” may have intended to engage the continuous narrative of the HB and empha-

152

Alexander, “How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?”

INTRODUCTION

43

size certain aspects of its structures in their renderings of it.153 This finding calls into question several conventional understandings of how the targums were created. Instead of being created to “translate”/“interpret” single words and sentences, the targums might have been created to “translate”/“interpret” entire biblical episodes. For the time being, then, it will be necessary to state that it is still uncertain as to how the targums might have functioned as narratives in rabbinic academies, since so little is known about this setting.

3.1.4 Targum as Popular Literature One assumption made in many parts of the secondary literature is that the targums reflect the beliefs and practices of their times.154 If this is the case then it is possible that they incorporated narrative material into their texts that would have been popular among the people that used them.155 In the field of midrash studies this kind of research has been popularized by Hasan-Rokem.156 In the field of targum studies, Shinan has made some contributions to this line of inquiry.157 However, much of this kind of exploration is speculative, since no external evidence has been examined to support the popular origin of some of the targumic narrative expansions. Further research in this area is needed. From my perspective, narratology raises the possibility that the targumists might have been attempting to harmonize the biblical narratives with folk or popular narratives present in their own contexts. Although this approach is limited by the lack of external evidence, it might give scholars acIn many ways this confirms Shinan’s assessment of PJ in his, “The Palestinian Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity.” 154 Cf. e.g. Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry,” 241–51; Shinan, The Form and the Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian” Targumim on the Pentateuch, ch. 3. 155 Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry,” 245– 248. 156 Cf. e.g. Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life; Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood. 157 Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry;” Shinan, The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian Targumim on the Pentateuch, ch. 3. 153

44

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

cess to a grassroots phenomenon in early Judaism. It may be that the targums reflect the convergence of popular and officially sanctioned forms of religion. And if this is the case, they can be used as valuable resources for discussing the folk religion of the Jews of late antiquity. This could be one of the historical implications of utilizing a narratological approach. 3.2 Further Problems I have already outlined several problems inherent in the approach that I will be adopting in my thesis. However, there are at least two further problems that need discussion. One has to do with the hermeneutical orientation of the targums; the other has to do with the fact that the targums developed over time, and reflect this historical development in the form of some of their narrative expansions as well as in the overall shape of their texts. I draw the reader’s attention to these issues in anticipation of what will be discussed in Chapter 3 below. I can summarize them in this way: the targums always presuppose other texts, whether it be the HB or no longer extant sources of narrative expansions. The shape of the targumic narratives is very much influenced by these other texts— both the HB and the no longer extant sources—to the degree that it is not always possible to explain some targumic phenomena without referring to them. There is much scholarship devoted to exploring these dynamics. In my study I want to critique the approaches employed by this scholarship from a narratological perspective and demonstrate what insights narratology can bring to some of these problems. In many cases I will present new conceptual issues that will have to be addressed in methodological discussions outside the context of my project. This, I hope, will be one of the more productive aspects of my research. In addition to the question of how the targums relate to other early Jewish documents, there is the question of how narratology might be able to analyze the legal portions of the targums. Within the context of this present study this question cannot be examined in any detail. However, within the field of Mishnah studies narrative methodologies are being increasingly used to analyze the struc-

INTRODUCTION

45

tures of certain mishnaic tractates.158 Therefore in a future project it is my hope to compare the targumic representations of certain sections of Deuteronomy with some of the halakhic material in the Mishnah. As I understand it, this kind of comparative work can be useful for describing some of the social dynamics of early Judaism as represented by two very different kinds of literature.

4. THE PLAN OF THE PROJECT It is now possible to outline the plan this book, as well as to articulate its overall orientation. 4.1 The Nature of my Study As I stated at the outset, this study is a methodological experiment. In it I want to explore what potential a narratological methodology has within the context of targum studies. On the one hand, narratology will be shown to be quite useful in conjunction with narrative portions that have a high level of coherence. This will become especially evident in Chapter 2 and to a lesser extent in Chapter 4. On the other hand, when it comes to portions of narrative that manifest a great deal of incoherence, narratology can identify where the incoherence lies and how it functions within the context of the narrative. This will be a source for methodological reflection, insofar as it problematizes both the narratological method, and the methods that have been used to study such less coherent passages in the past. 4.2 The Progression of the Argument Chapter 1 articulates the specific concepts and terminology that form the basis of the narratological approach and form the conceptual background of the following chapters. I will give a generic description of the narratological concepts, then give illustrative examples from targumic literature. This will show the potential of the method, and prepare the reader for the subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 endeavors to apply the narratological method to extended portions of text. This is done initially by tracing a single The fall 2008 issue of the AJS Review was devoted to exploring this emerging field. 158

46

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

motif over the second half of Genesis 26, PJ. Then the focus of the study shifts to analyse the whole of Genesis 39, PJ. I will show that although the targumic version of this narrative does present some significant differences from its HB antecedent, the PJ version does manifest a high degree of coherence, and that the potential for using the narratological approach in conjunction with targumic passages is quite high. This serves to raise the important question of what are the HB units of meaning that concerned the targumists. Since coherence plays such a large role in the application of narratology, Chapter 3 focuses on passages that manifest varying degrees of incoherence. It also raises the question of how such passages can be approached using a narratological perspective. Given that many of the passages in this chapter have been studied using other methods in targum studies, I put narratology into dialogue with these other methods. In the course of this I will question the universal applicability of the narratological method. Chapter 4 again emphasizes extended portions of narrative, but now the focus is narrowed down to issues related to gender and gender politics within the targums. The purpose of adopting this focus is to identify the location of the targums within wider early Jewish and late antique Greco-Roman contexts. Gender thus serves as an example of the problems of relating Targum to its user contexts and the role which narratology might play in those. This chapter begins with a study of Numbers 12, N, in particular the manner in which Miriam’s Subjectivity (a technical term in narratology, and marked by the use of a capital S) is constructed within the context of a maledominated narrative. Similar questions are raised in the following section dealing with Sarai and Hagar in Genesis 16, PJ. Finally, issues relating to masculinity are raised in the final section where I revisit Genesis 39, PJ. The targumic material is compared with GrecoRoman and rabbinic Jewish sources throughout this chapter, so as to provide some sense of cultural context. This chapter concludes the experimental portion of my thesis. In the conclusions I summarize the findings of my research and formulate questions for further examination. I have now defined the context and aims of the present study. Since this book is a methodological experiment, it aims to expand the field of targum studies and introduce a method to the study of Pentateuch targums that has typically fallen outside the repertoire of targum scholars.

1 BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS In the introduction I explained why I seek to explore the appropriateness and applicability of narratology to targumic literature. In the chapters that follow I will be applying an established narratological theory to targumic literature. As I observed above, narratology is an extremely diverse field. It would therefore be impossible to account for, or even use all the concepts that have been developed for the description of narrative as a linguistic form distinct from discourse. Of necessity, then, I must be selective, not only of the approach that I use, but also in the concepts I appropriate from that specific approach. Because she has worked extensively with biblical narratives, and because her narratology includes a relatively well-developed theory of narrative agency, I have chosen to adapt Mieke Bal’s approach for my own purposes. In the coming pages, I will articulate some of Bal’s concepts in an abstract manner, and then I will apply these concepts to selected passages from the Pentateuch Targums. My goal is to familiarize the reader with the conceptual framework that will be operating throughout my book. I also hope to demonstrate the analytical efficacy of these concepts through my brief examples. In the course of these examples I will not be comparing the targumic passages with their HB parallels. Such a comparison would inhibit the articulation and application of the narratological approach being adopted. In Chapter 2, however, there will be such a comparison for purposes that will become evident in that context.

1. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS OF BAL’S NARRATOLOGY One of the basic ideas of Mieke Bal’s narratological approach is that for the purposes of analysis narrative can be divided into three

47

48

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

different levels: fabula, story, and text.1 These three levels of narrative are not to be confused with different levels of narration, a concept that will be dealt with below. Rather, the division of narrative into these three levels helps, first of all, to determine what part of the narrative is being analyzed. It secondly helps to identify what kind of agency is being used by the figures in the narrative. For with every level of narrative there is an associated kind of agency. The concepts of narrative agency explained below will be the most prominent terminology used in the analyses found in the following chapters. However, there are many other structural phenomena analyzed at each level of narrative. Although these ideas and terms are important for understanding the conceptual framework of narratology, much of the terminology introduced in this chapter will play a secondary role in the analyses below. In the context of this chapter they are introduced for the purposes of showing what kinds of questions narratology asks of narratives. In what follows I will supply a brief exposition of some of the narratological phenomena that are isolated and analyzed at each level of narrative. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of narratological phenomena. It is rather intended to give the reader some idea of the themes that will be addressed throughout my thesis. Where other themes and concepts are needed, they will be introduced in due course. 1.1 The Fabula Level and Action Of the three levels of narrative the fabula level is the most abstract. On this level, the narrative is reduced to its basic elements, meanThis is distinct from other narratological systems. Cf. e.g. Genette, Narrative Discourse; and Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Neither Genette nor Sternberg use this tripartite division of narrative levels. Sternberg does, however distinguish between fabula and sujet, the latter category being roughly equivalent to Bal’s story level of narrative. For his distinction between fabula and sujet see Sternberg, Expositional Modes, 8–14. In this distinction, Sternberg is highly indebted to the Russian formalists, as is Bal. Bal is, in fact, indebted to both the Russian formalists and Genette. This is evident in several different aspects of her theory. 1

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

49

ing that on this level only “bare” structures are subjected to analysis. What I call “bare” structures are things like events, types of events, the actions of certain characters, and how those actions determine the relationships between those characters, only as far as their actions are concerned. For example, one might ask is character x the Subject or Object of action a? And, if character x is the Subject or Object of action a, what does that reveal concerning his or her relationship with the other character or characters involved in the same action? In this way the fabula level of narrative reduces characters to being seen only as actors in the events of the narrative. Furthermore, as implied by the sample questions I just raised, actors can occupy either Subject or Object positions as far as any action is concerned. To expand: actor x may attempt to do something concerning actor y. In this situation actor x would be called the Subject of the action whereas actor y would be called the Object. The thing that actor x wants to do concerning actor y would be identified as the function of the action, since it is the reason why actor x is acting in the first place. Furthermore, if character y is in the Object position, this often means that he or she holds the Power for the character in the Subject position to perform his or her action. There are situations where this is not the case, as will become evident in Chapter 2 in the Genesis 39, PJ narrative. However, in situations where each actor has equal access to agency, the actor in the Object position has the capacity to resist or facilitate the action being performed. As a result it is possible to ask, in what way does the actor in the Object position exercise his or her Power in his or her role? Furthermore, if other actors are involved in specific actions, yet they are not in Subject or Object positions, they are called either helpers or opponents. For example, if actor z, who is not in the Object position, attempts to prevent actor x from achieving his or her goal, actor z can be said to be acting as an opponent to actor x. The opposite would be true if actor z was to help actor x achieve his or her goal. In that case actor z would be identified as a helper to actor x.

50

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

All this is called an analysis of the actantial relations between the actors in a narrative.2 Because this kind of analysis plays a very large role in determining the structure of the fabula level of narrative, the fabula level is sometimes also called the level of action, since action is the primary agency manifest at this level of narrative. It is also worth noting that it is not always other actors that occupy the Object positions in the analysis of actantial relationships. Rather the Subject of an action may want to achieve a certain state, for example independence, which means that another actor is not placed in the Object position as far as the overall goal is concerned. Instead the state of independence would occupy the Object position. Yet insofar as the Subject actor sets out to achieve that goal, it is likely that other actors will occupy the Object position in relation to him or her at some intermediate stages of the narrative. Similarly he or she may occupy Object positions at other points in the narrative. Another element that is analyzed at the fabula level is the connections between events or their causality.3 Often the causality of events can be understood by determining the temporal and spatial connections between the events occurring and the events that have happened up to that point in the narrative. However this is not always the case. At times it is necessary to perform an analysis of the actantial relationships between the actors in order to determine what fundamental conflicts are being worked out and expounded throughout the course of the narrative. This does not mean that the For this description of actantial relationships, Bal acknowledges her indebtedness to A.J. Greimas. Bal, Narratology, 219. 3 As soon as an element of causality is introduced into the analysis of the narrative in question, Sternberg calls this an analysis of plot, as opposed to fabula. Sternberg, Expositional Modes, 13. Although there may be some conceptual merit to this distinction, insofar as it is consistent with earlier narratological theories, Bal’s theory has merit as well. What I have called “causality”, Bal calls “logical sequence” indicating that it is possible to state reasons explaining the sequence of events contained within a given fabula. Bal, Narratology, 214. Such reasons imply causality, which is why I have articulated this category at this point in my exposition of the narratological approach. 2

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

51

causes of certain events can be traced to a specific origin. But it does mean that an examination of actantial relationships can illuminate how one event flows from another, how one kind of relationship is transformed into another kind of relationship. All these events and transformations can be seen to take place on the temporal axis of the narrative, which is what allows the causality of the events to be made manifest in this kind of analysis. The last element of narrative I want to examine in this brief summary of the fabula level is the role of location. Every event has to take place somewhere, and even nowhere can be said to be somewhere in narratological analysis. Like in the discussion of actors above, location at the fabula level is a certain place reduced to its most abstract components. Thus the opposition between inside and outside becomes very important in this type of analysis. What does being inside mean within the context of a certain narrative as opposed to being outside? Is the inside location a secure location, or does it hold certain dangers? The same can be asked of outside. Also, some narratives can be set in liminal locations where the actors are neither inside nor outside, like in the gate of a city or the entryway to a hotel. What do these locations mean in terms of the roles the actors play in the narrative? Are the actors given access to Power, since Power is usually situated inside institutional structures as represented by some physical locations? Does a marginal physical location represent the theme of marginality as it is expressed in the lives of some of the actors in a narrative? 1.2 The Story Level and Focalization Whereas actors are seen as being functionaries within the events of the narrative at the fabula level, it is at the story level that they take on anthropomorphic characteristics that allow them to appear like real persons. Hence actors are called characters at the story level of narrative. There are several sources for determining the characters of certain figures in narrative. Alter has identified some of these sources “in ascending order of explicitness and certainty, for con-

52

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

veying information about the motives, the attitudes, the moral nature of characters.”4 He writes, Character can be revealed through the report of actions; through appearance, gestures, posture, costume; through one character’s comments on another; through direct speech by the character; through inward speech, either summarized or quoted as interior monologue; or through statements by the narrator about the attitudes and intentions of the personages, which may come either as flat assertions or motivated explanations. 5

As Alter indicates, these phenomena convey character with varying degrees of explicitness and reliability. Despite this they allow the interpreter (that is, the reader) to create statements that ascribe certain qualities to the characters in the narrative. Qualifying statements may also be made by the characters in the narrative or by the narrator, but it is always left to the interpreter to determine which of these statements are reliable. The narrative presents evidence concerning character, whereas the sorting and interpretation of the evidence is left up to the interpreter. Another concept utilized on the story level of narrative is applied to a phenomenon that Bal calls focalization.6 Focalization is, at its most basic level, the presentation of certain perspectives or visions within the narrative. For Bal, every statement within a narrative is presented with a certain vision. The question is, however, who is presenting that vision and what does that vision present? It is therefore possible for the visions of certain characters to be represented, which would mean that the focalizer (the agent of focalization) is a character focalizer. In the case where there is no focalizer identified by the narrative, the focalizer is usually described as

Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 116. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 116–17. 6 Bal, Narratology, 142–70. Genette also uses this category, but gives it quite a different nuance than Bal. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 189–94. For Genette’s critiques of Bal’s use of this concept see Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, 72–78. 4 5

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

53

being external to the narrative.7 Typically character focalization is indicated with a sight related verb: “character x looked and saw y”.8 External focalization usually requires no such verb since the reporting of events or the evaluation of character already implies vision. As should be evident, focalization is the type of agency that manifests itself at the story level of narrative. As such, there are not only focalizers, but there are also focalized objects, namely that which falls within the focalizer’s field of vision. Although the act of focalization does not always directly impact upon the focalized object itself, it does often reveal much concerning the focalizer. For it is through focalization that the reader is given insight into what the focalizer sees and how he or she sees it. Therefore it is often through their acts of focalization that a character’s reliability as a focalizer can be assessed. From the reader’s perspective, one can ask: Has the focalizer perceived the situation accurately? Is there something that he or she has missed or misunderstood? Do I as an interpreter agree with the perspective that is presented by this character? If not, why not? If so, then why? The last phenomenon I want to address in this brief discussion of the story level is that of anachrony. According to Bal, anachrony is the presentation of events in an order other than the order in which they occurred in the chronology of the fabula.9 It is with external focalization that it is possible to discuss the vision that the “implied author” is presenting, since even seemingly unfocalized sentences are focalized by some agent or another. 8 Genette is more open than Bal concerning what perceptions he will group under the heading of focalization. For Genette, focalization is any narrowing of the perspective of the narrative channeled through the sense perceptions of one agent or another. Thus sight, hearing, taste, touch, or smell can all be viable forms of focalization. As long as some sort of perception is involved, focalization is evident. Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, 72–78. 9 Bal, Narratology, 80–99. Genette uses extensive space to discuss this phenomenon since it plays such a large role in Proustian narrative. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35–85. Sternberg also spends many pages discussing this phenomenon, since it forms the basis of his distinction between the fabula and the sujet. Sternberg does not, however, use the termi7

54

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Again, the fabula is an abstract reconstruction of the chains of events as they occurred in time, whereas the story is the concrete presentation of those events in the narrative regardless of their sequential order in the fabula. It is therefore possible to have events narrated before or after they would have occurred in the fabula. Because of this kind of disregard for adherence to chronology, such phenomena are called anachrony. This does not mean, however, that there are absolutely no temporal markers when anachrony is encountered in a narrative. Quite the opposite: anachrony is usually indicated by such things as a shift in verb tense. Sometimes there can also be paratextual markers of anachrony, such as the use of italic script in some modern novels. By and large anachrony falls into two categories, retroversion and anticipation. Retroversions are anachronies where events from the chronological past are presented at certain points in the narrative. Usually retroversions have some sort of explanatory function within the narrative insofar as they may explain why a certain situation is the way it is, or why certain characters relate in a certain way. Anticipations, in contrast, indicate or partially indicate the outcomes of certain portions of the fabula. Anticipations can serve any number of functions, whether it is to create suspense, or to indicate that the outcome of the fabula is not what the reader might expect. In all, anticipations help to keep the reader interested in the narrative, since they usually indicate only partially what the outcome of the fabula will be. 1.3 The Text Level and Speech The phenomena addressed at the text level of narrative have to do with who is speaking, and how that speaking communicates to the

nology of anachrony, instead placing the temporal ordering of events and descriptions under the heading of “exposition”. Although this restricts the functions that anachronies can play within narratives, and also limits the focus of his book to retroversions, this also assists in demonstrating the temporal aspects of fiction and narratorial control so important to Sternberg’s theory. Sternberg, Expositional Modes, cf. in particular chs. 1 and 2.

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

55

reader, as well as to the other characters in the narrative.10 As such the text level of narrative is sometimes called the level of speech, since speech is the type of agency manifest at this level. This furthermore means that the actors and characters of the fabula and story levels respectively are called speakers on the text level. The first phenomenon I want to address in this discussion of the text level is the distinction between narrative and non-narrative. From Bal’s perspective a narrative text is defined as follows. A narrative text [her emphasis] is a text in which an agent relates (‘tells’) a story in a particular medium, such as language, imagery, sound, buildings, or a combination thereof. A story is a fabula that is presented in a certain manner. A fabula is a series of logically and chronologically related events that are caused or experienced by actors.11

Any text that does not manifest this kind of structuring is not considered narrative by Bal’s definition. Thus even novels and other forms of literature that are primarily narrative in form can contain portions of non-narrative. Non-narrative comments can take a variety of different forms, perhaps the most common of which is description. There are also other non-narrative forms that can be manifest in narrative texts as well. For Bal, this distinction between description and other types of non-narrative is quite important since it has a direct bearing on how non-narrative comments impact upon the elements of the fabula. Those kinds of non-narrative that have some impact on the elements of the fabula are usually called descriptive, whereas as those uses of non-narrative that bear on something external to the fabula, usually some kind of general knowledge, are called argumentative.12 In all the examples Bal uses to discuss this phenomenon, it is the narrator who makes the argumentative statements. Yet it is conceivable that in some narratives speakers other than the narrator could be used to articulate

Genette groups these phenomena under the category of “Voice”. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 212–62. 11 Bal, Narratology, 5. 12 Ibid., 33. 10

56

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

argumentative discourse. Much would depend on the genre of the narrative and how speech was used within that genre. Another feature of the text level of narrative is a phenomenon called levels of narration.13 This phenomenon has to do with the distinctions between speakers in the narrative. The primary speaking agent in any narrative is the narrator: it is the narrator who tells the story. Often the narrator is the speaking agent who produces the most words in any given narrative. However, the narrator is not the only speaker in most narratives, in that there are other speakers who use their agency to produce words. When this happens it is said that there is another level of narration evident in the narrative. The words of the narrator create the first level of narration, whereas the words of other speakers create a second level of narration, especially if their words form a narrative. And, if the words of the speakers in the narrative quote the words of yet other speakers, there is a third level of narration made manifest. This division of narration into different levels can continue as long as there are speaking agents quoting other speaking agents. Or even when there are different kinds of indirect speech used this too can be seen to create a different level of narration. In all, a different level of narration occurs whenever an agent other than the narrator uses words to communicate a message, regardless of whether that message is communicated in direct speech or indirect speech. As long as the narrative indicates some sort of speech produced by a speaker other than the narrator, a different level of narration is evident. This implies that speakers within narratives can become narrators themselves. This also means that speakers other than the narrator can also use the tools of direct or indirect speech to quote other speakers. In sum, the concept of levels of narration helps to distinguish who is communicating what at any point in any narrative. The last phenomenon I want to explain in conjunction with the text level of narrative is the perceptibility of the narrator. In Bal’s framework, a narrator can be either perceptible or nonConcerning this phenomenon, Bal and Genette are in almost complete agreement, although Bal has significantly developed this category since Genette originally articulated it. Ibid., 43–75; Genette, Narrative Discourse, 227–31; Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, 84–95. 13

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

57

perceptible.14 And narrators can be either one of these things at different times in their narratives. In many ways the perceptibility of the narrator depends on the degrees to which the narrator refers to him or herself in the narrative. It also depends upon whether he or she is revealed to be active as an agent in the narrative or not, despite the fact he or she is often a figure external to the narrative. This can happen in a variety of ways. Sometimes the narrator can become perceptible in remarks directed explicitly to the reader where the narrator makes certain claims concerning the truth of his or her narrative. Another way the narrator can become perceptible is when there is a coincidence in point of view between the external focalizer and character focalizers, meaning that the external focalizer and a character view the same thing and come to the same conclusions concerning it. In this way the agency of the external focalizing agent, who could be identified as the narrator, becomes evident in the narrative as does the agency of the character focalizer. The narrator narrates this coincidence of focalization and maintains his or her distinctive identity yet in so doing draws attention to him or herself as a witness of the events that are unfolding in its narrative. In this way the external narrator reveals him or herself to be an agent in the narrative, even though he or she likely does not utilize the agency of action. 1.4 Summary This concludes the brief survey of the narratological approach I will be using throughout this book. As indicated above, this list was not intended to be exhaustive in terms of the concepts identified and used by narratologists. Rather these concepts form the seminal points of the conceptual framework that will be used throughout the following chapters. They therefore warranted the most careful explanation. In the remainder of this chapter I will apply these concepts to a selection of targumic passages to demonstrate how they can be used in conjunction with the targumic narratives.

14

Bal, Narratology, 27–29.

58

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

2. BASIC MOVES OF A NARRATOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE TARGUMS In a manner similar to my exposition of key narratological concepts, I will now analyze a selection of targumic passages using the concepts articulated above. I will begin with the fabula level of narrative and then proceed to the story and text levels of narrative respectively. Again, I will not be comparing the targumic passages directly with their HB parallels, except only implicitly. I take this approach because it is the most effective way to demonstrate the dynamics of narratology. As for my translations of targumic passages, I have attempted to replicate the flow of the Aramaic syntax, without being completely literal. I have attempted to produce relatively fluent English, without obscuring some of the Aramaic syntactic structures that are important for the interpretations I produce below. 2.1 The Fabula Level of Narrative: Conflict, Causality, and Location (1) Genesis 32:25, PJ: conflict Jacob was left alone across the Jabbok. And an angel in the form of a man wrestled with him. He said, “Did you not promise to tithe all that is yours? Look, you have twelve sons and one daughter and you have not tithed them.” Immediately he [Jacob] put aside the four firstborn to the four mothers and there remained eight. And he began to count from Simeon, and Levi came up at the tenth. Michael answered and said, “Master of the World, this is your lot.” On account of these matters he remained beyond the river until daybreak.

This passage can be seen to perform a number of functions within the targumic narrative. On the one hand it explains why Levi was chosen to be the patriarch of the priestly family in the Exodus narrative. In the more immediate context of the Genesis 32 episode, this passage indicates why Jacob was delayed across the Jabbok by wrestling with the angel: the angel has appeared to exact the promised tithe from Jacob. As far as the actantial relationships of this passage are concerned, this puts the angel in the Subject position and Jacob in the Object position. The angel must act upon Jacob in order to achieve the goal that the tithe be paid. By being placed in

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

59

the Object position in this situation, Jacob holds the Power for the angel to achieve his goal, or not as the case may be. Since the angel and Jacob must wrestle for the tithe to be exacted, it becomes evident that Jacob wishes to use his Power to resist the angel’s action. To compare, it is possible to put Jacob in a Subject position based on the information provided at the beginning of this passage. We can also state that his Object is not to pay the tithe. Given that Jacob’s goals do not match the goals of the angel, the situation between these two actors is one of conflict, conflict that must be resolved by one actor somehow overpowering the other15. Yet it is also true that according to the targum, Jacob actually offers little resistance to the angel regarding the matter of the tithe. In fact, since the targum uses the phrase ‫“( מן יד‬immediately”), it would appear as though Jacob responds without hesitation to the angel’s charge that he has not tithed his children. As a result, the targum’s use of ‫ מן יד‬raises questions concerning the duration of the events in this passage. Does the angel come and start wrestling with Jacob without announcing his intentions until sometime later? Or does Jacob wrestle the angel in response to the demand that the tithe be paid, only acquiescing later to give Levi over to God? The second interpretation seems to be less likely, again due to the targum’s use of ‫מן יד‬. There is thus a problem created by the rhythm of this passage, a phenomenon typically dealt with at the story level of narrative. Because these events are narrated in quick succession it is not Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 179. Alter writes the following concerning this conflict in the HB. “The image of wrestling has been implicit throughout the Jacob story: in his grabbing Esau’s heel as he emerges from the womb, in his striving with Esau for the birthright and blessing, in his rolling away the huge stone form the mouth of the well, and in his multiple contendings with Laban. Now, in this culminating moment of his life story, the characterizing image of wrestling is made explicit and literal.” This analysis can be applied to the targumic narrative as well. However, in the targumic narrative it is more difficult to state that this struggle is the literalising of the general conflicts that have involved Jacob throughout his life. Here in the targum the conflict is restricted to a particular issue, thus diminishing the symbolic meaning of the wrestling in this passage. 15

60

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

possible to get a precise sense of how deep the conflict between Jacob and the angel was. Instead the targum leaps to the resolution of the conflict, only indicating afterward that Jacob was occupied with these matters for the better part of the night, or “until daybreak”. It is therefore likely that the targum is excluding several details concerning the conflict from its narrative. As far as the targum is concerned it is important that Jacob submitted to the angel in the matter of tithing his children. The precise details of this conflict are inconsequential. (2) Numbers 16:1–2, PJ: causality Now Korah son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi took his prayer cloak which was all purple, as did Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab and On son of Peleth, the sons of Reuben. And they arose in boldness and taught a tradition contradicting Moses concerning the purple. Moses had said, “I have heard from the mouth of the Holy One, may his Name be Blessed, that the fringes shall be white, and there shall be one thread in it that is purple.” Korah and his companions made prayer cloaks and their fringes entirely of purple, which was not the command of the Lord. Men from the Israelites were helping them, two hundred and fifty officers of the congregation— ones distinguished by their name—who joined at the time of wandering and camping.16

In this passage, Korah and Dathan and Abiram act as a single actantial unit.17 As one of the actantial Subjects in this passage their It is possible that the precise details of this conflict were generated by this passage’s close textual proximity with Numbers 15, which deals with the halakhah concerning the fringes. If this is the case, the co-text of this passage has informed the targumic rendering of Numbers 16:1–2. This explanation for the content of this passage, however, falls outside the purview of a narratological approach. Such details are better dealt with by attempting to describe the hermeneutical orientation of the targums. For such a study see, Samely, The Interpretation of Speech. 17 Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 762. Here in reference to the HB version of this passage Alter notes the strangeness of the alliance between Korah and Dathan and Abiram. The fact that Korah is a Levite and that 16

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

61

goal is to disseminate their tradition concerning the purple. The people of the camp of Israel are the Object of this action and they hold the Power to either receive or reject this teaching. Moses, however, is also in a Subject position in this passage, and it is his goal to teach the tradition received from God concerning the purple. Again the people of the camp of Israel are the Object, this time of Moses’ action. This passage therefore opens up the question: who will be able to gather the most support behind him/themselves to ensure that his/their respective teaching is accepted? By the end of this passage it is evident that Korah and Dathan and Abiram have already gathered significant support, namely the two hundred and fifty officers of the congregation. These men are helpers to Korah and Dathan and Abiram, insofar as they assist these individuals in achieving their goal of disseminating their tradition. And, given that the two hundred and fifty men are men that have some influence within the camp of Israel, it would appear as though Korah and the members of his party are well on their way to achieving the goal of having their teaching accepted. This is the fundamental conflict to be worked out throughout this episode: both Korah’s group and Moses want to disseminate a tradition concerning the purple in the prayer cloak. But according to the narrative, only Moses’ tradition comes from God whereas the Dathan and Abiram are Reubenites suggests that this is a strange and unlikely alliance. Alter acknowledges that the editors of this passage have likely brought together two rebellions and combined them into one in this episode. However, he also goes one step further and attempts to explain this joining together in literary terms. He writes, “perhaps this odd weaving together of the two rebellions was intended to suggest that political and sacerdotal power are inseparable (an idea that might have appealed to Priestly editors) . . .” In many ways Alter is wrestling with a kind of methodological problem that is presented often by both the HB and the targums: how does a literary or narratological critic interpret texts that obviously have some diachronic problem associated with them, while at the same time maintaining the synchronic perspective of his or her method. It is precisely this kind of problem that will be dealt with in Chapter 4 below. For the time being, however, this issue has been ignored in the targum text, since the targum itself does not seem to consider it problematic.

62

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

source of Korah’s teaching is unknown. How will Moses and God ensure that their teaching is the one accepted by the people? What actions are required to convince the people that Moses’ teaching is right and good? These questions and others are the ones that drive the fabula of this episode forward. As a result, this passage forms the first link in the causal chain that constitutes this episode. (3) Exodus 2:21, PJ: location When Reuel learned that Moses fled from before Pharaoh, he threw him into a pit. Now Zipporah, the daughter of his son, sustained him in secret for a period of ten years. At the end of ten years he brought him out from the pit and Moses went into the garden of Reuel. He was giving thanks and praying before the Lord who worked miracles and mighty deeds for him. And he saw the staff that had been created at twilight, and engraved upon it clearly was the great and glorious Name with which he would in the future perform wonders in Egypt and in the future with it split the Sea of Reeds and bring forth water from the rock. It was fixed in the middle of the garden. Immediately he stretched out his hand and took it. Look, Moses then desired to dwell with the man and he gave Zipporah the daughter of his son to Moses.

Like example (1) this passage has multiple functions in the targumic narrative. It tells how Moses got his staff, how and why he decided to live with Reuel, and explains why he married Zipporah as opposed to any of Jethro’s other daughters.18 Instead of examining Ibid., 316. In contrast to what is presented by PJ, Alter traces a line of causality in the HB which is completely obliterated in the targumic setting. According to Alter, Reuel’s “call” to Moses in v. 20 is an invitation to the latter, indicating that the former is a civilized man. By including this call in its narrative, the HB episode indicates its conformity to the betrothal type-scene, which is first utilized in Genesis 29. With this line of causality in place, 2:21 in the HB is the expected conclusion of the typescene. As is evident in the PJ version, however, the type-scene is interrupted by Reuel’s actions against Moses and then Zipporah’s sustenance of Moses during his ten years in the pit. By including these events, the 18

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

63

each of these things, I will focus on the role of location in this passage. This passage follows the targum’s rendering of the verse where Reuel tells the daughters of his son (Jethro, according to the targum) to invite Moses to share bread with them. In a sense this means that Reuel is preparing to bring Moses into his camp and accept him as an honored guest. However the passage used as example (3) indicates that Reuel has changed his mind concerning what to do with Moses. Instead of accepting him as a guest in his home, he excludes him from the camp by throwing him in a pit. The targum does not make explicit what motivates Reuel when he makes this move. Perhaps he believes that at some point he will deliver Moses over to Pharaoh, which would make Moses Reuel’s prisoner who can be exchanged for some reward or another. Or perhaps Reuel believes that Moses poses a danger to himself and to the members of his household, which would mean that his goal in throwing Moses into the pit is self-protection while at the same time acknowledging that Moses cannot go back to Egypt safely. Whatever Reuel’s reasons, the imprisoning of Moses is an overtly exclusionary move: Moses is not accepted as a member of Reuel’s household. Yet to a certain extent this imprisonment works in Moses’ favour, since he is out of the immediate danger that would be present to him had he remained in Egypt. As a result, the time Moses spends in the pit is a time of transition. He is exiled from his first home, Egypt, yet he is potentially on the verge of finding a new home in the camp of Reuel. His partial acceptance in this new context is signaled by the fact that Zipporah sustains him during his time in the pit. But during this time his position remains liminal, both literally and figuratively, until the moment when Reuel removes him from the pit for reasons that again remain hidden. Once he is brought out of the pit Moses goes to Reuel’s garden. In contrast to the pit, this location, which although may be physically liminal, is far from liminal due to the object of power it houses, targum does not rely on the well-established biblical type-scene to dictate the outcome of the encounter between Moses and Reuel. Instead, the targum narrates a chain of events that makes the lines of causality between vv. 20 and 21 explicit; in the HB it is left to the interpreter to determine why Moses desired to stay with Reuel, and why he married Zipporah.

64

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

namely the staff that Moses will later use to perform several miracles. By making this move from a liminal location to a location that is more central in terms of the power residing in it, the targum narrativizes Moses’ transition from being the Object of another’s actions to having his Subjectivity restored. In the garden, he is now given the choice as to whether he will stay with Reuel or not. None of this negates the fact that in more than one way Moses will still be reliant upon Reuel for his survival should he decide to stay. Rather the fact of Moses’ choosing emphasizes the idea that Moses was not coerced into staying with Reuel. Moses’ choice is deliberate and made for very specific reasons, namely the presence of a place holy enough to house the staff of power, as well as the presence of Zipporah. The presence of the staff furthermore recalls the creation narrative, since the staff was created on the twilight of the first Sabbath. For Moses to enter Reuel’s garden, then, is to return to his beginnings and emerge as a new creation, as signified by his gaining of the staff. Furthermore, this return to beginnings also signals a renewed blessing for Moses. Whereas Moses was formerly imprisoned in the pit, which was a place of destitution, the garden is a place of abundance. As such both the pit and the garden reveal much about those who occupy and use them. 2.2 The Story Level of Narrative: Character, Focalization, and Anachrony (4) Numbers 12:1–2, N: character Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses concerning the Cushite woman he had married. Now the Cushite woman was Zipporah the wife of Moses, for just as the Cushite woman is different in her body from every creature, so was Zipporah the wife of Moses handsome in form and beautiful in appearance and different in her good works from all the women of that generation. And they said, “Has the Lord only spoken with

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

65

Moses? Has he not also spoken with us?” And it was heard before the Lord.19

Ostensibly this passage explains Miriam and Aaron’s words against Moses’ Cushite wife by stating that the Cushite wife is in fact Zipporah. It is by virtue of her good looks and good works that she is compared with a Cushite woman, who, according to the targum, “is different in her body from every creature”. Yet it is also evident that within the targumic narrative Zipporah’s good looks and good deeds are also meant to communicate something concerning her character. For, as was noted before, appearance and actions are two sources that reveal character. From this very brief portrait it is possible to state that Zipporah was a woman of renown in the camp, insofar as her good looks and good works distinguished her “from all the women of that generation”. This is in contrast to Miriam, who at this point in the narrative has not been attributed with any such qualities. Aaron, in contrast, is a character who has received significant development up to this point in the narrative. As a result, it is curious that he would join with Miriam in attempting to defame Zipporah. However, Miriam and Aaron’s actions and words in this passage indicate that they, perhaps more specifically Miriam—since her name appears first—is motivated by some unarticulated sense of jealousy directed toward both Zipporah and Moses. Although this sense of jealousy may be partially justified from Miriam’s perspective, the rest of the narrative demonstrates that the way in which Miriam and Aaron express their jealousy is unacceptable: it has the potential to create dissention in the camp. As far as 12:1–2 is concerned, however, the contrast between Zipporah and Miriam is crucial for the targum’s presentation of this situation. It highlights the unreasonableness of Miriam and Aaron’s complaints against Zipporah and Moses. According to the value system of the targum, Zipporah is a woman who should be commended. That Miriam and Aaron do not realize this exposes the degree to which they are blinded by their jealousy. Ultimately this

For a complete interpretation of this passage in the context of the Numbers 12 episode see Chapter 4 below. 19

66

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

blindness serves to justify the punishments they receive in the course of this episode.20 (5) Genesis 24:67, O: focalization Isaac brought her [Rebecca] into the tent and looked. And look, her deeds were proper like the deeds of Sarah his mother. And he took Rebecca and she became his wife and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted after his mother.

This passage presents Isaac’s acceptance of Rebecca as his wife as being dependent on an act of focalization. Isaac looks at Rebecca and sees that “her deeds were proper like the deeds of Sarah his mother”.21 In response to what he sees, Isaac takes Rebecca to be his wife. This is what the targum conveys in terms of Isaac’s reasons for taking Rebecca to himself. However, it also conveys much more through the way in which it uses the word ‫“( הא‬look”) at the beginning of the sentence indicating what Isaac saw. By discussing the targum’s use of this word I am taking a detour through the text level of narrative, but this is necessary to indicate the dynamics of the focalization in this passage. It is obvious that the speaker uttering the ‫ הא‬is the narrator since there is no indirect speech indicated here. It may be that the targum is using free indirect discourse to present Isaac’s thoughts, but that is unlikely since free indirect discourse is rarely used in either the targums or the HB. Since it is the narrator producing these words, it is evident that the external focalizer must be witnessing what Isaac is seeing as Isaac is seeing it. In other words the narrator becomes perceptible in this passage as a witness to the events being narrated. Furthermore, given that the narrator is presented as being reliable within the context of the tarMore on this in Chapter 4 below. This sentence in the targum is a response to the unusual nature of the phrase “Sarah his mother” in the HB. According to Alter, some textual critics have argued that this phrase should be deleted on the grounds that it is a corruption. Alter, on the other hand states that this proposal “should be resisted” since Rebecca is filling the void in Isaac’s life created by the death of Sarah. According to Alter, because Rebecca is playing this role, it is natural that Isaac should bring her into Sarah’s tent. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 126. 20 21

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

67

gumic narratives, this device serves to verify the accuracy of what Isaac is seeing: both Isaac and the reliable external focalizer share this vision. Therefore what Isaac sees must be true, at least according to the targum. In this way the targum communicates that Isaac is an accurate judge of character, as well as communicating that Rebecca is worthy of being Isaac’s wife. (6) Genesis 14:13, PJ: anachrony Now Og, who had been saved from the giants who died in the flood, came. He rode upon the ark and there was shelter over his head and there was sustenance from the food of Noah. But it was not by his merit that he was saved, but that the inhabitants of the world might see the power of the Lord and say, “Did not the giants from before rebel against the Master of the World so that he destroyed them from the earth?” Now when the kings fought, Og was with them. He said in his heart, “I shall go and tell Abram about the matter concerning Lot who was captured, and he shall come to rescue him from the hands of the kings and shall himself be delivered into their hands.” He came on the evening of the day of Passover and found him making unleavened cakes. And he told Abram the Hebrew who was dwelling in the vision of Mamre the Amorite the brother of Eshkol, and the brother of Aner. And they were masters of the covenant of Abram.22

The primary actor in this passage is Og. But given that he is not known in the HB Pentateuch until Numbers 21, the targum must explain his presence in this narrative. This is accomplished through Daniel Patte makes mention of this passage in his Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 56–60. According to Patte, Og’s inclusion in this passage has to do with a play on words between Og’s name and ‫עגות‬, which refers to the unleavened cakes that Abram was making for Passover. The problem with this interpretation is that neither PJ nor the HB uses the word ‫עגות‬. However, where Patte’s engagement with this passage does have merit is in his articulation of the targumic “telescoping” of the biblical narrative, wherein certain characters, dates, and places keep recurring in the targumic narratives. Here both Og and Passover are telescoped entities, since neither appear in the HB version of this passage. 22

68

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the use of two anachronies, more particularly, retroversions. The first retroversion explains how Og, known as being a very tall person from Deuteronomy 3:11—as well as being the last of his people—was alive during the time of Abram. According to the targum, Og is one of the giants who was alive before the flood, and he escaped the flood on Noah’s ark. This retroversion recalls events that happened several generations before the events of this episode. It also explains that there is a divine purpose in Og being spared from the flood, namely that through seeing Og people should be reminded of the punishment brought upon the giants by the flood. In this way the targum limits the scope of what Og can do and accomplish within the context of its narrative. Og serves a specific function in God’s divine plan. Beyond that function he has very little role to play as far as the targum is concerned. The second retroversion explains how Og came to be included in this episode, and what role he will play as far as his interactions with Abram are concerned. The retroversion therefore also implies an anticipation. How Og came to be with the kings when they went out to battle is never explained. Neither is it explained why he would want to see Abram captured by the kings. All that the targum supplies is the information that its readers/audiences need to know concerning what Og will do in this episode: he is the agent that will inform Abram of Lot’s captivity. The targum gives no indication what Og was doing before this point or what he will do afterward. In all, the targum indicates through its two retroversions that Og’s role in this episode, and indeed within the entirety of the targumic narrative, is quite minor, if not insignificant. God has created a role for Og, a role that will ultimately lead to his downfall, as is indicated in Numbers 21. Again, this is an implied anticipation. If Og’s role in this narrative is to indicate any general principle in the context of the targumic narratives, it is that punishment and defeat await those who rebel against God and position themselves as enemies of his people. This motif is further emphasized by the targum’s assertion that these events took place on the eve of Passover, the festival celebrating God’s redemptive acts for his people Israel. Abram’s pre-Exodus celebration of Passover assumes that God will redeem his people in the future, just as Abram will redeem Lot in the present, with God’s help (cf. Genesis 15:1, PJ). Note that examples (3) and (4) also included retroversions.

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

69

2.3 The Text Level of Narrative: Levels of Narration, Non-narrative, and a Perceptible Narrator (7) Numbers 21:34, N: levels of narration When Moses saw Og king of Butnin he feared and he trembled before him. And he said, “Is this not Og who reviled Abraham and Sarah and said before them, ‘Abraham and Sarah are like trees standing by springs of water but do not produce fruit.’” Because of this the Lord preserved him until the time when he saw their children and the children of their children. And he came and he fell into their hands. After this the Lord said to Moses, “Do not be afraid from before him because I have delivered him into your hand and all his people: you shall do to him just as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites who dwelt in Heshbon.” (PJ similar)

Like example (6) this passage delimits the role that Og plays within the history of Israel. During the time of Abraham and Sarah he denied (another retroversion) that the patriarch and his wife would ever produce children. Yet now he will see that Abraham and Sarah have in fact produced a great multitude that will eventually defeat him. The way in which the targum conveys this information to its readers/audiences is significant; it reveals much concerning the way in which Og is presented within the targums. Instead of having the narrator narrate a retroversion concerning Og’s taunting of Abraham and Sarah, the targum has Moses narrate this narrative. In Bal’s language what Moses presents is an embedded narrative text that clarifies something about the primary level of narration, also called the primary fabula.23 What Moses’ narrative clarifies is the reason why he is afraid of Og. However, it is important to remember that Moses’ brief narrative is a narrative told from Moses’ point of view, meaning that Og’s words form a tertiary level of narration: Og’s words are not on the same level of narration as Moses’ words, which are on a secondary level of narration. Since this is the case, Moses may be reconstructing the episode between Og and Abra23

Bal, Narratology, 52–58.

70

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

ham and Sarah incorrectly. The targum does not record this episode anywhere else, and neither does it explain how Moses came to know about this earlier encounter. It is therefore impossible to compare Moses’ understanding of these events with the events themselves as they happened in the primary fabula. Instead, this situation is constructed in such a way that Moses’ reliability as a narrator is assumed, and there is no evidence given to contradict this assumption. Furthermore, Og is given no words outside of Moses’ narration wherein he can either confirm or deny what Moses is claiming about him. In a sense Og is trapped inside Moses’ narrative and the perspective that it implies. Og is not given the opportunity to narrate his own personal narrative on the same level of narration as the other speakers. In this passage others narrate his narrative, whether it be Moses or the targumic narrator. And given that these narrators perceive him as being an enemy of Israel, they eliminate any opportunity he might have to defend his actions, perspectives, or words. From the targumic perspective, Og is a figure whose actions, perspectives, and words are always suspect. The targumic narrative therefore systematically excludes any details and views concerning Og that might contradict the idea that Israel was right and justified in conquering Og and seizing his lands. Putting Og’s words on a tertiary level of narration in this passage is just one of the ways in which the targums achieve this effect. (8) Numbers 17:5, PJ: non-narrative [This was to be] a remembrance for the children of Israel so that no layman who is not from the sons of Aaron shall send up aromatic incense before the Lord and so that no man shall become overbearing and cause division over priestly matters like Korah and the assembly of his helpers. Now his end is destruction, but not like the deaths of Korah and his assembly in a conflagration of fire or in the earth swallowing them, but to be smitten with leprosy. Just as the Lord spoke to Moses, “Place your hand in your bosom,” and his hand was smitten with leprosy, so would happen to him.

This passage comes from the episode immediately following the episode describing Korah and his rebellion. At the beginning of this chapter God commands that the censers of those who have been burned should be pounded into plates for a covering for the altar to serve as a warning to the Israelites. In PJ’s rendering of

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

71

verse 4 the narrative states that Eleazar the priest carries out God’s command, and then the passage here in example (8) follows. It is obvious from its form that this passage is non-narrative and nondescriptive. And at its beginning it repeats what the targum has already communicated at the end of its rendering of verse 3, that the new plating for the altar is to serve as a warning for the Israelites. The targum is quite explicit concerning what this covering is meant to be a warning for: it is to warn against laymen offering incense before God, and to warn against people causing division in the camp concerning priestly matters. Then the targum indicates what the consequences of such actions will be. In doing so it moves into almost explicitly argumentative language since it is making a point concerning anyone who does not heed this warning, not just those in the narrative who do not heed it. It is through this move that the targum indicates that the details of its narrative have real world relevance and consequences. Those who do not observe and follow the warning on the altar will be stricken with leprosy, a punishment quite different from the punishments given to Korah and those who offered incense. By extending the relevance of its narrative to the world outside the narrative, the targum gives some indication concerning how its narrative is to be read and understood. This is a narrative that gives instruction concerning how to behave if a person is a member of the people of Israel. Furthermore, it is possible to interpret this passage as having direct relevance for how Israelite priests are to behave once the temple is reestablished, like in Beverly P. Mortensen’s recent work.24 Although there is little evidence external to the targum concerning how this passage might have been read and understood, the argumentative nature of the passage does indicate that the targum is attempting to create a boundary around the temple service, making it the sole province of priests descended from Aaron. As a result, the use of

Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. This study argues that PJ preserves traditions that directly concern the operation of the priests within the temple system, anticipating that at some point the temple might be rebuilt. Cf. also my review of this work in the Journal of Semitic Studies. 24

72

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

non-narrative language serves a very important purpose as far as the ideology of the narrative is concerned. (9) Genesis 15:12, N: a perceptible narrator At the exact time for the sun to set a pleasant sleep fell upon Abram. And look, Abram saw four kingdoms rising before him: fear—that is Babylon; dark—that is Media; great—that is Greece; fell upon him—that (PJ similar)

I have already dealt partially with the phenomenon of the perceptible narrator in the discussion of example (5) above. Example (9) presents a perceptible narrator once again, but here the narrator uses his agency in a slightly different way than in example (5). Here in example (9) the perceptibility of the narrator is again based on shared focalization: both the narrator and Abram witness the four kingdoms rising in the vision. Yet it is not clear whether Abram recognizes the kingdoms as the kingdoms that are named by the narrator. He may only recognize them by the words that precede the naming of the kingdoms by the narrator: “fear . . . dark . . . great . . . fell upon him”. In the time frame of the narrative it is likely that Abram does not recognize the kingdoms in the same way that the narrator does, since they did not exist when he saw this vision. Thus when the narrator indicates which kingdom is which, the narrator’s historical viewpoint as the external focalizer becomes evident. As such the narrator plays the important role of interpreter in this passage, insofar as it makes Abram’s vision understandable for those who are not witnessing the vision itself. As such, the narrator is perceptible as a focalizing agent, as well as a speaking agent, insofar as he narrates what Abram saw and then offers an interpretation of it in words.

3. COMBINING LEVELS OF ANALYSIS It is evident that it is impossible to make a clean separation between the different levels of narrative in the context of analysis. Each level of narrative—fabula, story, text—is intertwined with the others, which means that one cannot discuss one aspect of one level of narrative without at least implying some other aspect of another level of narrative. As long as the different levels of narrative are understood to be interdependent one upon the other, the

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

73

narratological practitioner will remain in safe conceptual territory. Thus an analysis of sample portions of narrative should attempt to survey the most relevant aspects of each level of narrative in order to make the analysis as holistic as possible. In what follows I will do just that with two selected examples to illustrate what happens when each level of narrative is taken into account. Although I will not always announce when I am making a move from one level of narrative to another, these moves should in many ways be selfevident from the types of questions I ask and the kinds of agency I engage with. (10) Genesis 4:8, PJ Then Cain said to Abel his brother, “Come and let the two of us go out to the field.” When the two of them had gone out to the field, Cain answered and said to Abel, “I see that the world was created in mercy but it is not led according to the fruits of good works and there is partiality in judgment. Because of what was your offering received in favor but my offering was not received in favor?” Abel answered and said to Cain, “The world was created in mercy and it is led according to the fruits of good works and there is no partiality in judgment. Now because the fruits of my works were better than yours and prompter than yours my offering was received in favor.” Cain answered and said to Abel, “There is no judgment and there is no judge and there is no other world and there is no giving of a good reward to the righteous and there is no calling to account from the wicked.” Abel answered and said to Cain, “There is judgment and there is a judge and there is another world and there is a giving of a good reward to the righteous and there is a calling to account from the wicked.” Concerning the dispute of these things they were quarrelling in the field. And Cain rose

74

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS up against Abel his brother and drove a stone into his forehead and killed him.25 (N similar)

At the beginning of this passage Cain does not make explicit why he invites Abel out to the field. On the one hand he could want to have a frank discussion with Abel concerning why his own sacrifice was not accepted. Yet on the other hand it could be that even at this early stage of their interactions Cain is planning to kill his brother. Whatever the targumist might or might not have intended, by the end of this passage the question of Cain’s motivation for inviting Abel to the field is irrelevant, given that Cain has killed Abel and he has thus performed an evil action. What remains unanswered is the degree of premeditation that Cain has given to his action. And there is no way to answer this question based on the information that the targum provides. It is only possible to state that without going out to the field it might not have been possible for Cain to kill Abel, either because of the potential presence of witnesses, or for some other reason. As a result, the initial action of issuing the invitation facilitates the final action of murder. Also, throughout this passage Cain is in a Subject position whereas Abel is Cain’s Object. Cain initiates the move to the field, he begins the argument, and he drives the rock through Abel’s forehead. Abel merely responds to his brother’s actions: he follows Cain to the field, he replies to Cain’s argument, and finally he receives the blow that ultimately kills him. As actors Cain and Abel are therefore unevenly matched, in that Abel responds to Cain’s actions whereas Cain is always the initiator. In this way Abel exercises his Power against Cain without initiating the actions in this passage. Yet ironically it is Abel’s initiative that causes him to be rewarded by God in this episode. As he says here in PJ’s rendering of verse 8, it is because his deeds were prompter than Cain’s that his offering was received with favour. It may be that the reversal of roles evident This passage has been subjected to a great deal of analysis in the field of targum studies. Cf. e.g. Vermes, “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16,” 114–16; Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, 132–141; Kvam, “‘Come, Let the Two of Us Go out into the Field’,” 97–103. 25

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

75

here in 4:8 is an indication of Cain’s outrage at the situation between himself and his brother. He cannot help but act he is so furious. Another aspect of this passage that may substantiate the idea that Cain is outraged is the fact that he does not focalize Abel at all during their interactions. Rather it is left to the narrator as external focalizer to repeat several times that Abel is Cain’s brother. This serves as a reminder to the readers/audiences that Cain and Abel have a fraternal relationship. However, since neither Cain nor Abel hear the words of the narrator, neither of them is reminded of their relationship with one another. Given that Cain is the primary actor in this passage this is particularly interesting. He uses both his agency of action as well as his agency of speech, yet his agency of focalizing Abel is conspicuously absent. It would appear that in his moment of outrage he has forgotten that Abel is his brother. Instead Abel becomes the object of Cain’s anger, since Cain is overwrought by his emotions. Both of Cain’s speeches indicate that he feels as though he has been treated unjustly, and his unwillingness to see the situation from Abel’s point of view demonstrates that for Cain there is much at stake in giving up his perspective. Yet the narrative does not reveal why Cain is so recalcitrant in his views. It may be because he is so devastated at not receiving divine favor that he cannot see past the injustice he believes has been done to him. Or it could be that he cannot tolerate the fact that his younger brother might have succeeded where he has failed. Both these options are speculative but they do present some different ways of understanding Cain’s stubbornness in this situation. Another possibility is that Abel has used his words to shame Cain, insofar as Abel demonstrates why his sacrifice was superior to his elder brother’s. This act of shaming would contribute to the antagonistic dynamic between the two brothers. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this passage is the highly formalized and stylized nature of the brother’s words to one another. What is presented here is no argument where statements are made up on the spur of the moment. Rather the words of the brothers seem to be well worked out formulas that reflect certain ideological positions. Whether this means that these words present

76

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

an argument between an Epicurean and a Jew, as Fischel argues,26 or whether it means that here the targumist has used seemingly formulaic language to present what appears to be a fierce argument is inconsequential for my purposes. The importance of these words’ structure lies in how it portrays the brothers as speaking agents. Both brothers use their speaking agency to recite seemingly well-rehearsed opinions, as though they have had this argument before and have arrived at a position where there is little room for agreement. In their speeches they are not attempting to reach any sort of consensus. Rather they are attempting to reiterate and reinforce the positions they have occupied for some time, without any concern for what effect their words might have on the other. In this sense Abel is just as guilty as Cain, for his position is just as intractable as his elder brother’s. It is therefore little wonder that the targum uses the ithpael form of the word ‫“( נצי‬to quarrel”) to describe the actions of the brothers in this passage. The conflict that Cain and Abel are engaged in is not a conflict of wits. It is a conflict of strength, and only the stronger brother will win. Having discovered that his words are no stronger than his brother’s, Cain picks up a stone and drives it through Abel’s forehead. From Cain’s perspective only action will work to resolve this situation. And this is the case because the only resolution that could come from using his speaking agency would be an agreement with Abel’s ideological position. And that is something Cain is not prepared to concede, at least not to his brother. Later on in the narrative it becomes evident that Cain does believe in a divine judge, in that he expresses remorse for his actions before God and asks for forgiveness (cf. 4:13, PJ). But in the heat of this argument Cain maintains his position, a position which is contrary to Abel’s, and also contrary to the position endorsed by the targum. As a result, Cain can be judged as using all three kinds of his agency for wicked purposes. As an actFischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy, 36–38. In this work Fischel argues that the positions articulated by Cain and Abel are a formulaic argument that could be had between faithful Jews and Epicureans. For him this passage is one designed to teach Jews how to refute the Epicurean position that there is no divine judge who will call all people to account in the world to come. 26

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

77

ing agent he kills his brother, as a focalizing agent he refuses to see his brother as his brother, and as a speaking agent he contradicts his brother who, from the targum’s perspective, holds the correct ideological position. This does not mean, however, that Cain is beyond redemption. For as is indicated in PJ’s rendering of verse 13, Cain admits his guilt and asks God to forgive him. By the end of this chapter it is even stated that Cain repented (the targum uses the word ‫תיובא‬, “repentance”) for his actions (cf. 4:24, PJ). Although PJ’s version of 4:8 highlight’s Cain’s wickedness, the targum also allows Cain’s character to be dynamic, as is indicated by his repentance. (11) Genesis 22:10, PJ Then Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. Isaac answered and said to his father, “Bind me properly so that I will not struggle because of the anguish of my soul and be cast down into the pit of destruction and a blemish be found in your offering.” Abraham was scanning the eyes of Isaac but Isaac was descrying the angels on high. Isaac saw them but Abraham did not see them. The angels on high were seeing two unique ones on the earth: one was slaughtering and the other was being slaughtered. The one slaughtering did not withhold and the one being slaughtered was stretching forth his neck.27 (N similar)

PJ’s version of the Genesis 22 episode is set up to prove that Isaac is worthy to be Abraham’s heir as opposed to Ishmael (cf. 22:1, PJ). The passage used here in example (11) continues that theme in a variety of ways. First it indicates that there is a common goal in Abraham and Isaac’s actions. Abraham is preparing to slaughter Isaac, and at that moment Isaac speaks to his father, indicating that he wants his father’s sacrifice to be a success despite the anguish in his own soul. This speech indicates that although Isaac appears to The interpretation of this passage offered below has a lot in common with that of Geza Vermes in his “Redemption and Genesis XXII,” 193–227. My interpretation incorporates some unique observations, however. Cf. my comments below on focalization. 27

78

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

be the actantial Object in this particular situation, he is actually forming a Subject unit with his father: both of them are acting together to ensure that Isaac is slaughtered successfully. This interpretation of the situation is further confirmed by what the angels focalize at the end of this passage. They see that Abraham does not withhold the knife from his son, and that Isaac stretches forth his neck to make the act of slaughtering easier for Abraham. Given it is angels who see this, the targum offers no reason to doubt that Abraham and Isaac are in fact performing the actions that the angels are witnessing. Quite the opposite: the fact that angels are witnessing these events shows that Abraham and Isaac are performing righteous actions, as the angelic view of the patriarchs as “unique ones” (‫ )יחידאין‬confirms. In all, this passage is constructed to affirm the righteousness of both Abraham and Isaac in this situation that could very well allow their characters to be interpreted otherwise. Yet it is curious that Isaac and Abraham do not focalize one another at this, the crucial moment of their interactions. It is easy to understand why Abraham looks at Isaac. At the beginning of this episode Isaac is identified as Abraham’s beloved son. And now, if Abraham is permitted to continue with his actions, he is about to lose the son that he loves in obedience to God’s command. The scanning of Isaac’s eyes is therefore the last chance Abraham will have to look upon his son while his son is still alive. As a result, this look anticipates Isaac’s imminent death, yet seeks to prolong Isaac’s life in Abraham’s memory. And given that Abraham is also the one who must slaughter his son, this last look may also be an attempt to confirm that Isaac understands what they are both doing. In other words Abraham may be looking for some last minute reassurance that what they are doing is right and good. Concerning these matters the targum is by no means explicit. The targum is explicit, however, in its indication that Isaac does not return his father’s gaze. Instead of looking at Abraham, Isaac looks at the angels on high. Although Abraham and Isaac are unified in action, they are not unified in vision. Abraham appears to be attempting to prolong his vision of Isaac by scanning his eyes at the moment just before he is going to slaughter him. Isaac, in contrast, is focused on the angels who confirm that Abraham and Isaac are acting in accordance with God’s command. It is not clear, however, that Isaac perceives the angels’ assessment of the situation. From

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

79

Isaac’s perspective this reception of a divine vision may be a foreshadowing of his imminent death. As a result, Abraham must carry out God’s command without receiving reassurance, as must Isaac. In this way God tests both Abraham and Isaac. Abraham must demonstrate his faith in God without receiving any concrete indications that what he is doing is given divine approval. Earlier in the episode Isaac volunteered to give his life for the sake of proving he is the most worthy to be Abraham’s heir. As a willing participant in this situation, Isaac arrives at this point in the episode knowing that he may very well have to give up his life. Yet he does not know whether God will make him fulfill his vow. For both Abraham and Isaac this sense of not knowing is prolonged until the last moment before Abraham brings down the knife to slaughter Isaac. Even Isaac who sees the angels who will eventually intervene in this situation does not know what the outcome will be. By having Abraham and Isaac focalize different things in this situation, the targum heightens the sense of suspense and gives its readers/audiences a good understanding of what is informing Abraham and Isaac’s perceptions at this crucial moment in this episode. This split in focalization also serves to provide the background for PJ’s version of Genesis 27:1, where the targums mentions that Isaac’s eyes were dim from seeing the angels at the time when his father bound him. As a speaking agent, Abraham plays no role in this passage. Instead it is Isaac who uses his agency to take charge of this situation. And, through his words, Isaac displays a great deal of insight into the situation insofar as he realizes that his father’s sacrifice could possibly be found to be blemished should he, Isaac, “struggle because of the anguish of [his] soul”. Through this contrast in use of agency, both in terms of focalization and speech, the targum demonstrates that in many ways Isaac has an understanding of this situation equal with that of his father. Though neither Abraham nor Isaac may know the final outcome of the episode, it is evident from Isaac’s words and from what he sees that he knows their righteousness is at stake in this situation. Abraham, in contrast remains silent. All the knowledge Abraham displays is that he has been commanded to sacrifice his son, and he must carry out that command as God’s servant, no matter how difficult that may be. For Abraham too, then, righteousness is at stake, but in quite a different way than with Isaac. The question in Isaac’s situation is whether or not he will honor the vow he made concerning his willingness

80

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

to sacrifice his entire body should God ask it of him (cf. 22:1, PJ). Abraham’s question regards whether he will obey God even if that means sacrificing his son and child of promise. As the PJ version of 22:10 demonstrates, both Abraham and Isaac pass their respective tests successfully, judging by the response of the angels. By having Abraham and Isaac as equal players in this situation, the targum confers righteousness upon them both, demonstrating their worthiness to be called patriarchs of Israel.

4. CONCLUSIONS So far I have only given short examples of how Bal’s narratological approach can be appropriated for the purposes of analysing the targums. In this chapter the concrete examples were used mostly for illustrative purposes, rather than for the purposes of performing a full analysis. As a result the usefulness of the narratological approach has yet to be firmed up over the course of an extended passage of narrative. Furthermore, some of the methodological questions that can be raised in response to this approach have not yet been explored. In Chapter 2 I will use this approach first to analyse PJ’s use of a single motif over the course of a single episode. Then I will use narratology to analyze an episode in its entirety. This will inevitably raise methodological questions which will be addressed, at least in part, at the end of Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, however, I will discuss some of the more complicated methodological questions directly, exploring both the opportunities and the limits that are part of using narratology in conjunction with the targums. Chapter 6 will round out the methodological experiment by examining how narratology can be used to improve scholars’ understandings of the targums within the context of early Jewish discursive history.

5. POSTSCRIPT ON O AND THE NARRATOLOGICAL APPROACH Example (5) in this chapter is the only instance in this book where O has been used to demonstrate a methodological point. This does not mean that O is by and large useless when examining the targums from a narratological perspective. Rather it means that with O matters are more complicated. This is for two primary reasons. First, in the instances where O deviates from the HB the differ-

BASIC CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS

81

ences are usually quite subtle, taking the form of a single word or a phrase. The ways in which O distinguishes itself from the HB are therefore not as dramatic as with N and PJ. Since this book is attempting to demonstrate some of the more prominent uses of narratology for the field of targum studies, to draw upon O would raise numerous methodological questions that cannot be adequately addressed in this preliminary study. Secondly, studying O narratologically begs the question of this targum’s reception. Since narratology partially concerns itself with how concrete audiences might have received the narratives being studied, it would be necessary to reconstruct O’s audience to determine how O’s narratives were understood. Since the overlap between O and the HB is more significant than with N and PJ it may be that O’s audience saw little difference between this targum and its Hebrew antecedent. This claim may be further substantiated by the early Jewish practice of reading the Bible and various postbiblical midrashic narratives as though they conveyed contemporary truths rather than historical facts.28 In other words, we as early twenty-first century scholars may make a strong distinction between the meaning of O and the HB given that O was produced centuries after the HB and in a different language. But this distinction would not necessarily hold for early Jews, partially due to the nature of their approaches to historiography, but also due to O’s close shadowing of the HB. This formal feature of the targum, more than anything else, would have broken down the distinction between O and the HB. As a result, it is quite possible that O was perceived to communicate the truth of the HB to an Aramaicspeaking audience. No doubt this was also true of N and PJ. But given that these latter two targums have a somewhat different relationship with the HB than O, the nature of their truths would have differed from O’s. N and PJ would have harmonized biblical and post-biblical narratives to convey information that would have bridged the gap between the biblical and the post-biblical literary worlds. O, in contrast, would have, for the most part, maintained this gap and reinforced it with its literary form. As such, O would have clothed the HB in the garb of the Aramaic language, whereas 28

Gafni, “Rabbinic Historiography”.

82

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

N and PJ would have also clothed the HB in the culture of Aramaic speaking Jews. All of these targums would have functioned as scripture for their audiences, as Flesher argues.29 However, the manner in which they would have done this would have differed from targum to targum, precisely because of their differing relationships with the HB. At its current state, then, the methodology being proposed in this book is of little use for O since it depends largely on the narrative innovations of both N and PJ. Further methodological consideration needs to be given to the problem of how O can be appropriated narratologically. It is for this reason that O plays such a small role in this study.

29

Flesher, “Targum as Scripture”.

2 TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK In the previous chapter I outlined the basic concepts of the narratological approach I will be using throughout this book. Although the specific terminology I discussed in Chapter 2 will not always be used explicitly herein, the conceptual apparatus behind the terminology will always be at work in the following analyses. In the present chapter I depart from an explicit exposition of the approach and give two examples of how the approach can be used in conjunction with the targumic narratives themselves. As I indicated in the introduction there are some limitations to this approach, in that for it to work properly the narratives to be examined must be more or less coherent. Thus in this chapter I examine two passages that manifest a relatively high degree of thematic unity. The first passage (really, series of passages) comes from Genesis 26, PJ where a certain motif is used to express God’s protection of, and favor toward, Isaac. As will be seen below, the narratological staging of this motif communicates certain ideas to the targum’s readers/audiences that could not be conveyed without the targumic interventions in the selected passages. Similarly Genesis 39, PJ, the other extended passage to be examined in this chapter, manifests a number of different themes when it is compared with the HB.1 These themes serve the purpose of constructing a narrative that in many ways is more coherent than the version found in the HB. As a result, I conclude my discussion of Genesis 39, PJ with an explicit comparison of the targumic version with the HB version. The results of this move are quite striking. At the end of this chapter I For a different kind of comparative narratological study based on the Genesis 39 episode see Bal, Loving Yusuf. 1

83

84

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

present a postscript on the macro-hermeneutical dynamics possibly at work in passages such as Genesis 39, PJ. Although this postscript is somewhat speculative, it does open the way for further research to be done in the area of targumic translational dynamics, particularly when translation is considered to be both an intercultural as well as an inter-linguistic phenomenon.

1. EXPLICIT DEVELOPMENT OF A PARTICULAR THEME Genesis 26:20, PJ Now the shepherds of Gerar quarreled with the shepherds of Isaac saying, “The water is ours.” And it was the will of heaven that it [the well] dried up. Therefore they returned it to Isaac and it gushed forth [again]. And he called the name of the well Esek because they had quarreled over it with him.

Genesis 26:21, PJ Then they dug another well and quarreled over it as well. And it dried up and did not gush forth. And he called its name Sitnah.

Genesis 26:26, PJ When Isaac came out from Gerar their wells dried up and their trees would not produce fruit and they felt that because they had driven him out all this had happened to them. And Abimelech went to him from Gerar and took his friends and Phicol the commander of his army with him.

In this series of passages the element added by the targum is the motif of the wells drying up when they are being quarreled over. This motif serves a number of different functions within the context of this narrative, but primarily it demonstrates the helping role that God plays within this particular episode. In PJ’s version of 26:20 this help is explicit insofar as it states, “it was the will of heaven that it [the well] dried up”. Thus by the time the readers/audiences reach 26:26, PJ, it is expected that when wells dry up because of something that has happened to Isaac, there is some heavenly involvement. In fact the targum confirms this in its version of 26:24 where God vows that his Memra will be at Isaac’s assistance. The result is that Isaac’s successes in this episode are credited to the assistance of the Memra of the Lord who is acting

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

85

for the sake of Abraham’s merit (cf. 26:24, PJ and 26:28, PJ). The motif of the dry wells is the concrete manifestation of that assistance. As far as the use and development of a particular theme or motif is concerned, this example is fairly obvious. The motif of the dry wells performs a certain function within the structure of the Genesis 26 episode and that function underscores a point that the targum is attempting to make: Isaac is a man who is blessed by God and worthy of God’s assistance. In many cases, however, the themes developed by the targums are less obvious. There is thus a greater degree of analysis required to identify the theme and to determine precisely how it is functioning within the context of the episode in question. In what follows I will perform a detailed narratological analysis of Genesis 39 PJ, in which I will identify several themes that seem to be developed by the targum. I will conclude by comparing the PJ version of this episode with the HB version to demonstrate precisely where the targum highlights certain things when the HB does not.

2. GENESIS 39 PJ To facilitate the analysis of this episode I have divided this chapter into several different sections. These sections represent a division of topics as they appear within the narrative. 39:1 forms a separate unit from the chapter as a kind of prologue to what will happen once Joseph is in Potiphar’s house. Then 39:2–6 describes Joseph’s ascent to power in Potiphar’s house, which also sets the scene for the conflict that will emerge between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in 39:7–10. That conflict comes to its climax in 39:11–16 and Potiphar gives his response to it in 39:17–20. Finally 39:21–23 forms an epilogue to this episode. In this epilogue Joseph is again given responsibility, albeit this time in prison, so in some ways this epilogue mirrors what happens in 39:2–6. The full details of this will be explicated below. Genesis 39:1 PJ That Joseph was brought down to Egypt and Potiphar bought him on a guarantee from the Arabs who brought him down there because he saw that he was handsome so that he could practice sodomy. Immediately a decree was issued upon him

86

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS and his testicles dried up and he was made impotent. Now he was Pharaoh’s chief, the chief executioner, an Egyptian.

When reading this passage in conjunction with the HB it becomes evident that the targum is attempting to explain why Potiphar is called a ‫ סריס‬in the HB, given that ‫ סריס‬is often taken to mean “eunuch”. To explain the HB’s use of this word the targum includes this narrative in which Potiphar becomes impotent (Aramaic: ‫ )סרס‬as a result of a divine decree being issued against him. Interesting as this example of targumic exegesis is, a narratological approach to this passage comes up with results that are quite different. On the fabula level of narrative it becomes evident that Potiphar occupies a Subject position whereas Joseph is his Object: Potiphar wants to sodomize Joseph.2 In this situation Joseph is granted no agency, so he cannot even be said to hold the power for Potiphar to fulfill his desire. If there is going to be any help for Joseph in this situation it must come from an external source, either from the Arabs who brought him down to Egypt or from God. Given that the Arabs likely have little desire to protect Joseph since he is a commodity to be traded, Joseph’s help must come from elsewhere, which it does. God issues a decree against Potiphar and miraculously Potiphar’s testicles dry up which results in him becoming impotent. This action puts God in a Subject position and Joseph in an Object position yet again: God protects Joseph. Potiphar is a kind of indirect Object, in that he is the person from whom Joseph is being protected. Throughout this passage Joseph remains passive, thus allowing the conflict described here to take place without his involvement.3 God and Potiphar are the acFor PJ’s reader’s audiences this desire on Potiphar’s part would not have been considered unusual. In fact it would have confirmed the class difference between Potiphar and Joseph, in that it was common practice for men of higher status to take sexual advantage of slaves, both male and female, in antiquity. Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 179. 3 For the HB version of this narrative, André LaCocque states that this theme of passivity can be detected throughout the early chapters of the Joseph cycle in Genesis. He states that this is especially the case in the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. LaCocque and Ricoeur, 2

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

87

tors whose desires are in conflict in this passage; it is Joseph they are fighting over. On the story level of narrative the only focalizing agent is Potiphar. As the targum says, Potiphar sees that Joseph is handsome which thus prompts Potiphar to have a sexual desire for Joseph. Here Potiphar’s gaze has an explicitly sexual connotation and this is important because this will not always be the case throughout this episode.4 Rather this instance of equating the gaze with sexual desire anticipates what will happen between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in 39:7–10. It also serves to add an element of suspicion concerning whether Potiphar as an Egyptian can ever be trusted to protect Joseph’s best interests. From this point onward in the narrative, Potiphar’s gaze becomes suspect. For although it is probable that Potiphar’s sexual desire for Joseph was eliminated with the sudden onset of his impotence, Potiphar’s desire to use Joseph as an Object for one thing or another may not have been eliminated completely. Thus one of the questions that will recur throughout this episode is the question of Joseph’s Subjectivity: to what extent is Joseph permitted to be a Subject in this situation, if at all?5

Thinking Biblically. Cf. the chapter by André LaCocque called “An Ancestral Narrative: The Joseph Story,” 373–74. By and large I think this analysis is correct. However, LaCocque could be more careful with his language, in that Joseph is not completely bereft of agency in his encounter with the woman, as we shall see below. It is, rather, as LaCocque argures, that Joseph does not oppose the woman directly; he uses his agency to escape the situation that is no longer safe for him. 4 This equation of the gaze with sexual desire ties into the theme of mastery, which is examined briefly in this chapter, but more explicitly in Chapter 5 when Genesis 39 is analysed from a gender studies standpoint. 5 This question is very much related to LaCocque’s assessment that the Joseph cycle in the HB is a Diasporanovelle: it has to do with how Jews are to behave in exilic settings. LaCocque and Ricoeur, Thinking Biblically, 367–68. For PJ the general structures of the Diasporanovelle are carried over into the targumic narrative. But the cultural context is somewhat different. Certainly some of PJ’s readers/audiences would have been under the power of the Roman Empire. However, in that context the question of

88

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Another element of interest in this initial passage is the location in which it takes place. As far as location is concerned it could not be more generalized. All the targum indicates is that this is happening somewhere in Egypt. At this stage Egypt represents a foreign place where threats to Joseph abound, especially threats from people associated with the place, namely Potiphar, who is identified explicitly as an Egyptian. It is only later on in the episode when Joseph finds himself inside a house that he will find some security. However, that security becomes compromised as soon as Potiphar’s wife begins to express her desire for Joseph. In this way this initial passage in 39:1 prepares the readers/audiences6 for the entire episode. For even though Joseph may find some security inside Potiphar’s house, Potiphar’s house is still located in Egypt which right now is a place that holds a great deal of danger for Joseph. It is now possible to summarize some of the questions that may be asked throughout the analysis of this episode. 1) To what extent is Joseph portrayed as a Subject in this episode? What kinds of agency does he use? 2) In what ways do the other characters interact with Joseph? What kinds of agency do they use to interact with him? 3) What role does God play in this episode? What kinds of agency does he use? 4) What is the role of location in this episode? Does the opposition between inside and outside really matter in this episode, given that all these events are taking place in Egypt? Other questions will be asked as well, but the ones listed here are the questions that play the most significant roles in the analysis to follow.

how to exist as a slave with limited Subjectivity would have been of more relevance. Cf. Hezser, Jewish Slavery. 6 I have chosen to use the term “readers/audiences” for those who received the targums to indicate the uncertainties concerning the settings in which the targums were used. The targums may have been read aloud or silently, or they may have been heard when performed in the synagogue setting.

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

89

Genesis 39:2–6, PJ The Memra of the Lord supported Joseph, and he was a successful man while he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. His master saw that the Memra of the Lord supported him, and all that he did the Lord caused to succeed. And Joseph found mercy in his eyes and he served him. So he appointed him administrator over his house and all that was his was put under his control. From the time he appointed him administrator over his house and over all that was his. The Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian because of the merits of Joseph; the blessing of the Lord was on all that was his in the house and in the field. And he left all that was his in the hand of Joseph. He did not concern himself with anything except his wife with whom he lay. Now Joseph was handsome in form and pleasing in appearance.

This passage begins with a sentence that confirms what was implied by PJ’s version of 39:1: the Memra of the Lord supports Joseph. This statement is furthermore confirmed by the sentence for which Potiphar is the focalizer, “His master saw . . .” Two sources therefore reveal that God is at Joseph’s support, both the external focalizer and a character focalizer, namely Potiphar. This use of focalization is very important in terms of how the narrative constructs Joseph’s Subjectivity as an actor. For the narrative does not state that Joseph was successful due to his own actions. Rather Joseph is successful because the Memra of the Lord supports him. In other words, although Joseph’s agency as an actor is implied by what is stated in this passage, his goals as an actor are never stated explicitly, and neither does he fully occupy the actantial role of Subject. The only place where he can roughly be called a Subject is when the targum states that he served Potiphar. But even here Joseph is bound by a master-slave dynamic which would prevent him from doing other than serving his master without facing some kind of punishment. Joseph can thus be seen to be abiding within the context of situation in which he finds himself. He is a slave and must function as such, even though that does not allow him the kind of Subjectivity as an actor that he had previously enjoyed when residing with his father and brothers. In this situation, the only true Subjects are God and Potiphar. God causes Joseph to succeed and Potiphar appoints Joseph to a position of authority

90

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

within his household. Again in relation to both these actors Joseph is an Object insofar as both God and Potiphar act upon him. Joseph uses his agency as an actor in this passage, but only in response to how God and Potiphar as Subjects act upon him. Joseph’s agency as an actor in this passage can only be understood within the context of a master-slave dynamic. Within this masterslave dynamic, the master is the Subject without limits, whereas the slave is a Subject only insofar as his master allows him to be one.7 Yet this is where Potiphar’s gaze becomes important. In PJ’s version of 39:1 Potiphar’s gaze was exclusively sexual: when Potiphar saw Joseph’s good looks Potiphar desired to sodomize Joseph. In this passage, however, Potiphar’s gaze reveals something quite different, namely that the Memra of the Lord is assisting Joseph. Furthermore Joseph finds mercy in Potiphar’s eyes. The Aramaic word ‫ רחמין‬that I have translated as “mercy” can also have the meaning of “love”, which in this context probably does not have any sexual connotation as might be supposed given the initial episode between Potiphar and Joseph. Whether one translates ‫ רחמין‬as “mercy” or as “love” is in some ways inconsequential because it probably means that Potiphar developed a certain kind of affection for Joseph once he saw that the Memra of the Lord was assisting Joseph. Yet this does not mean that in Potiphar’s view Cf. Hezser, Jewish Slavery, 169–74. According to Hezser, although slaves in antiquity had limited Subjectivity in relation to their masters, they were included in extremely intimate settings which allowed them to be privy to some of their masters’ most closely guarded secrets. This privilege, in return, placed slaves in a somewhat ambiguous position with regard to their masters. For should they divulge their masters’ secrets it could mean ruin for the master and his or her household. As shall be seen below, Genesis 39, PJ implies that Joseph had this kind of intimacy with Potiphar when the targum states that Potiphar withheld only his wife from Joseph. In this kind of situation, Joseph could have wielded a great deal of power within Potiphar’s household, both to his credit as well as to his detriment. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 863–81. Mann picks up on this theme of intrigues between slaves and masters, particularly in his portrayal of the dwarf Dûdu as the go-between for Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. 7

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

91

the master-slave dynamic is overturned. Potiphar remains the master and Joseph is still the slave, no matter how much authority Potiphar gives Joseph in the house. What Potiphar gives he can most certainly take away, as will be seen later in this episode. However, at this point it is to Potiphar’s advantage to put Joseph in charge of the household, both that which is in the house and that which is in the field. For as soon as he does so, God blesses Potiphar’s house because of Joseph’s merit. And although Potiphar may not credit God with the blessings he receives after appointing Joseph household administrator, it is likely that he does see his appointment of Joseph as bringing about the blessings he is receiving.8 It is therefore easy to understand why the targum states that Potiphar gave Joseph responsibility over “all that was his”. According to this passage, therefore, Joseph is granted an authority in Potiphar’s household that is very much like Potiphar’s. The only responsibility that Potiphar reserves for himself is matters regarding his wife, with whom the targum states he would have sexual relations. The targum does not articulate how Potiphar could continue to have sexual relations with his wife after his testicles dried up and he became impotent. Yet in many ways such details have little consequence as far as the narrative is concerned. The targum is simply indicating that Potiphar’s wife represents the limit placed on Joseph’s conditional Subjectivity. Should Joseph transgress this limit, he would also negate one of the conditions of his Subjectivity in Potiphar’s household. In order to maintain the

Cf. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 859–60. In his novelistic treatment of the Joseph story Mann credits Potiphar with a great deal of insight concerning Joseph’s success in his household. In dialogue with his wife he says “I fear the gods who are with [Joseph]”, and then goes on to explain the commitment that Joseph has to his own God, which differs greatly from Potiphar’s own commitments. Although this dialogue between Potiphar and his wife is a twentieth century invention, it certainly draws upon the fact that the biblical narrative (and targumic narrative) indicates that Potiphar saw that God was at Joseph’s assistance. 8

92

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

freedom and authority he has been granted by Potiphar, Joseph must stay away from Potiphar’s wife.9 At the end of this passage, however, using descriptive language, the targum adds one complicating factor to this situation: Joseph’s good looks. The targum reveals little concerning whether Joseph was conscious of his good looks and/or whether he used them for his own advantage. In contrast, this last sentence can be seen to indicate something concerning Joseph’s character. Not only does he behave righteously within the household of his Egyptian master, but he is also very good looking. This serves to create a positive impression concerning Joseph in the minds of the readers/audiences. And although the targum is at pains to state that Joseph was granted authority because the Memra of the Lord was assisting him, this sentence may also give one concrete indication as to how God helped Joseph. Joseph’s good looks likely made him easier to work with as an administrator than with someone who was not quite as attractive.10 By including this last sentence, thereHezser, Jewish Slavery, 191. If we accept Hezser’s interpretation of slavery in antiquity then this limit would have applied to Potiphar’s wife as well. Hezser writes, “...mistresses’ relationships with their male slaves could be prosecuted legally, whereas the law turned a blind eye on masters’ sexual exploitation of female slaves.” 10 Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, ch. 3. Kugel devotes the entirety of this chapter to the topic of Joseph’s good looks. In some traditions he is stated to resemble his father Jacob, or perhaps Abraham. However, the tradition of interest for this passage is found in Gen. R. 87:3 where the midrash states that Joseph used to bedaub his eyes and slick back his hair, thus making himself beautiful (Kugel, 77–78). Obviously the targum displays no knowledge of this tradition. For Kugel, however, this tradition gives an indication of the relatively elevated position that Joseph occupied in Potiphar’s house, in that he could enjoy some of the luxuries that privilege afforded him (Kugel, 78). This tradition is also alluded to in Mann, Joseph and his Brothers,826–27. Adding further information to the motif of Joseph’s good looks is Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 446. Kugel cites traditions from Joseph and Asneth 7:4, Genesis 49:22, N and PJ, and PRE 39 stating that women and rulers of Egypt used to stand on walls and cast down their jewellery in front of Joseph to get his attention because of his 9

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

93

fore, the targum gives its readers/audiences a full portrait of how Joseph functioned within Potiphar’s household. Joseph the handsome young man is given a great deal of freedom within Potiphar’s household. This freedom is given so that he may do what is in the best interests of the running of the house. In many ways he is like Potiphar, particularly in terms of the authority he has been granted. But this last descriptive sentence may also serve as a point of contrast as well: Potiphar might not share Joseph’s good looks. Thus when Potiphar’s wife comes to Joseph seeking sexual favors, she may be seeking something that her husband does not have, namely the good looks of a young Hebrew slave. In this way this last sentence not only summarizes what has already been revealed about Joseph, but it also serves as the transition between one part of the episode to the next. In the next part of the episode Joseph’s good looks will become explicitly thematized in the attraction that Potiphar’s wife has for Joseph. Genesis 39:7–10, PJ After these things the wife of his master raised her eyes to Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” But he refused to approach her and he said to the wife of his master, “Look, my master has no concern with me; anything that is in the house and all that is his he has put under my control. There is no chief in this house greater than me and he has withheld nothing from me except you because you are his wife. How can I do this great evil and sin before the Lord?” So it was that she would speak to Joseph daily that he would not listen to her to lie with her to be guilty with her on the day of great judgment in the world to come.

In this passage it is important to contrast the kinds of agency used by the different characters. The first kind of agency indicated in this passage is focalization: Potiphar’s wife fixes her gaze upon Jo-

good looks. Mann similarly utilizes this motif in his novel stating that women attempted to get Joseph’s attention, but he never gave it to them; another sign of his virtuous nature. Cf. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 854– 855.

94

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

seph.11 Like in PJ’s version of 39:1, here the gaze of the focalizer is explicitly sexual.12 This is indicated by the fact that as soon as she has fixed her gaze upon Joseph the woman uses her speaking agency to encourage Joseph to transgress the limit that has been placed upon his Subjectivity as an actor. By using her agency in this way Potiphar’s wife not only expresses her desire to be sexually involved with Joseph. But she also indicates that the fulfillment her sexual desire will force Joseph to subvert the conditions that have ensured his wellbeing in Potiphar’s household up to this point. If Joseph returns her gaze with all its sexual overtones he will be well on the way to transgressing the limit that has been placed upon him. It is therefore important that the targum gives no indication Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, ch. 2. Again Kugel spends a great deal of space exploring the aggadot that have been produced in response to this narrated act of focalization. Most significant is the motif that Kugel calls “The Assembly of Ladies”, which appears in a number of different ancient sources. One of the common traits of this motif in its various versions is that Potiphar’s wife encourages a number of noble ladies to look upon Joseph to witness his beauty, as if to demonstrate the struggle she has had in controlling herself when seeing her Hebrew slave day after day. 12 Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 815–21. Mann’s interpretation of this part of the Joseph narrative is quite interesting in that he describes a long process wherein Potiphar’s wife came to realise her attraction for Joseph, which is in contrast to the brevity of the biblical and targumic accounts. Space does not permit a full summary of Mann’s narrative, suffice it to say that this version describes a period of years wherein the woman’s attraction toward Joseph grew to the point where she gave it voice to Joseph. And even when she does give it voice, Mann argues explicitly that the brevity of the biblical account does an injustice to what actually occurred between Joseph and the woman. In the construction of this narrative it is evident that Mann has invented much that is not included in the biblical or targumic narrative. But it is also evident that he has drawn extensively on the interpretative traditions surrounding Genesis 39 and included some of them in his narrative. It is interesting, therefore, to note that the targum does not include a more elaborate account of Joseph’s encounters with the woman, especially when both ancient and modern interpreters have supposed that there was much more going on than the biblical account narrates. 11

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

95

that Joseph focalizes Potiphar’s wife in any way. This allows Joseph to avoid the temptation that she presents to him. It also indicates that he ignores the authority she might have over him as his master’s wife. From Joseph’s perspective, Potiphar’s wife does not speak with the authority of Potiphar, which means that she cannot order him to have sexual relations with her.13 The conflict that emerges in this passage, therefore, is not just a conflict between Joseph and the woman, but it is also a conflict between the woman and the conditions that have ordered the household up to this point. Potiphar has made it clear to Joseph that Joseph is to stay away from Potiphar’s wife. Potiphar’s wife, however, is obviously not satisfied with this arrangement, which therefore provokes her to attempt to subvert it, and in subverting it undermine her husband’s authority. Joseph, in contrast, uses his agency to reiterate and affirm the conditions that have governed his presence in the household up to this point. As an actor he refuses to approach the woman, and as a speaker he describes the conditions of his Subjectivity and reinforces the limit that has been placed upon it.14 By doing so he acknowledges Potiphar’s authority in the household and indicates that he will not subvert or undermine that authority by lying with the woman. Joseph thus remains the loyal servant and as such positions himself as a symbol of Potiphar’s authority. Joseph’s position in the household is guaranteed by and conditioned upon Potiphar’s acceptance of him. It is therefore in Joseph’s best interests to maintain his subservience to Potiphar, since Potiphar is the man with Cf. n. 6 above. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 108–9. Alter contrasts the “nakedness” of the woman’s request to Joseph and Joseph’s outpouring of language in the HB version. This outpouring of language is carried over into PJ and it serves very much the same function as it does in the HB. Joseph is defending his position, and in the process repeats several thematically relevant words, such as “all” and “house”. The woman, in contrast, is forthright and direct: she says, “Lie with me!”. It is interesting to contrast this interpretation with LaCocque’s interpretation articulated in n. 2 above. Here Joseph is anything but passive, in that he is very actively defending the conditions that have brought him to his present position. 13 14

96

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the ultimate authority in the household. Yet the targum goes further in its portrayal of Joseph by indicating that he does not perceive himself to be accountable only to a human agent. Joseph is also accountable to God. By introducing the language of sin (Aramaic: ‫ )חוב‬in his speech, Joseph indicates that like the targum and Potiphar in 39:2–6 he knows that he has been placed in his position of authority because of the Memra of the Lord. To transgress the limit placed upon him would mean that he was not only disobeying his master, but he would also be ignoring the assistance he has gotten from God. By stating that he is not willing to do either of these things, Joseph proves himself to be a pious individual, acknowledging that to forsake his duty as a loyal servant would also be to forsake his reward in the world to come. Throughout this passage, then, Joseph maintains his subservience to the other significant male figures in this episode: God and Potiphar. The woman, in contrast, is portrayed as desperate to undermine the authority structures that have been established by the male figures in the narrative. As such she represents a threat to the well-ordered structure of the household. Joseph, for his part, does his best to minimize the threat by ignoring the woman, even when she approaches him on a daily basis to seduce him. The question raised by this portion of the narrative, however, is how long can Joseph hold out in this situation? The targum seems to anticipate this question by stating that he would ignore her so that he would not “be guilty with her on the day of great judgment in the world to come”. As far as the targum is concerned, Joseph’s resolve is immovable. On the other hand, given that the woman is portrayed as being the unstable element in this situation, Potiphar’s wife may not be able to continue performing the same actions every day without seeing any results. The question concerning her is: When will she take action that will either see her desires fulfilled or see them unfulfilled in an even more dramatic manner than before? Genesis 39:11–16, PJ On a certain day he came to the house to examine his accounts on writing tablets. There was no man from the household there in the house. So she seized him by his coat saying, “Lie with me!” and he left his coat in her hand and went out to the street. Now when she saw that he had left his coat in her hand and gone out to the street that—look—she threw the white of

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

97

an egg onto the bed and called the men of the house and said, “See the effusion of semen that this fellow has scattered—the Hebrew man that your master brought to us to laugh at us. He came to me to lie with me and I called out in a great voice. When he heard that I raised my voice and called out, he left his coat beside me and went out to the street.” So she set the coat beside her until his master came to the house.

This passage begins with a sentence that portrays Joseph as being a dutiful servant: he comes to the house to examine his accounts.15 And on this particular day there are no other servants present in the household. The targum does not explain why this is so. All it indicates is that Joseph is using his agency as an actor to perform an action that he would be expected to perform within the role that has been established for him. Joseph’s actions are therefore not strange given the circumstances. Potiphar’s wife, in contrast, behaves quite differently in this situation. Instead of merely speaking with Joseph as she had done previously, she also uses her agency of action to seize his coat. It has always been her Object to have sexual relations with Joseph. But now it would appear as though she desires to take Joseph by force.16 The targum does not make it explicit whether the woman’s actions are produced by desperation, frustration, or both (these are issues manifest at the story level of In Mann’s account this is the ostensive reason for Joseph’s return to the house. The real reason for Joseph’s return to the house, according to Mann, is because Potiphar’s wife has laid a charm on him using the magic of an African slave, drawing upon the power of a goddess known only as “The Bitch”. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 1014–23. 16 Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 376. For the HB version of this narrative Wenham observes that the phrasing of the woman’s actions toward Joseph indicate a great degree of violence as is indicated by the Hebrew word ‫תקש‬. This violence is reinforced by the fact that the woman basically strips Joseph of his garments, which according to Wenham, would have been very difficult to remove, based on what is known of the style of the day. Although these statements can be seen to be somewhat speculative, I believe the interpretation given to the targumic narrative here reinforces the general thrust of Wenham’s findings vis-à-vis the HB narrative: the encounter between Joseph and the woman is a violent one. 15

98

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

narrative). Her actions may signal all of these things. Joseph in contrast only responds with action by going out to the street. He does not listen to the woman’s demand that he should lie with her. And neither does he lash out at her in frustration either with words or with actions. Furthermore he does not focalize the woman, which might reveal something about his attitude toward her had he done so. Instead his reaction is immediate: he flees the house wherein he was once like the master. Through this action Joseph admits that Potiphar’s wife has displaced Potiphar’s authority by using her sexuality as an excuse to interact with him. As a result the conditions of his Subjectivity have become radically altered. If Joseph is to remain loyal to Potiphar he cannot listen to the woman’s demand that he should have sexual relations with her. But neither can he continue to work in the house as though nothing has happened between himself and the woman. This indicates that the usual connotations of the inside–outside opposition have been reversed for Joseph. It is no longer safe for Joseph to be inside. Instead the street has become a refuge for Joseph. He could choose to remain on the street, in which case he could potentially escape the inevitable punishment that will come upon him. Or he could choose to return to the house and face the consequences of his supposed dalliance with the woman. As will be seen below, the latter option is the one Joseph chooses, although the targum is by no means explicit concerning the manner of his return. At this point in the narrative, the street is the safest location for Joseph. The next thing that is narrated is a passage of focalization: Potiphar’s wife sees that Joseph has gone out to the street and that he has left his coat in her hand. Here the woman’s gaze is anything but sexual. She sees Joseph’s disappearance and realizes that as an agent he is not going to return her gaze with all its sexual connotations. Neither will he lie with her as an actor or speak to her as a speaker: now she must cope with his absence. In Joseph’s absence Potiphar’s wife acts and speaks as though Joseph has done something to her that is not honorable. First she uses her agency as an actor to throw the white of an egg on the bed to make it appear as though Joseph ejaculated there. Second she uses her agency as a speaker to convey to the other servants of the house a narrative

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

99

concerning Joseph that is not true.17 Yet it is interesting that in this speech Potiphar’s wife implicates Potiphar as well by calling Joseph, “the Hebrew man that your master brought to us to laugh at us”. In making this statement Potiphar’s wife reveals some frustration with both Joseph and her husband. From her perspective Joseph was brought into the house to shame the other members of the household.18 This statement should not be understood as an attack on Joseph’s competence as an administrator, but rather a confirmation of it. The woman is effectively saying that Joseph was such a good administrator that all the other members of the household appeared incompetent when compared to him. And, given that her husband was responsible for bringing Joseph into the household, she makes it appear as though Potiphar was receiving a great deal of amusement from the relative incompetence of his other servants. She therefore uses her words to take advantage of any jealousy that the other servants may harbor toward Joseph.19 Furthermore by weaving this narrative concerning Joseph’s supposed philandering with her, Potiphar’s wife has now besmirched Joseph’s otherwise impeccable reputation. In this single speech, therefore, she undermines Joseph’s authority in the house, and also attempts to diminish the respect that the other servants have for Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 109. Alter draws attention to the blatancy of the woman’s lie by contrasting her words with the words of the narrator in the preceding verse, which are nearly the same but with a different order. By using words similar to those of the narrator, the woman skillfully distorts the truth to suit her own purposes. This fact indicates both the woman’s ability to manipulate the facts, as well as her ability to manipulate the other slaves in the house. By Mann’s account, however, the other slaves are not convinced by the speech of the woman, since they know that Joseph has resisted her seductions. Cf. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 1028. 18 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 423–30. Sternberg too observes the role of repetition in the woman’s lie. He, however, traces the variety of functions that the repetitions and variations play in the woman’s narration depending on the person or people to whom she is retelling her narrative. 19 Ibid. 17

100

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

their master. Again the targum does not make explicit what motivates these vindictive actions and speeches. Perhaps Potiphar’s wife is attempting to get some revenge for Joseph’s continual refusals of her. Perhaps she is also attempting to express her anger at her husband because he kept Joseph from her. Whatever the case, the woman’s actions and speeches portray her as an individual overcome with bitterness that is directed at both Joseph and her husband. But the targum also portrays her as being quite strategic in the expression of this bitterness. For by reporting the supposed philandering to the servants first the woman generates “witnesses” who will corroborate her story. No matter what Joseph may say to his master or to the other servants, Potiphar’s wife has already manufactured enough evidence for anyone to doubt Joseph’s words concerning this situation. Potiphar’s wife is very much in control of this situation and is positioning herself to bring about Joseph’s downfall in Potiphar’s house. Genesis 39:17–20, PJ Then she spoke to him [Potiphar] saying these words, “He came to me, the Hebrew slave that you brought to us to laugh at me. And when I lifted my voice and called out he left his coat beside me and went out to the street.” When his master heard the words of his wife who spoke with him saying “According to these things your servant did to me,” his anger was kindled. So Joseph’s master took advice from priests who discovered that it was the white of an egg, on account of which he did not kill him. Rather he put him into jail, the place where the prisoners of the king were imprisoned. And he was there in the jail.

In this passage Potiphar’s wife continues to propagate her narrative concerning Joseph using her speaking agency. In this version of the narrative, however, she personalizes the attack that she accuses Potiphar of creating with Joseph.20 No longer has Potiphar brought Joseph to them so he may laugh at the entire household. Rather Potiphar bought Joseph so that he could laugh at his wife. It is difficult to know precisely what the woman is accusing her husband 20

Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 423–30.

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

101

of in this passage, but here is one possibility. The targum emphasizes on a number of occasions that Joseph is a handsome young man. Potiphar, being acutely aware of this himself,21 brings Joseph into the household knowing that his wife will be attracted to him. But he will also make it clear to Joseph that he is to stay away from the woman. In this situation Potiphar’s wife is left to be frustrated in her attraction to Joseph. And this causes her husband some amusement. Whether this was actually Potiphar’s motivation for bringing Joseph into the household or not is impossible to tell from what the targum presents to its readers/audiences. However, through her speech to Potiphar, Potiphar’s wife regains some of the dignity she believes she has lost, but she does so at the expense of Joseph’s reputation. She also thereby avenges herself in front of her husband, because Joseph’s actions reflect on Potiphar’s ability to keep his slaves under control.22 The woman’s speech therefore turns out to be a two pronged attack on Joseph and on her husband. The next thing the targum communicates is that when Potiphar hears his wife’s story his anger is kindled. As far as the targum is concerned there are no reasons given as to why Potiphar becomes angry. One reason might be because he believes his wife’s story and sees Joseph’s supposed philandering as a betrayal of the trust he had for Joseph.23 But this interpretation does not take account of all the evidence. For in the next sentence the targum states that Potiphar took action by seeking the counsel of priests. Again the precise motivation for this action is not made at all explicit in the targumic narrative. But one way to understand it might be to argue that Potiphar has some reason not to believe his wife’s story. By this point in the episode Potiphar has had some time to observe Joseph and his character, and it may be that he knows that his wife’s story is inconsistent with what he knows about Joseph. Cf. 39:1, PJ above. Cf. Hezser, Jewish Slavery, ch 7, concerning the discipline of slaves in master-slave relationships. 23 This is the interpretation preferred by most commentators. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 427; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 110. 21 22

102

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Potiphar’s anger may thus be a result of seeing his wife’s story as a heinous fabrication. Regardless of how Potiphar views the story itself, Potiphar is put in an awkward position because not only has his wife told the story to him, but she has also told it to the servants. If, therefore, he does not take any action against Joseph it will be said among the servants and others that he will allow anything to go on in his house. Such talk would put his mastery over the household into serious question. Yet, on the other hand, Joseph has proven himself to be loyal up to this point by remaining within the limits placed upon his Subjectivity as far as Potiphar is aware. It is therefore necessary for Potiphar to determine whether his wife’s story is true or not. And for this reason he consults with the priests. As the targum states, the priests demonstrate that the woman’s story is not true by discovering that the fluid on the bed is the white of an egg. The targum furthermore states that this is the reason why Potiphar did not kill Joseph, the implication being that had the woman’s story been confirmed, Joseph would have been executed for his disloyalty.24 However, Potiphar must still assert his mastery over the situation, and for this reason he puts Joseph into prison.25 In this way Joseph is stripped of the Subjectivity he had within Potiphar’s household, which again confirms that his SubjecMann writes that Potiphar does not execute Joseph for two reasons. One reason is the treachery of Dûdu the dwarf who enticed both Joseph and the woman into their secret meetings. The other is that the evidence, both of the clothing left behind, and from the woman’s own mouth, is that Joseph did not consummate the supposed rape. This is enough for Potiphar to commute the sentence of execution. Mann, Joseph and His Brothers, 1029–38. As indicated above, the targum deals with this same problem, namely the question of why Joseph was not executed, albeit in a very different way. 25 Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 377. Among the commentators consulted for this chapter only Wenham observes the strangeness of Joseph’s punishment in the HB narrative, in that if Potiphar really believed that Joseph had raped his wife, Joseph should have been put to death. The targum picks up on this fact in its narrative, and explains it in part with its inclusion of the egg-white motif. 24

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

103

tivity was conditional upon his acceptance by Potiphar. By being put in jail Joseph again finds himself in a situation where his Subjectivity is severely limited, even more so than when he was in Potiphar’s house. He is no longer permitted to imitate his master by asserting his conditional mastery over the household that is not his. The targum confirms this state of affairs with its last statement in this passage, “And he was there in the jail”. Genesis 39:21–23, PJ26 But the Memra of the Lord was at the side of Joseph and he extended grace to him and gave him mercy in the eyes of the chief of the jail. And the chief of the jail appointed to Joseph all the prisoners in the jail and all that was done there, he commanded it to be done. It was not necessary for the chief of the jail to guard Joseph like the rest of the prisoners, because he did not see any fault with him because the Memra of the Lord supported him, and that which he did the Lord caused to succeed.

Despite being stripped of his position in Potiphar’s household, the targum indicates that the Memra of the Lord was still assisting Joseph. Again God is in the Subject position and Joseph is his Object: God extends grace to Joseph and gives him mercy in the eyes of the chief of the jail. Like Potiphar in PJ’s version of 39:1 the chief of the jail is a kind of indirect Object in relation to God since he is indirectly affected by God’s goal which is to cause Joseph to succeed. Nevertheless, like Potiphar the chief of the jail also acts as a Subject in this passage, insofar as he gives authority to Joseph. In all, this passage is very similar to 39:2–6, PJ wherein Joseph is given authority in Potiphar’s household. Like in that earlier passage two Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 378–80. Wenham includes this portion of this episode in the next major section of Genesis, which he calls “Joseph in Prison (39:21–40:23)”. Although I agree that 39:21–23 forms a transitional passage bridging between the Genesis 39 episode and what is going to happen in Genesis 40, I believe that 39:21–23 rightly belong to the rest of Genesis 39. Not only does it bring the episode of this chapter to a conclusion, but the deliberate parallels between it and the early portion of the chapter reinforce the unity that I detect throughout this episode. 26

104

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Subjects act on Joseph here all for the purposes of putting him into a position with some authority. Similarly when Joseph is focalized by the human agent in this passage it is revealed that the human agent realizes that the Memra of the Lord is at Joseph’s assistance. However, in this situation the targum goes further than this by stating that the chief of the jail “saw no fault” with Joseph, as if to confirm Joseph’s innocence concerning the situation between himself and Potiphar’s wife. Ultimately this passage conveys that Joseph is given about as much authority as the chief jailor by stating, “all that was done there, [Joseph] commanded it to be done”. The targum furthermore emphasizes the peculiarity of Joseph’s situation by stating, “it was not necessary for the chief of the jail to guard Joseph like the rest of the prisoners”. As a result, the targum indicates that the Subjectivity Joseph experiences as an acting agent in the jail is just about limitless insofar as he may do as he sees fit with the other prisoners. Nevertheless, Joseph is still a prisoner, a fact which is emphasized in the next chapter of the targum. It is only within the confines of the prison that Joseph is able to act, focalize, and speak, which means that in many ways he is still an agent with limited influence. The question raised by this passage is this: when will God see fit to redeem Joseph from prison, given that Joseph has acted righteously up until this point in the narrative? The answer to this question lies beyond the scope of the present analysis. 2.1 Comparison with the HB To trace some of the themes developed by PJ in the context of this episode, it is helpful to compare PJ’s version with the HB version of the same episode. It goes without saying that there is a great deal of overlap between these two versions. However, there are enough differences between the two to indicate some areas where PJ makes some unique contributions in narratological terms. The first area of difference comes in 39:1 where the HB simply indicates that Potiphar bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites who brought Joseph to Egypt. In the HB version there is no mention of Joseph’s good looks, nor of Potiphar’s desire to sodomize him. Hence there is no reason for any narration of God taking action against Potiphar. If Potiphar poses a threat to Joseph in the HB version, the HB does not make that threat explicit. Instead PJ presents a narrative wherein Egypt is presented as being a fundamen-

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

105

tally dangerous place for Joseph, given that the first encounter between Joseph and an Egyptian indicates that the Egyptian desires Joseph sexually. Yet this is not the only theme that PJ introduces in its version of 39:1. The theme of Joseph’s good looks is introduced, as is the theme of God being at Joseph’s assistance. Both these themes are developed more explicitly throughout the targumic episode as the narration progresses. Furthermore the theme of Joseph’s position of Object is introduced in this passage, given his powerlessness to resist Potiphar should Potiphar have been permitted to act out his desires. Thus within the context of PJ’s narrative, 39:1 serves as an introduction to the episode as a whole, whereas in the HB 39:1 merely explains how Joseph came to be in Potiphar’s house. Also, by including the details of the divine intervention on Joseph’s behalf, PJ’s episode raises the question of why God intervened when Potiphar was lusting after Joseph and why God did not intervene when it was Potiphar’s wife who was desiring Joseph. The targum does not provide the answer to this question, at least not explicitly.27 Yet part of the answer may lie in Joseph’s capacity to act as an agent at the different parts of the episode. In 39:1 Joseph cannot respond to Potiphar’s desire because he is merely an Object to be sold. And, he may not have even been aware of Potiphar’s sexual desire for him. In contrast, with Potiphar’s wife Joseph is able to react, since he has been granted some Subjectivity by Potiphar, on the condition that he does not transgress certain boundaries. Given that Potiphar’s wife represents the boundary that Joseph is not to cross, it is possible that PJ’s framers allowed the narrative to unfold much as it did in the HB simply to demonstrate how Joseph would use his Subjectivity when it was put to the test. Divine intervention in the situation with Potiphar’s wife might therefore have worked against the purposes for which PJ’s framers were constructing their narrative.

Kalimi discusses several midrashic documents, Gen. R. 87:11 being one of them, where there is divine intervention between Joseph and the woman. According to these sources, Joseph desired to succumb to the woman’s seductions and God had to prevent him from doing so. Kalimi, Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy, 89–97. 27

106

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

This introduces the theme of the limits placed upon Joseph’s Subjectivity in Potiphar’s house. It is in PJ’s version of 39:6 that the targum indicates that Potiphar reserved the responsibilities concerning his wife for himself, because he continued to have sexual relations with her. The HB has quite a different version of this passage. It merely states that the only concern that Potiphar had was with “the bread he would eat”. Obviously the targum has interpreted the Hebrew phrase ‫“( כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל‬the bread that he would eat”) metaphorically to refer to Potiphar’s wife. In doing so, the targum makes the boundaries around Joseph’s Subjectivity very explicit: he is not to go anywhere near Potiphar’s wife. In the HB this boundary is quite ambiguous until Joseph mentions it himself in 39:9. As a result the HB’s readers/audiences do not know what proscription Joseph must abide by until Joseph himself mentions it. In contrast PJ’s explicitness concerning this matter gives the targum’s readers/audiences some indication that this boundary might become an issue for Joseph as the episode progresses. The coherence of PJ’s episode might be greater than that of the HB because of its interpretation of the Hebrew phrase ‫כי אם הלחם‬ ‫אשר הוא אוכל‬. The next place where there is a significant difference between the HB and PJ is in 39:14 where in PJ Potiphar’s wife throws an egg white on to the bed, claiming it to be Joseph’s semen. The HB does not have these details. It only states, “And she called to the men of the house and she said to them saying, ‘Look, the Hebrew man he brought to us to laugh at us—he came to me to lie with me and I cried out in a great voice’”. The added details in PJ serve a number of different functions in the targum’s narrative. First, it emphasizes the vindictiveness with which Potiphar’s wife responds to Joseph’s escape. In the HB, Potiphar’s wife is certainly vindictive, but she does not go to the same lengths as her targumic counterpart in expressing her emotions. Second, the presence of the egg white and the woman’s claims concerning it lend credibility to her story as far as the servants are concerned. Without the egg white the servants could easily counteract the effects of her story by recalling Joseph’s impeccable reputation up until this point, even in the face of the presence of Joseph’s coat. Finally, the egg white provides the explanation for why Potiphar did not execute Joseph. Ironically then it is the height of the woman’s vindictiveness that helps to save Joseph’s life, instead of causing him to lose it. The

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

107

absence of this motif in the HB does not allow any of these complexities to emerge. And again, the inclusion of the egg white motif likely produces a greater degree of coherence in PJ than in the HB, insofar as it answers the question of why Joseph was thrown into jail instead of being executed.

3. CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis presented above, it can be stated that in Genesis 39, PJ presents a narrative that has a great deal of coherence, perhaps a greater degree of coherence than the corresponding HB episode. This is accomplished through the explicit inclusion of certain motifs that are unique to PJ’s narrative, similar to the examples from Genesis 26 examined above. It is also accomplished through hermeneutical maneuvers that interpret one thing in the HB narrative as being something quite different in PJ’s narrative. Finally it is accomplished by including an initial episode in 39:1 introducing a number of themes that will be developed throughout the rest of the episode. Although the narrative effects brought to light in this chapter may not be evident in other targumic episodes, this chapter does raise the question of how the narratological approach can be used to study episodes that may or may not exhibit kinds of coherence similar to the ones exposed in Genesis 39, PJ. The next chapter of this thesis will begin to answer this question by examining a number of passages that seemingly have coherence problems associated with them. By examining such passages I hope to show that even when confronted with incoherence a narratological approach does have its uses.

4. POSTSCRIPT ON THE MACRO-HERMENEUTICS OF THE GENESIS 39, PJ EPISODE One advantage in using a narratological approach to the targums is that it reveals what themes are prominent in narratives and why they are prominent. In the episode just examined the theme of Joseph’s conditional Subjectivity is very much in the foreground; it provides the basis of his limited freedom within Potiphar’s house. The foregrounding of this theme is by no means an accident, since it explains one of the central questions that could be raised by reading the HB version of Genesis 39: why did Joseph not bed Potiphar’s wife? Certainly Joseph provides his own answer to this ques-

108

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

tion in 39:9 by stating that bedding Potiphar’s wife would be a sin. However, the targum’s revelation in 39:6 that Potiphar kept his wife for himself supplies the reason why Joseph uses the language of sin in 39:9: the woman of the house is Potiphar’s exclusive domain and not Joseph’s. To transgress this limit would be to disobey Potiphar and offend God, both of whom placed Joseph in the position that he occupies within the house. So much has already been discussed in the analysis above. Where this postscript departs from the discussion above is in its observation that the targumist’s choice to have the narrator articulate this limit before Joseph does demonstrates a significant amount of foresight and narratological awareness. It is possible to state as I did above that the articulation of this limit is an interpretation of the HB’s statement that Potiphar concerned himself with nothing but the bread he would eat. However, this observation ignores the fact that the targum’s interpretation creates several linkages with the network at work in this episode. Since these linkages can be readily observed, as I demonstrated in the analysis above, I believe it is possible to state that the targumist was not only concerned with interpreting the specific words of the HB, but he was also concerned with interpreting the narratological macro-structures manifest within the HB narrative. This idea will be borne out by many of the examples studied in the subsequent chapters. At this point, however, it is necessary to make some remarks concerning the nuances of this argument. Obviously the strength of this argument rests on the fact that in Genesis 39, PJ presents a more or less coherent narrative. In cases where incoherence exists on a macro-structural scale it will be more difficult to state that the targumist had an over-arching hermeneutical agenda. In such cases other explanations will have to be generated for the phenomena presented by the targumic narratives. Such alternative explanations and their place within a narratological framework (or outside it, as the case may be) will be the explicit topic of Chapter 3. Where coherence exists within an episode, however, the correspondence or non-correspondence of thematic material in the targums with thematic material in the HB can be the topic of hermeneutical enquiry. For ultimately the targums are concerned with the transference of both linguistic and cultural material from the HB into the early Jewish context. In some cases this material could be translated directly into the linguistic idioms used by early Aramaic-speaking Jews. Yet at other times narrative interven-

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

109

tion was needed to ensure that the readers/audiences of the targums received the biblical narratives according to officially sanctioned ideologies. Both Fraade and Smelik have addressed this topic indirectly in articles dealing with the rabbinic rules governing targum production and performance.28 Similarly, Flesher has discussed how N might have functioned as scripture for its readers/audiences.29 For each of these scholars, the question is: how do the targums construct meaning for their readers/audiences, and how does that construction of meaning accord with the halakhot governing the use of targums? Fraade and Smelik address this question directly by surveying the relevant rabbinic halakhah. Flesher, in contrast, examines the manner in which N preserves both lexemes and morphemes found in the HB as much as possible, thus placing itself in a subordinate position to the HB, while at the same time giving its readers/audiences an authoritative interpretation of the Hebrew antecedent. As a result, all these scholars envisage some sort of macro-hermeneutical relationship between the HB and the targums, but not quite in the terms I have been indicating. For me, the crucial element of the targumists’ engagements with the HB is the fact that they are, in many ways, practicing a form of cultural appropriation. The HB is a collection of documents that was considered authoritative in an early Jewish context. But this by no means dismisses the fact that there were a number of linguistic and cultural gaps separating the HB from its early Jewish audiences. In terms of interpreting the linguistic difficulties presented by the HB, the targumists employed a number of translation techniques to resolve these problems, some of which have been the topic of various scholarly investigations.30 Narrative difficulties are Fraade, “Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum,” 253–86; Smelik, “The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations,” 249–72. 29 Flesher, “Targum as Scripture,” 61–75. 30 Cf. e.g., Klein, “Associative and Complementary Translation,” 134– 140; Smelik, “Translation and Commentary in One,” 245–60. Also, the introductions to the various volumes in The Aramaic Bible series usually list the translation techniques employed by the targums. Cf. also my discussions concerning “translation” and “interpretation” in the Introduction. 28

110

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

often interpreted as well, and Samely has provided the academic community with an excellent study on how this works in the interpretation of biblical speech.31 The problem with these studies, however, is that they do not place targumic translation within the cultural context of early Judaism, its values, and its ideologies. What I propose is that the targumists are engaged in a large-scale project of bringing the biblical narratives as narratives into conformity with the values and ideologies of early Judaism. By restructuring the biblical narratives according to their own norms the targumists used their targums to encourage beliefs and behaviours that they thought early Jews should hold and practice. As a result, in Genesis 39, PJ the emphatic foregrounding of Joseph’s limited Subjectivity and his conformity to the conditions placed upon him should be seen as an attempt to use Joseph as an exemplar for Jews in similar positions. This idea is further reinforced by the fact that God always causes Joseph to succeed, even in adverse circumstances. An early Jew coming into contact with this narrative could be assured that even though he or she might be a slave, God would protect him or her, and eventually bless him or her, either in this world or in the world to come. Of course such blessings would be conditional upon the individual’s performance of meritorious deeds and conformity to established standards of righteousness, both earthly and heavenly. But by exemplifying such conformity it would become possible for the Jews either reading or hearing this narrative to claim the blessings of Joseph for themselves. In other words, the targum’s version of this episode would have taught its readers/audiences how to live as good Jews within their own social and historical context. By updating the biblical narratives through various modes of interpretation, the targumists sought to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of the HB for those who would consider it authoritative. And all this was accomplished through targumic “translation”/“interpretation”. Another dimension of this kind of interpretation has to do with the incorporation of specific post-biblical narrative material with the biblical narrative in the targums. Scholars such as Kugel have traced a variety of narrative motifs that extend and interpret 31

Samely, The Interpretation of Speech.

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

111

motifs found in the HB. Of particular relevance to this chapter is Kugel’s book on the Joseph narrative, In Potiphar’s House. As indicated in the footnotes above, Kugel traces a variety of midrashic motifs related to the Genesis 39 narrative and explains how they were derived from the HB narrative. Although the PJ version of this episode does not play a prominent role in Kugel’s study, it does become evident that there were a variety of aggadic traditions concerning Genesis 39 in circulation around the time of PJ’s creation. Kugel does not raise the question of whether these traditions were written or oral in their original form. However, the number of traditions that Kugel documents suggests that discourse surrounding the biblical narrative was common in early Jewish contexts, not just to be found within academic settings. This idea can be further substantiated when considering the impact of folk narrative research in the field of Midrash studies.32 According to this line of research, the framers of rabbinic midrashim were at least in part concerned with incorporating folk narratives into their midrashic collections. Like many of the aggadic motifs found in Kugel’s study, the folk narratives found in midrash collections are attested in a variety of different sources, some originating from very different cultures.33 Although the targums have only been the object of folk narrative research in a very limited sense,34 I do want to consider the possibility that that targums did incorporate post-biblical aggadic material into the body of their narratives. This hypothesis is by no means new to targum scholars. Where my version of it distinguishes itself is in placing this process within the larger project of targumic cultural appropriation. For the targums to communicate to early Jewish readers/audiences, they needed to incorporate postbiblical aggadic material into their narratives. If they did not, they would not have reflected current thinking and discussion concernCf. e.g. Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life; Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood. 33 Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood, esp. ch. 4. 34 Shinan, The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian” Targumim on the Pentateuch, ch. 3; Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry.” 32

112

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

ing the HB within early Jewish social and historical contexts. This argument may seem to be another articulation of the relevance argument presented above. Yet it is also important to consider the role the targums likely played in community formation. By incorporating post-biblical narrative (aggadic) material into their narratives, the targumists built a sense of communal ownership over the biblical and post-biblical narratives. In other words, the shape of the targumic narratives helped to define part of early Palestinian Jewish identity. By being aware of and by discussing the biblical–targumic narratives, it was possible for early Jews to identify themselves with the group that considered itself to be the heirs of Israelite religion, and which interpreted Israelite historical narratives as a result. As a result, the targums performed at least two very important social roles: they not only communicated the norms and ideologies of early Judaism, but they also promoted a sense of community belonging for those who interacted with their narratives. As far as evidence in support of this position is concerned, there is none other than what is suggested by the targumic narrative structures themselves. By and large the actual functions of specific targums are unknown to scholars, although some have recently attempted to assign certain functions to targumic narratives, PJ in particular.35 This lack of corroborating evidence represents one of the more significant limits in targum studies. Furthermore this lack of evidence inevitably leads to a kind of circular reasoning, which, although sometimes unavoidable in historical research, weakens the strength of the overall argument. Until further evidence is found to substantiate the position I have just articulated, my argument must be viewed as an hypothesis. What might remain after making this necessary qualification is the fact that the targums were involved in a project of cultural appropriation or “translation”, which took a variety of different forms. This project of cultural appropriation is not discussed very much in the secondary literature. It could in fact call for a new kind of research in the field of targum studies. This new kind of research goes beyond the scope of this book, but for

Cf. e.g. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. See also my critique of Mortensen’s study. 35

TWO EXAMPLES OF NARRATOLOGY AT WORK

113

some of the beginning phases of it see my “Targum and Translation.

3 NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES TO THE TARGUMS A narratological approach to literature describes in part the narrative structures that condition reading. By identifying these structures, narratology exposes how meaning can emerge through the interactions of various readers and various narratives. However, one of the limitations of the narratological approach used in this book is the general lack of consideration it gives to the social, historical, and literary contexts influencing readers. By focusing almost exclusively on the structural aspects of literature, narratology constructs a somewhat artificial interpretative matrix, as though reading and interpretation are things that happen in isolation. To overcome this limitation I will attempt to convey some aspects of the literary environment surrounding the targums. I do this not to suggest explicitly that the targums are dependent on other literature, which is, incidentally, a hypothesis that has a great deal of merit. Rather I indicate these contextual concerns to illuminate probable factors that influenced the interpretation of the targumic narratives. By no means does this indicate that every question raised by targumic literature was answered by parallel documents. Instead when the targums and parallel early Jewish literature are read in conjunction with one another, it becomes possible to determine the limitations of the targums themselves. In other words, it becomes evident what questions raised by the targums remain unanswered in the targumic literary context. Rabbinic and other early Jewish literature may fill in some of these gaps, but what would happen if the targums’ readers/audiences had no or limited knowledge of these parallel traditions? Would the targumic narratives hang together? If they would not, what cultural mechanisms would have been necessary to create coherence in and for the targums? This chapter will explore these issues, both expounding and delimiting what narratology can offer in response to these problems. As will become 115

116

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

evident there are some distinct limits to the narratological approach used in this thesis. These limitations can only be overcome by using other methodologies and by engaging in sustained methodological discussion. This fact, however, does not eliminate narratology’s usefulness, but rather brings further definition to it. For although there are only certain things that narratology can accomplish, when it is used in conjunction with the targumic narratives it has the potential to call into question and reframe some of the long-held assumptions of targum scholars. This chapter will explore both this limit and this interrogation of assumptions. Ultimately it will highlight precisely what a narratological approach can and cannot do.

1. A COMPLEMENTARY CONCEPT One concept that can help describe the targums’ relationship with other early Jewish literature, rabbinic and otherwise, is intertextuality. In his now classic work Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Boyarin writes the following: [The concept “intertextuality”] has several different accepted senses, three of which are important in my account of midrash. The first is that the text is always made up of a mosaic of conscious and unconscious citation of earlier discourse. The second is that texts may be dialogical in nature—contesting their own assertions as an essential part of the structure of their discourse—and that the Bible is a preeminent example of such a text. The third is that there are cultural codes, again either conscious or unconscious, which both constrain and allow the production (not creation) of new texts within the culture; these codes may be identified with the ideology of the culture which is made up of the assumptions that people in the culture automatically make about what may or may not be true and possible, about what is natural in nature and in history. 1

The centrality of these concepts of intertextuality becomes apparent in Boyarin’s interpretation of midrash when he begins to talk of the Bible as a gapped or dialogical text into which “the reader slips, 1

Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 12.

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

117

interpreting and completing the text in accordance with the codes of his or her culture.”2 For this chapter I will be using the term intertextuality primarily in reference to the concept of gapped texts or narratives that need to be filled somehow. I will use this concept as my starting point so I can begin to engage with questions of coherence raised by the targums. In particular I will be concerned with the degrees to which knowledge of other narrative traditions would have been necessary for the targums’ readers/audiences to make sense of the targumic narratives. Yet I cannot assume that the targums’ readers/audiences were uniformly aware of gaps, and for those who were aware of these gaps, they may not have possessed the knowledge required to fill them. This knowledge could consist of at least two different things. It could firstly consist of an awareness of pre-existing traditions relating to the narratives that the targums were narrating. These traditions may have been recorded in other documents, such as collections of various mirashim—a less probable option. Or, they may have been circulated orally at the time of the targums’ production—a more probable option. In either case the specific sources of many post-biblical targumic traditions are unrecoverable with the methodological tools currently available to scholars. By drawing upon such traditions, however, the targums’ readers/audiences could possibly fill in some of the gaps left open in the targumic narratives. Secondly, such knowledge could consist of an awareness of the hermeneutical techniques needed to create narrative expansions similar to the ones already preserved in the targums. Again, possessing such skills would allow individual readers or audience members to fill gaps in the targumic narratives. What both narratology and intertextuality ask is: How would the targums’ readers/audiences have made sense of the targumic narratives? What resources did they have at their disposal for doing so? And how would the targums themselves have sustained the interpretative efforts of the readers/audiences? From the angle of what the targums do in response to similar problems presented by the HB, Samely has done a great deal of work from the perspective of discourse analysis rather than from

2

Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 14.

118

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the perspective of intertextuality.3 However, many of the phenomena Samely examines in the targums were likely produced in response to an intertextual dynamic or gaps within the biblical narrative. In this way Samely’s work with the targums bears some similarity to Boyarin’s work with midrash. Where I depart from both Boyarin and Samely is where I ask in what ways are the targumic narratives themselves gapped and in need of interpretation, intertextual or otherwise? This, I believe, is something that narratology can reveal quite well, especially because of its concern with the coherence of narratives. When incoherence is encountered in certain targumic narrative expansions is it possible that the framers of the targums were expecting that the targums’ readers/audiences would be familiar with other pre-existing traditions that would help to make sense of the targum text in question? I am not completely certain that this problem can be solved simply on the basis of examining the targumic narratives alone. Furthermore, the task of gap-filling could probably continue ad infinitum since new narrative gaps would be opened up with each subsequent narrative expansion. Nevertheless, by examining the targumic narratives narratologically it is possible to clearly articulate the problematic dynamics in the targums. Throughout this chapter I will therefore examine several narrative expansions that appear to have some similarities with certain traditions found in other early Jewish literature. I will begin by explaining what some of these similarities are, and then I will describe what the targumic version requires of its readers/audiences in order to make sense of the expansion in question. By taking this approach I hope to illuminate some of the dynamics that may or may not have been evident between the targumic narratives and their readers/audiences. I also hope to indicate the degrees to which the targumic narratives can be said to be internally coherent, or not as the case may be.

2. TARGUMIC PASSAGES AND PRE-EXISTING TRADITIONS In this section I will examine several passages that display evidence of some pre-existing tradition or another being represented in the 3

Cf. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech.

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

119

targumic narratives. This I hope will reveal something of how the targums might have been received by their respective readers/audiences. And it will also raise questions concerning the competency of the readers/audiences to comprehend all that the targums seem to presuppose in their renderings of specific passages. (1) Exodus 2:1, PJ Amram a man from the tribe of Levi, went and sat under the [bridal] canopy and wedding chamber of Yochabed his wife whom he had divorced because of Pharaoh’s decree. She was one hundred and thirty years old when he took her back to himself. Furthermore a miracle was performed for her and she returned to her youth just like when she was young, called a daughter of Levi.

There are a number of motifs in this passage that are developed in other early Jewish literature. I will address them each in the order that they appear in this passage. First, b. Sotah 12a4 as well as Exodus R. 1:195 address the question of Amram’s divorce and remarriage to Yochabed. In particular the Sotah passage includes a long narrative that indicates that Amram divorced Yochabed, believing that the Israelites laboured in vain after Pharaoh issued his decree to drown all Israelite male babies. Since Amram was the “greatest man of his generation” all Israelite men divorced their wives as well. However, Miriam convinced her father Amram to marry her mother again on the grounds that Amram had decreed against this world and the world to come by having all Israelite men divorce their wives in response to Pharaoh’s decree. This is in contrast to Pharaoh who had only decreed against this world by ordering all Israelite boys to be thrown into the river; such children would receive an inheritance in the world to come, whereas children never born would never receive such an inheritance. Amram, agreeing with The version of the Babylonian Talmud lying behind these citations is the Soncino translation edited by I. Epstein. This translation is based on the Vilna Talmud. 5 All the citations of Midrash Rabbah in this chapter are from the Soncino translation of Midrash Rabbah, 3rd edition, edited by H. Friedman and Maurice Simon. 4

120

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Miriam’s argument remarries Yochabed and goes through a complete wedding ceremony with her. This last point is substantiated from the biblical text itself in that it does not state that he took Yochabed back (Exodus R. 1:19). Rather it states that Amram “took” Yochabed. Then comes the question of Yochabed’s age. Exodus R. 1:19 and Pirké de-Rabbi Eliezer (PRE) 486 are helpful in this regard. Exodus R. indicates that Yochabed is called a daughter of Levi in Numbers 26:59. On this basis it argues that Yochabed was conceived in Canaan and born inside the walls of Egypt. PRE indicates that the Israelites were in Egypt for a total of 210 years. Given that Moses was 80 when he stood before Pharaoh, Yochabed must have been 130 years old when Moses was born. Finally comes the issue of the miracle that was performed for Yochabed. Again Exodus R. is helpful: it understands the phrase “daughter of Levi” at the end of Exodus 2:1 to mean that Yochabed had her youth restored to her, much like Sarah did in the Genesis narrative according to rabbinic views. Compared to these elaborate accounts of the relationship between Amram and Yochabed, Yochabed’s age, and the miracle performed for Yochabed, the targumic version is quite terse. In fact it leaves many questions unanswered: What was the precise reason for Amram to divorce Yochabed? Why did Amram take Yochabed back? How is it known that Yochabed was 130 when Amram took her back? And why was a miracle performed for Yochabed? Within the context of the targumic narrative itself there is some information given that can hint at some of the details included in this passage. In particular it is worthwhile recalling PJ’s version of Exodus 1:15 where Yochabed and Miriam are identified as the two Israelite midwives Shiphrah and Puah who appear before Pharaoh. This at least gives some indication that Yochabed was old enough to have a daughter of an age when she can be a midwife herself. The narrative also indicates that Yochabed and Miriam were righteous in their response to Pharaoh’s decree, a response which caused them to be greatly rewarded by God. Given this background it is not surprising that a miracle was performed for The version of PRE lying behind these citations is the Friedlander translation, which relies on the Vienna manuscript of PRE. 6

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

121

Yochabed here in PJ’s version of 2:1. However on the basis of the information provided by PJ’s narrative itself, the figure indicating Yochabed’s age appears to be completely arbitrary. Neither is there any information provided concerning Amram and Yochabed’s relationship before this time, nor is there an explicit reason given for the miracle performed for Yochabed. PJ’s version of this passage therefore presents itself as a narrative that is highly gapped and in need of detailed explanations, explanations that could very well have been provided by the other literature examined above. Yet whether PJ’s readers/audiences would have been familiar with the concrete formulations provided by b. Sotah, Exodus R.,and PRE or any other sources containing this information is something that cannot be determined with any degree of certainty, especially given that PJ has been assigned dates both before and after the production of this parallel literature.7 If PJ’s narrative was read or heard by people ignorant of the traditions summarized above, there would be many questions left unanswered. But it may also be, as some scholars have suggested,8 that PJ assumes its readers/audiences have some knowledge of these other traditions which therefore does not make it necessary for the targum to spell out all the details examined above. If PJ’s readers/audiences did indeed have some knowledge of these other traditions, the targum’s narrative can be seen as one representative of several traditions that were in circulation during its own time. In this way it would be an intertextual phenomenon in all the senses articulated by Boyarin. Not only does it repeat or represent traditions that were current in its own time, but it is also a dialogical or gapped text, meaning that it is in need of interpretation, interpretation which would of course have been constrained by the cultural codes current in its own time. Narratology, however, can provide an alternative answer to the problems presented by the gaps in this passage. In his book Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction, Sternberg has a lengthy discussion of a phenomenon that he identifies as “delayed Cf. ch. 1 above. Cf. e.g. with regard to Exodus 12:42 Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, 195. Cf. also with regard to Numbers 12:1–2, PJ, Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,” 121. 7 8

122

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

and distributed exposition”.9 Using Homer’s Odyssey as his case example, Sternberg describes a dynamic in fiction wherein authors open up gaps in their narratives specifically for the purpose of filling them in later with expositional details. This serves a number of different purposes within narrative, not least of which is to create a sense of suspense for the readers. In citing this concept I am not arguing that this is what the targum is doing in Exodus 2:1. Rather I am pointing out that the opening up of gaps within narratives can serve a function internal to the narratives in question. If PJ answered the questions raised by these gaps later in its narrative (which it does not) it would be possible to argue that these gaps served a productive narratological function. However, since these gaps are not filled in PJ’s narrative, it is necessary to rely upon the information provided by the other sources surveyed above. Yet this does not dismiss the need to consider the possibility that the targum may manifest an overriding narratological agenda in its creation of these gaps. This possibility becomes even more prominent when considering the fact that these gaps are produced within the context of a retroversion, a narratological phenomenon that typically has a gap-filling or expositional function. What Sternberg’s study encourages targum scholars to explore is the intratextual (as opposed to intertextual) links that can be created by reading the targumic narratives narratologically. By taking such an approach, it is possible to discover kinds of targumic literary or narrative coherence that have not been explored to date. In short this line of enquiry again raises the question of whether coherence can be found in the targums on both macro and micro levels. However, the kind of coherence described by Sternberg’s theory remains hypothetical within the context of the targumic narratives; at present no one has attempted to either demonstrate or disprove its existence in this narrative context. The next example, although it is not as obviously gapped as example (1) again manifests certain intertextual phenomena. Yet this time narratology can do more than simply identify where the gaps exist.

9

Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering, ch. 3.

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

123

(2) Genesis 25:29, PJ On the day when Abraham died Jacob was cooking a cooked dish of lentils, and he went to comfort his father. Esau came from the field and he was tired because he had committed five transgressions on that day: he had performed idol worship; he had spilt innocent blood; he went in to a betrothed maiden; he denied the life of the world to come; and he despised his birthright.

As in example (1) there are several early Jewish sources that contain narrative material that is similar to the information presented by this targumic passage. Most notable are Genesis R.63:11–12, b. B. Bath.16b, Exodus R.1:1 and Tanhuma Toledoth.10 Not all sources list all five of Esau’s transgressions. Yet what each of them provides are explicit exegetical justifications for the statements concerning Esau’s transgressions. Out of all the sources listed here the Bavli passage ascribes five transgressions to Esau. The order of transgressions in the Bavli passage is different from that of the targum, as are some of the transgressions themselves. In particular the Bavli lists Esau’s dishonoring a betrothed maiden, committing murder, denying God, denying the resurrection of the dead, and spurning his birthright as his transgressions. Genesis R. similarly lists some transgressions different from the targum, indicating that Esau committed theft, and that he performed idol worship. Genesis R. agrees with the Bavli however that Esau dishonored a betrothed maiden. Of all the transgressions listed for Esau in these sources, performing idol worship is the only one that does not receive explicit exegetical justification. Instead it is assumed that this was one of Esau’s many transgressions which ultimately caused Abraham to die prematurely (cf. Genesis R. 63:12). The Bavli does not include idol worship in its list of Esau’s transgressions, at least not in B. Bath. 16b. Exodus R. 1:1 and Tanhuma Toledoth are both very similar to the Bavli passage, so they do not add too much distinctive information to the discussion. From Genesis R. 63:11–12 however I have used the Townsend translation as the basis of these citations of Tanhuma Toledoth. This translation is based on the Buber recension of Midrash Tanhuma. 10

124

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

there are indications concerning how it was determined that this day was the day that Abraham died. In particular there are two reasons given. First, in 63:11 it states that the dish Jacob was preparing was a meal of comfort made primarily for mourners. From this it is adduced that Isaac was mourning the death of Abraham. Second, after listing the transgressions that Esau committed in 63:12, the midrash indicates that Abraham died on this day because God promised him that he would die in peace (Genesis 15:15). Therefore it is reasoned that it was better that Abraham should die before he saw his grandson commit the transgressions listed in the midrash. The midrash justifies this position by putting the words of Psalm 63:4 into Abraham’s mouth: “Truly your faithfulness is better than life . . .” (JPS). From reading the targumic passage as it is translated above, it is obvious that the targum does not discuss explicitly the various reasons behind placing the events of this episode on the day that Abraham died. Neither does it discuss the reasons why it indicates that Esau committed five transgressions on that particular day. This does not mean that the targumist fashioned his narrative without the kinds of exegetical justifications that are displayed in the passages of other early Jewish literature cited above. Rather it means that if such discussions do lie behind the targumic rendering of this narrative, they cannot be recovered from the targumic narrative itself. If such explanations were needed by the readers/audiences, they would have to be found by consulting other sources; again this is a manifestation of one of the kinds of intertextual phenomena described by Boyarin. It is my contention, however, that in many ways Genesis 25:29, PJ would not have needed these kinds of explanations, at least not in the same way that example (1) probably needed to be supplemented with extra information in order to be understood. Example (2) is not as obviously gapped as example (1). This is not a denial that gaps do exist in this passage: why did Esau commit these transgressions? And, why five transgressions? Nevertheless narratological information can be gathered from example (2). In particular this example seems to be creating a contrast between Jacob and Esau’s respective characters. On a day that would have been filled with grief, Jacob prepares a meal and goes to comfort his father. These actions indicate that Jacob is concerned with people other than himself. Esau in contrast commits several actions that would have upset his father, especially on a day

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

125

that was grief-filled. By committing these actions Esau displays a gross insensitivity toward the situation, and especially toward his father. It is true that the targum does not make explicit the reasons behind Esau’s actions, which might mean that he was attempting to dull the pain of his own grief by committing these transgressions. Yet even if this is why Esau acted in the way he did, this compounds his guilt, for he could not see beyond his own emotions to allow himself to act in a more responsible manner. This effect is further enhanced by the fact that the targum narrates Esau’s transgressions in list form. The purpose of using the list as a narration style would seem to be to draw the readers/audiences away from any speculations concerning Esau’s motivations for these actions, and to impress upon them that Esau committed not one or two but five transgressions on this solemn day. Even the use of the word “transgression” (‫ )עבירן‬is important in creating this effect. In Boyarin’s terminology this is an example of paradigmatic thinking.11 By using the ideologically loaded term ‫“( עבירן‬transgressions”) to describe Esau’s actions the targum draws upon a well-established paradigm to evaluate Esau and his deeds. Given that in this paradigm ‫ עבירן‬are opposed to ‫“( עובדין טבין‬good works”), Esau’s actions are immediately condemned without any consideration of what might have motivated them. The actions themselves are inherently wicked; committing them on a day that is already filled with legitimate grief only heightens their wickedness. It is possible that certain readers or audience members might have needed explanations concerning why and how PJ rendered this passage in this way. Yet it is also possible that others would have been satisfied with what the targum presents. The narrative in this passage is coherent enough not to need any supplementary information. It indicates that Jacob’s actions are to be given positive social value, whereas Esau’s actions are to be condemned. Example (2) therefore narrates and promotes specific social norms that are to be embodied by the community that PJ was created for. And it does this all without the aid of the specific exegetical justifications for Esau’s actions deemed so necessary by the parallel rabbinic literature.

11

Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 26–27.

126

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

The next example is one where again some readers or audience members might need some more information to supplement what the targum itself states. (3) Numbers 12:1–2 PJ And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses words that were not worthy concerning the Cushite woman that the Cushites had married to Moses when he was fleeing from before Pharaoh. And he was at a distance from her because he had been married to the queen of Cush and he was distant from her. And they said, “Has the Lord only spoken with Moses because he has set aside the act of sex? Has he not also spoken with us?” And it was heard before the Lord.

Tessa Rajak has written a very helpful article on the narrative traditions concerning Moses and the Ethiopians (Cushites). In it she identifies several sources for this tradition, including some components found in this PJ passage.12 Of particular importance to the discussion of PJ’s representation of this tradition is Josephus, Ant. II, 10, 252–253.13 The narrative framing the Josephus passage is quite different from what might be gathered from PJ’s presentation. In Josephus Pharaoh and his daughter Thermuthis persuade Moses to lead the Egyptian army against the Ethiopians who have invaded Egypt and attempted to subdue the entire country. Moses agrees to this undertaking and leads the Egyptian army through the desert, successfully repelling flying serpents that would have otherwise threatened the wellbeing of the troops under his command. Upon arrival in Ethiopia Moses has great military success and alRajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,” 112. She identifies the following as sources for this tradition: Josephus, Artapanus, who was preserved by Eusebius, the Book of Yashar, the Chronicle of Moses, and a collection of apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, historical, scientific, liturgical and poetic books claiming to be the work of Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh as being sources for this tradition. The use of these sources for interpreting the targumic narrative is limited, however, since some come from periods later than PJ’s usual range of dates. 13 Whiston’s translation of Josephus was used to generate these citations and summaries. 12

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

127

most comes to the point of enslaving the Ethiopians. Yet once they reach the royal city of Saba the army becomes idle because they attempt to lay siege to the city with great difficulty. During this period Tharbis, daughter of the Ethiopian king, falls in love with Moses, seeing his courage and believing him to be reason for the Egyptians’ success. She therefore sends her most faithful servant to Moses to discuss the possibility of him marrying the princess. Moses agrees to the marriage on the condition that the city surrenders to the Egyptians. The agreement is reached and the city surrenders to the Egyptians, Moses consummates his marriage to Tharbis, and then he returns to Egypt. There are several important differences between Josephus’ version of these events and PJ’s. The first is the time when these events happened. According to Josephus, Moses met the Ethiopians when he was still living in Pharaoh’s household, whereas PJ indicates that Moses was married to the Cushite woman when he was fleeing from Pharaoh. In Josephus Moses meets the Ethiopians when he is in a position of power. In PJ Moses meets the Ethiopians as a powerless fugitive. The other important difference is that in Josephus Moses consummates his marriage to Tharbis, whereas the targumist uses the word ‫“( רחיק‬distant”) in a technical sense to indicate that there was no consummation between Moses and the Cushite queen.14 Rajak adds to this discussion by indicating that the tradition stating there was no sexual contact between Moses and the Ethiopian woman is an old one but it cannot be found in either Josephus or Artapanus.15 It is for this reason that she places the tradition in PJ very early, arguing that PJ’s Palestinian provenance might indicate that Josephus first came across this tradition concerning Moses’ encounter with the Ethiopians in a Palestinian context.16 Furthermore she argues that the brevity of PJ’s version likely indicates that the targum’s readers/audiences were familiar with the tradition that PJ is drawing upon in this passage.17 To

Clarke, Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers, 222, n. 3. Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,” 120. 16 Ibid., 121. 17 Ibid. 14 15

128

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

evaluate this conclusion I now turn to a narratological analysis of example (3). From a narratological perspective, the retroversion concerning Moses’ marriage to the Cushite queen serves two functions. First it explains the statement that indicates Moses was married to a Cushite woman. Since Zipporah is the only woman that Moses has married in the targum up to this point (cf. Exodus 2:21), the targum must supply some explanation as to why the narrative states here that he was married to a Cushite woman. As should already be evident, PJ’s solution to this problem is quite different than N’s, which was examined in Chapter 2 above. In contrast to PJ, N demonstrates that the Cushite woman was in fact Zipporah. PJ on the other hand interprets the phrase “Cushite woman” literally, and produces the passage presented above. The second purpose for the retroversion in PJ’s version of this passage is to give some meaning to Miriam and Aaron’s words. For this to work in PJ’s version it is crucial that Moses should not have had sexual relations with the Cushite woman, since it is upon this basis that Miriam and Aaron are arguing that Moses has been treated preferentially in the camp. By making this argument Miriam and Aaron are assuming that, at least in the minds of the people of Israel, sexual abstinence might be one of the preconditions for revelation as it was in Exodus 19:15.18 For Miriam and Aaron, however, this assumption is invalid, in that God has also spoken with them, and they have not been sexually abstinent in the same way Moses has been. The retroversion thereby ensures that the readers/audiences are familiar with the context in which Miriam and Aaron are making their argument. It also demonstrates the force of their argument, in that they are Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 741. In the context of the HB narrative Alter suggests an alternative explanation for Miriam and Aaron’s complaint. He writes that this episode must be read as immediately following the episode where Eldad and Medad are singled out as instruments of prophecy. Thus here in 12:2 Miriam and Aaron demand what they believe to be their due, even though there is scant evidence that God has spoken through Moses’ older siblings in the same way he has spoken through Moses. According to Alter, this is the first instance where the great biblical theme of sibling rivalry appears in the story of Moses. 18

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

129

opposing the idea that a person must abstain sexually in order to receive divine revelation, despite what God commanded the people in Exodus 19:15. It is in this way that Miriam and Aaron actantially place themselves in opposition with both Moses and God. Again this reinforces the importance of retroversions within the targumic narratives, insofar as they perform very important expositional functions which anticipations cannot play due to their role of simultaneously revealing yet concealing. Yet would PJ’s readers/audiences have had to be familiar with the Josephan and other early Jewish traditions concerning Moses and the Ethiopians in order to understand this passage? The answer to this question is probably no, insofar as the targumist supplies enough detail to make Miriam and Aaron’s words understandable for the readers/audiences. Yet would knowledge of these traditions enhance the reader/audiences’ understanding of the targumic passage? The answer to this question is most probably yes, insofar as knowledge of any parallel or related tradition enhances anybody’s understanding of a given biblical or targumic passage. But this does not mean that the targumist was presupposing such knowledge when he was producing this particular passage. Rajak argued that the brevity of PJ’s version of this tradition does indicate such a presupposition.19 However, it could also be stated that the targumist’s brief recitation of this tradition could be due to the constraints of the narrative he is producing rather than to an assumed familiarity with the Moses in Ethiopia tradition on the part of the readers/audiences. Yet such an argument remains untested since no one has yet described the narratological dynamics of PJ and its narrative expansions in their entirety, if such a thing is possible. The purpose of the retroversion is therefore to supply in brief details that would otherwise be missing from the targumic narrative, just as much as it is to include the Moses in Ethiopia tradition. A complete narrative excursus is not necessary given what can be identified as being the focus of the targumic narrative. However, should a given reader or audience member possess knowledge of the tradition the targum is citing here, there is no question that such an individual would be able to explore many intertextual links 19

Cf. p. 14 above.

130

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

that can be created with the targum. By definition, intertextuality is just as much a part of what the reader or audience member brings to the narrative as it is a property of the narrative itself. In relation to the question of the reception of the targums, this notion can lead to the construction of various scenarios concerning possible levels of knowledge within the targums’ intended groups of readers/audiences. Yet the degree to which these levels of knowledge can be determined with any historical certainty remains open. The next example, however, raises this question in quite an interesting way due to a reference to a particular intertextual link that on the surface appears unusual, but with some exploration can be seen to bring great meaning to the passage in question. (4) Exodus 13:17, PJ When Pharaoh dismissed the people the Lord did not lead them on the road of the land of the Philistines although it was close, for the Lord said, “Perhaps the people [will change their minds] when they see their brothers who died in the war, two hundred thousand mighty warriors from the tribe of Ephraim.” Seizing on shields and spears and other weapons they went down to Gath to plunder the herds of the Philistines. And because they transgressed the decree of the Memra of the Lord and went out of Egypt thirty years before the appointed time, they were delivered into the hand of the Philistines and they killed them. They are the dry bones that were joined together by the Memra of the Lord by the hand of Ezekiel the prophet in the valley of Dura. And if [the departing Israelites] might see them they might be afraid and return to Egypt.

There are a number of different places where traditions related to the one in this passage can be found, many of which are in various targums. Targum 1 Chronicles 7:21, Targum Song of Songs 2:7 and Targum Psalms 78:920 in particular cite the tradition of the Ephraimites’ premature exodus from Egypt. Sometimes the tradition is presented obliquely such as in Tg. Psalms 78:9, whereas in other cases it is presented more explicitly, claiming that the Ephraimites explicitly The texts used for these targums are from Accordance and CAL (accessed on 15 November 2007). 20

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

131

disobeyed the command of God to remain in Egypt until the appointed time.21 Such disobedience is indicated by using the Aramaic verb ‫“( טעי‬to wander”) which is often used to indicate wandering in the sense of committing idolatry. At other times the tradition is presented in the targums in such a way as to indicate that the Ephraimites calculated the time of their exodus incorrectly, using the time of the covenant with Abraham as their starting point for the 400 years of captivity, rather than the birth of Isaac.22 This latter version explaining the reason behind the premature exodus has a parallel in Exodus R. 20:11 where the midrash explicitly spells out the error in the Ephraimite’s calculations. The tradition as it is presented in the Exodus R.passage, however, bears some similarity to PRE 48 which mentions that the Ephraimites went out to plunder the herds of the Philistines. Furthermore, b. Sanh. 92b parallels the statement that the bones of the Ephraimites were the bones that God resurrected by the hand of Ezekiel. All the parallel sources of this motif indicate that PJ is drawing upon a well-established tradition that has received development not only within the targums, but also within other early Jewish literature. The question that is of interest to a narratological interpretation of this passage concerns the relevance of the connection made between the bones of the Ephraimites and the bones resurrected in Ezekiel. For within the context of the narrative it is sufficient to include the retroversion/excursus concerning the Ephraimites’ premature exodus from Egypt. This retroversion/excursus explains why God did not lead the Israelites through the land of the Philistines. The anticipation of the future resurrection of the Ephraimites appears, on the surface, to have little relevance to the narrative that is being presented. If one were to take a diachronic approach to this passage, the inclusion of the Ezekiel tradition could be said to reflect poor editing on the part of the targumist. However, as will be seen below, the intertextual links created by the reference to the Ezekiel narrative provide extra motivation for God to lead the Israelites away from the

Cf. Tg. Song of Songs 2:7. For a targumic warning to the Israelites to stay in Egypt until the appointed time see Genesis 50:25, PJ. 22 Tg. 1 Chronicles 7:21. 21

132

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

land of the Philistines, away from the scene of the Ephraimites’ defeat. Adding yet another dimension to this discussion, Joseph Heinemann, while commenting on this passage, states, The two parts of this composite version express exactly opposite attitudes: while in the first [part] the Exodus of the sons of Ephraim is considered sinful and, inevitably, resulted in their defeat and death, the second [part] considers them worthy of a special, “private” resurrection; hence, in spite of their sin (or error), they must be essentially righteous men, who deserve a miracle such as this, which annuls, in effect, their punishment by restoring them to life.23

Heinemann later states that this resurrection motif was likely introduced for the purposes of developing beliefs concerning the Messiah bar Ephraim who became associated with Bar Kochba. By indicating that the Ephraimites were worthy of resurrection, the purveyors of this tradition also indicated that Bar Kochba was worthy of resurrection as well, despite his failure.24 Though this reading might be correct in historical terms, a narratological interpretation of this passage must deal with its tensions in a slightly different way. It is possible to agree with Heinemann’s statement that this passage expresses “if not a contradictory, at least a complex and ambivalent attitude”.25 Yet his conclusions concerning the concrete historical situation that produced this passage go too far in terms of making assumptions about what the readers/audiences would have understood this passage to mean. Narratological analysis must locate this passage within its narrative context and attempt to construct meaning based on the information that that context supplies. As mentioned above the retroversion concerning the Ephraimites explains why God did not take the Israelites through the land of the Philistines when they left Egypt. God reasons that if they see the remains of the fallen Ephraimites they will become Heinemann, “The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim,” 13. 24 Ibid., 15. 25 Ibid., 13 23

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

133

afraid and desire to return to Egypt. In this way the targum interprets the Hebrew term ‫“( מלחמה‬war”) from the corresponding HB verse to refer to the results of the battle between the Ephraimites and the Philistines. The episode wherein the dry bones are resurrected appears in Ezekiel 37. It is therefore possible that the anticipation concerning the resurrection of the Ephraimites was based on an interpretation of Ezekiel 37:12, which reads, “Therefore prophesy and say to them [the people of Israel] ‘Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am opening up your graves and bringing you up from your graves, my people, and I shall bring you to the land of Israel.’” Given that the following verses in Ezekiel have God instructing the prophet to write to the tribe of Ephraim, it is not surprising that the targumist connects the episode concerning Ephraim in its version of Exodus 13:17 with the resurrection of the bones in Ezekiel. By reading the Exodus passage and the Ezekiel passage together, then, it is easy to conclude that if the Israelites do not escape Egypt and go to the land of Canaan, their fallen brothers the Ephraimites will not be able to receive the inheritance promised to them in Ezekiel 37. As a result, this passage gives God a double motivation for not taking the Israelites through the land of the Philistines: first he wants to prevent the Israelites from returning to Egypt; and second he wants to fulfill his promise to the Ephraimites that they would receive the inheritance in Canaan that is rightfully theirs as members of Israel. Such is an interpretation of this targumic passage based on the intertextual link created by the mention of the Ezekiel episode. However, this interpretation is dependent on the presupposition that the targum’s readers/audiences would have had some knowledge of the promises associated with the Ezekiel 37 episode, in particular Ezekiel 37:12. As in the other examples explored in this chapter it is not possible to state with any certainty what levels of knowledge different readers or audience members would have possessed. It is probable that there were many different levels of knowledge among the targum’s readers/audiences. To some, the targumist’s reference to the Ezekiel episode would have been oblique, whereas to others it would have been overflowing with meaning due to its rich intertextual connections, many of which were not explored in the preceding analysis. Because the meaning of this portion of the targumic narrative is so dependent upon what the readers/audiences bring to it, narratology can therefore only produce interpretations of it that are

134

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

hypothetical in any historical sense. More generally, narratology raises the question of the degree to which any literary interpretation of such targumic passages can go beyond the level of historical hypothesis.

3. NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER KINDS OF TARGUMIC PHENOMENA In this section I examine two examples that raise questions concerning how narratology can engage with apparently diachronic problems in the targums. Here concepts of intertextuality will be left behind so that I can focus on different kinds of issues. Specifically, it is in this section that the contrast between narratology and diachronic approaches will become most explicit. It is also in this section where we encounter some further limitations of the narratological approach. Overall these limitations raise methodological questions that will have to be dealt with in other contexts. (5) Genesis 44:18, N Then Judah approached him [Joseph] rebuking with words and speaking forcefully. He roared like a lion and said, “I request from you my lord, let your servant now speak a word, and, my lord, do not enkindle your anger against your servant. Did you not say to us the first time we came before you, ‘I fear the Lord’? But now your judgments have been twisted to become like the judgments of Pharaoh your master.” And he [Judah] said, “Behold now, our lord, when we came the first time you said to us, ‘I fear the Lord,’ but now you say, ‘I fear Pharaoh.’ Perhaps it was not told to you or perhaps you have not heard what my two brothers Simeon and Levi did at the fortress of Shechem, that they entered it and killed all the males in it because they defiled Dinah our sister in it who is not among the numbers of the tribes and for whom there is not a portion or inheritance in the division of the land? As for me, I am stronger than Simeon and Levi. I swear, if I draw my sword from its sheath I shall not return it there until the time when I have killed all Egyptians. I shall begin with you and finish with Pharaoh your master, because I am honourable like you and my father like Pharaoh your master. Because of what you confirm by oath you swear by him. I [swear] by the life of the head of my father just as you swear by the life of the head of Phar-

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

135

aoh your master that if I draw my sword from its sheath I will not return it to its sheath until the time when the entire land of Egypt is filled with the slain. I shall not return it to its sheath until the time when we have made all the land of Egypt desolate of its inhabitants. I shall begin with you, and with Pharaoh your master by whom you swear I shall finish. Because it should be done, it shall be done, despite the unwillingness of my father.26 Has it not been heard by you and has it not been told to you what my brothers Simeon and Levi did at the fortress of Shechem that was in peace: they entered it and killed all the males at the edge for the sword because they defiled Dinah our sister who is not numbered with us as a tribe and who will not receive an inheritance with us? And how much more for our brother for he is numbered with us among the tribes and shall receive a portion and inheritance with us in the division of the land? And how much more because I am harsher than them?And how much more because my strength is harsher than theirs? I gave surety for the child before my father and I said to him, ‘If I do not bring him to you and place him before you let me be far from the salutation of my father all my days.’ Or perhaps it has not been heard by you or not told to you that we are like kings and rulers like you in the land of Canaan. Just as you and Pharaoh your master are rulers in the land of Egypt, so are I and Jacob my father rulers in the land of Canaan.”

There are a number of problems associated with this passage. The first is the translation of the statement made about Judah’s words. If I was to follow Jastrow’s Dictionary, the translation of this statement would indicate that Judah was “raging (‫ )זעף‬in words and humble (‫ )דכדך‬in tongue”.27 Sokoloff, in contrast defines ‫ זעף‬as “to rebuke” and ‫ דכדך‬as “to crush”.28 When ‫ דכדך‬is used in conjunction with ‫ בלישנא‬as it is in this passage, Sokoloff states that it Lit. “For the sake of doing it, it shall be done against the unwillingness of my father.” 27 Jastrow, Dictionary, 408 and 306 for ‫ זעף‬and ‫דכדך‬, respectively. 28 Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 180 and 149. 26

136

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

means to speak forcefully.29 Thus because Judah produces no humble words in this speech, I have decided to follow Sokoloff’s suggestions regarding how to translate the key terms in this sentence. The second problem is the characterization of Pharaoh presented in this speech. Here Judah understands Pharaoh to be untrustworthy and wicked, as in the Exodus narrative. Yet the Pharaoh of the Joseph narrative is favourably disposed toward Joseph and the rest of the Israelites. This distortion of this Pharaoh’s character has led both Vermes and Levy to believe that ideas concerning another Pharaoh have been anachronistically imposed upon the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time.30 The most glaring problem, however, is the speech’s composite nature, which is indicated by the various repetitions in it. Both Levy and Vermes address the question of how this composite came to be. But whereas Levy hypothesizes that some no longer extant marginal glosses were incorporated into N’s text, Vermes is specific in stating that N has attempted to harmonize the Fragmentary Targum and the Tosefta of Targum Yerushalmi in its version of this passage.31 Since there is no reason to dismiss these hypotheses out of hand, it can be stated that the N passage manifests a “conscious or unconscious citation of earlier discourse”.32 In this case both Vermes and Levy would likely argue that the citation of earlier discourse is very conscious, insofar as the attempt to harmonize traditions has been deliberate on the part of the targumist. Yet as in the previous examples cited in this chapter, it is questionable as to whether N’s readers/audiences would have been aware of the traditions that are being harmonized in N’s version of this speech. They may have had a general awareness of some of the details of the different versions of this speech. But it is unlikely that every person reading or hearing this passage would have been able to distinguish between the different sources that are being harmonized herein. It is therefore necessary to ask: What Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 149. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 22–23; Levy, Targum Neophyti I, 258. 31 Levy, Targum Neophyti I, 258; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 20. 32 Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 12. 29 30

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

137

would the purpose be in leaving this passage full of repetitions and redundancies? Is it possible to find some narratological reason for the form of this passage? Although a narratological approach to this passage does not dismiss the findings of scholars like Levy and Vermes, the overall orientation of a narratological approach is slightly different, in that the task of the narratologist is to find meaning in the repetitions and redundancies manifest therein. I will therefore begin with the observation that although there are several repetitions and redundancies in this passage, none of the repetitions are completely identical one with another, despite the fact some phrases in this passage are exactly the same. This phenomenon has the effect of presenting the readers/audiences with a cascade of ideas wherein Judah’s attempts to communicate his message as thoroughly as possible result in a great deal of overlap from one sentence to the next and from one idea to the next in some cases. From a narratological perspective I can surmise that Judah’s repetitive and redundant speech is partially a result of his declared anger and presumed panic in this situation. At this point in the narrative Joseph’s silver cup has been found in Benjamin’s sack, and Judah, who promised his father that he would keep Benjamin safe (Genesis 43:8–10), must now defend Benjamin in front of Joseph. Desperate to demonstrate his power in front of Joseph, Judah produces this speech wherein he contrasts his strength to that of Simeon and Levi, swears oaths that he will destroy all of Egypt unless Benjamin is let go, and promises vengeance for Benjamin who will receive an inheritance even more than there was vengeance for Dinah who will not receive an inheritance. Judah says many of these things at least twice, thus ensuring that there will be no mistaking his message: Benjamin must be let go, or else there will be consequences. In actantial terms this puts Judah in opposition with Joseph, and the personal power that Judah draws upon has the effect of causing Joseph to become afraid (cf. Genesis 44:19, N). However, in N’s version of 44:19 where Joseph shakes the entire palace with the stamp of a foot, Judah’s fury abates and he begins to speak humbly (‫ מכך‬found in the Pal. form ‫ )ממכמך‬knowing that his strength is matched in Joseph. The function of N’s version of Genesis 44:18, then, is to allow Judah to express his fear concerning Benjamin’s fate in front of Joseph. It also has the function of demonstrating the lengths to which Judah will go to protect Benjamin. This speech, therefore, both in terms

138

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

of its form and its content, reveals much about Judah’s character. No longer is he willing to partially protect his brother as he did with Joseph in Genesis 37:26–27, N. But now in 44:18 he is willing to risk his own life to save the life of Benjamin. There are many possible reasons as to why this is the case, but for my purposes all that matters is that N’s version of 44:18 demonstrates that there has been some sort of evolution in Judah’s character. And it is that evolution which causes him to produce this speech, with all its repetitions and redundancies. Admittedly, this interpretation stretches the boundaries of plausibility quite significantly. However, I do so to demonstrate how narratology might engage with such a passage, despite all its problems. In the course of this demonstration I am aware that I am potentially ascribing to the targumist a literary or narratological concern that goes beyond the levels of such concern usually attributed to the targumist in traditional targum scholarship. In doing so I believe it is possible to see the potential conflict between a narratological approach to the targums and the more traditional diachronic approaches. For according to the more traditional approaches, the purpose of passages such as Genesis 44:18, N does not go beyond the harmonization of certain pre-existing traditions. A narratological approach, in contrast, argues that there might have been some literary or narratological purpose that prompted the targumist to bring the pre-existing traditions together, and to leave them in a semi-harmonised state. From this follows the idea that the various targumists might have had an overall narrative agenda when they were framing their targums. Regardless of the historical and methodological problems that can be discussed in conjunction with this idea, it is worth emphasizing that a narratological approach brings to light and questions the assumptions that have been made to date concerning the targums’ various compositions. Narratology invites scholars to explore the possibility that there might be some literary or narratological raison d’être behind targumic passages that seem obscure to modern interpreters, even though this may seem unlikely when confronted with passages such as Genesis 44:18, N. I will explore this issue further in the next example by examining a passage that seems to break from the narrative for the purposes of supplying an excursus in the form of a list.

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

139

(6) Exodus 12:42, N It is a night reserved and appointed for the redemption to the name of the Lord at the time when he brought out the children of Israel redeemed from the land of Egypt. But four nights are those that are written in the Book of Memorials. The first night: when the Lord was revealed upon the world to create it. The world was desolate and chaotic and darkness was spread upon the surface of the deep. And the Memra of the Lord was the light and it shone. He called it the first night. The second night: when the Lord was revealed to Abram, a man of one hundred, and Sarah his wife, a woman of ninety years, to fulfill what scripture says: “Behold Abram, a man of a hundred years shall beget, and Sarah his wife, a woman of ninety years shall bear” (Genesis 17:17). Isaac was thirty-seven years when he was offered upon the altar. The heavens bowed down and they descended. And Isaac saw their perfection and his eyes were dimmed because of their perfections. And he called it the second night. The third night: when the Lord was revealed against the Egyptians at midnight. His hand was killing the firstborn of the Egyptians and his right hand was a shield for the firstborn of Israel to fulfill what scripture says: “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22). He called it the third night. The fourth night: when the appointed time for the world to be redeemed is complete, the yoke of iron shall be smashed and the generations of evildoers shall be destroyed. And Moses shall go up from the midst of the desert One will lead at the head of the flock and the other shall lead at the head of the flock and his Memra leading between the two of them. And I and they are leading as one. This is the night of Passover for the Name of the Lord; it is a night kept and appointed for the redemption of all Israel throughout their generations.

The classic work written about this passage is Le Déaut’s book, La Nuit Pascale. In this book Le Déaut traces the development of the various traditions and theological ideas presented in this passage. In particular he links the themes of creation, Abraham, exodus, and

140

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

eschatology to the idea of God’s history of salvation, which he sees as coming to its climax in the person of Jesus.33 He therefore places the ideas from this passage in a tradition that leads to the theology of the New Testament. Vermes does something similar when he indicates that the Tosefta version of this passage is one link in the chain of traditions that surrounds the development of a theology of the aqedah.34 Overall the conclusions of these two scholars are very similar, in that they suggest that the theology of the Passover night manifest in this passage receives further development the theology expressed in the New Testament when it is applied to Jesus as paschal sacrifice. As Le Déaut writes in his conclusion: Ayant voulu nous en tenir aux themes du poème des “Quatre nuits”, nous n’avons pas épuisé la richesse “thématique” de la Pâque: des aspects importants seraient à illustrer, comme les rapports entre la Pâque et l’Alliance, ainsi que l’aspect communautaire. Israël reprenait conscience, dans la lui rendre un culte, solidaire des ancêtres qui avaient vécu la première Pâque libératrice où le “fils primier-né” de Yahvé vient au monde. De la Pâque de Jésus naît aussi son Église (Eph. 5, 25; 1 Cor. 10, 16– 18). Mais il fallait se limiter.35

Levy deals with this passage as well, albeit in quite a different way given that his priority is the reconstruction of N’s textual history. For him the question that receives the highest priority concerns the degree to which the poem of the four nights is integrated into the passage as a whole.36 For him there are several factors that argue against integration. Primarily he perceives there to be little interaction between what he calls the literal translation of the Hebrew verse surrounding the poem and the poem itself.37 From a narratological perspective Levy’s approach to the passage is the most useful, insofar as he raises questions concerning the integration and coherence of the four nights expansion within the passage as a Cf. in particular his concluding remarks in La Nuit Pascale, 375. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 215–18. 35 Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, 375, emphasis his. 36 Levy, Targum Neophyti I, 368. 37 Ibid. 33 34

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

141

whole. The findings of Vermes and Le Déaut are interesting as well, but only insofar as they show the relevance of interpretations of the four nights expansion for the development of particular theological traditions. In a sense Vermes and Le Déaut go several steps beyond what narratology is able to discuss, in that narratology begins with a structural analysis of certain passages and raises questions concerning how these passages might have been understood by readers/audiences once the structural analysis is complete. For this reason a narratological examination of Exodus 12:42, N must analyze the function that the four nights expansion plays within the context of the episode in which it is located. I begin my analysis with the observation that this passage comes at the end of the episode describing the institution of the Passover feast while the people were still in Egypt. The HB version of this verse reads as follows: It is a night of observance for the Lord (‫ )ליהוה‬to bring them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the Lord (‫)ליהוה‬, an observance for all Israel throughout their generations.

In many ways this verse presents the summation of Passover’s significance, both within the context of the narrative and within the context of Israelite/Jewish liturgy. From a hermeneutical perspective, N has interpreted the Hebrew noun ‫“( שמרים‬observance”) both literally by translating it with the Aramaic word ‫“( נטיר‬to keep, to observe”), and figuratively by associating it with the Aramaic word ‫“( אתגלי‬to be revealed”) indicating divine revelation. In this way the targum gives a double interpretation of how this night is ‫ליהוה‬, in so far as God himself observes the night and is also revealed in it. The N passage thus becomes a summary of God’s redemptive self-revelations to his people Israel, which comes to its culmination in the messianic redemption. The significance of this passage, then, comes in linking these four nights together by using the Book of Memorials motif. In PJ the targum states that the Book of Memorials is kept ‫“( קדם ריבון עלמא‬before the Master of the World”), thus giving this book divine status. There is no reason to believe that N’s targumist was not assuming the same divine status for this book, other than the fact that it does not use the phrase ‫ קדם ריבון עלמא‬explicitly. Regardless of whether the Book of Memorials is divine or not in N’s version, the fact that these nights are recorded in this Book indicates their great importance in

142

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the history of Israel. It is on these nights that God has revealed himself to his people and worked for their redemption. Furthermore, by implying that all these nights occurred on the date of Passover, N reinforces the keeping of the Passover festival. Not only does this festival commemorate the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, but it also reaches backward into the biblical past to creation and God’s revelation to Abraham and Isaac. It also reaches forward to anticipate the night when all of Israel will be redeemed by Moses, the Messiah, and the Memra of the Lord.38 By having its expansion span the entire history of the world, N indicates that Passover is indeed a festival for Israel ‫“( לדרתם‬throughout their generations”). In effect it is stating that not only has revelation and redemption come in the past, but these things will also come in the future. This does not mean, however, that this passage is without problems. There are at least two problems worth addressing in this context. The first concerns the second night discussed in the expansion where there seem to be two events mentioned and the theme of night seems to become entirely lost. Levy has attempted to deal with this problem by stating that the targum’s concern seems to be with the respective ages of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac.39 He furthermore goes on to add that perhaps the two different events, God’s revelation to Abraham and the binding of Isaac, were joined together in the source used by N in the creation this expansion.40 These hypotheses seem probable, if not likely. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that by the time PJ’s targumist incorporated the “four nights” tradition into his narrative, the second night included only one event, in that PJ merely states that the second night was “when [God] was revealed to Abraham”. Similarly, in PJ’s aqedah narrative, Genesis 22, Passover is not named or implicated in any way. This fact, however, does little to resolve the problem presented by N’s text. Granted, there is significant narrative continuity manifest in this passage, in that it draws upon motifs introduced in N’s version of Genesis 22, namely Isaac’s vision of Cf. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 216. Levy, Targum Neophyti I, 366. 40 Ibid. 38 39

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

143

the angels. Unlike PJ, however, the cause of Isaac’s visual impairment is not expounded in N’s version of Genesis 27:1. The linking of Isaac’s vision of the heavens motif and the dimming of Isaac’s eyes motif here in Exodus 12:42, N, is the first time this connection occurs in N’s narrative. Narratologically it may therefore be possible to agree with the general thrust of Levy’s hypotheses: it would seem as though the targumist is drawing upon a complex intertextual network in which one of God’s various appearances to Abraham and the aqedah have both become associated with Passover. They are both put under the rubric of the second night because they concern some of the same characters and because they deal with the theme of God’s self-revelation to the people of Israel “throughout their generations”. If this interpretation is deemed credible, the festival of Passover, according to N, commemorates multiple occasions when God has been revealed as redeemer to his people, both in the biblical period and beyond. It is for this reason that Passover is a night kept and appointed for the redemption “of all Israel throughout their generations”. This interpretation, however, does not resolve the temporal tensions evident within this portion of the expansion. Since this is the case, it may be necessary to state that in this instance narratology has encountered one of its limits, in that it must rely on diachronic hypotheses, such as the one articulated by Levy, to explain they dynamics of this portion of the passage. The second problem needing to be addressed is the sudden introduction of a first person perspective in the last portion of the fourth night where the targum states, “And I and they are leading as one”. The identity of the speaker here is not clear. It is unlikely that the targumist would identify himself as the leader of one of these groups, so it must be Moses, the Messiah, or the Memra of the Lord. Given that that the Memra of the Lord is the last figure mentioned it would seem probable that the “I” would be the divine voice. However, there is little reason for this switch in perspective, especially when all the figures leading the flocks of Israel have just been mentioned in third person. According to Vermes the 2TJ Tosefta version does not contain this first person perspective, although he does contrast this with the N version, which he believes

144

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

to be the purer version of the two, despite the portion about the Messiah being reconstructed.41 With regard to the portion in question, Vermes translates, “Moses shall come out of the wilderness The one shall lead the flock and the other shall lead the flock and my Word (‫ )מימריה‬shall lead between the two. I and they shall lead together.”42 It would appear as though Vermes has emended the pronominal suffix ‫“( –יה‬his”) attached to ‫“( מימר‬Memra” or for Vermes “Word”) to read ‫“( –י‬my”) in his translation. Le Déaut, interestingly, uses no first person pronouns in his translation of the N version in La Nuit Pascale, even though he reprints the pronoun ‫“( אנה‬I”) in his transcription of the N passage.43 Of the options presented by these scholars, Le Déaut’s makes better sense of the text in La Nuit Pascale, in that it implies that the ‫ אנה‬has corrupted the narrative as it is presented in N’s expansion and should therefore be eliminated. Vermes’ reading of the text must still struggle with the introduction of the first person perspective in an expansion that is presented primarily in third person. Here narratology must therefore defer to the diachronic hypotheses of other scholars in order to explain a phenomenon that creates several problems for reading this narrative as N presents it to us.44

3. CONCLUSIONS By having narratology defer to diachronic hypotheses in these last two examples, and also by stating repeatedly throughout this chapter that it is difficult to know what levels of knowledge the targums’ readers/audiences might have possessed, I am admitting that there Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 217, n. 1. Ibid. 43 Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, 64–65. His translation reads, “. . . et sa Parole marchera entre les deux, et eux marcheront ensemble.” This translation appears to ignore the Aramaic pronoun ‫ אנה‬altogether. This differs from his published French translation of N which reads, “. . . et sa Parole marchera entre les deux et moi et eux marcherons ensemble.” Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 2, Exode et Lévitique, 98. 44 Interestingly, Levy does not address this problem, which is quite unusual, especially if this is considered to be a problem created by N’s textual history. 41 42

NARRATOLOGY AND OTHER APPROACHES

145

are some problems that narratology cannot solve. In particular several of these problems are created by the kinds of targumic phenomena examined in this chapter. The interpretations that have been generated in response to the passages examined herein must therefore be considered partial interpretations, since narratological concepts have not yet been developed to cope with some of the problems presented by such passages. However, as I hope I have shown in some of my remarks, narratology does raise important questions regarding the function and purpose of many difficult passages within the targums. In particular narratology asks: do diachronic hypotheses exhaust the possibilities for why certain passages appear in certain ways? Might it also be possible that there was a literary or narratological reason for some of the targumists’ editorial decisions? These questions will have to be answered as the field of targum studies continues to develop. As for narratology’s historical limitations, it is my contention that these limitations can be used as the basis for a methodological discussion that asks how narratology can be used alongside more traditional approaches to the targums. Is it possible that this interface can increase our knowledge of how the targums might have functioned within various social and historical contexts? For me the answer to this question begins with narratology’s ability to identify and describe the cultural values that are embodied and projected by the literature being examined. When such identifications and descriptions are combined with historical data it becomes possible to determine what kinds of cultural debates were being explored in the studied literature. Although targum scholars are still uncertain which social and historical contexts produced the written targums, I would argue that there is much to be gained by exploring the cultural values embodied and projected by the targums. Such an exploration will be illustrated in the next chapter, which will discuss precisely how narratology can be useful to more historically oriented studies.

4 BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY: NARRATOLOGY AND GENDER In the previous chapter it became evident that narratology has some distinct limits. For although it describes literary structures that make various receptions of a work of literature possible, narratology has not developed the tools to identify how specific historical audiences may have understood the said work of literature. In this chapter I do not propose to develop such tools, and it may not be possible to do so, as narratology is a methodology for text structures. Instead I want to ask the question of how the narratological structures found in the targums might intersect with ideologies found in the Mediterranean region in the early centuries of the Common Era. To explore this question I will focus on how the targums present gender and gender-related issues in three episodes. The first episode I will examine is Numbers 12, N where the targum’s presentation of Miriam raises many questions concerning Miriam’s capacities as an agent in the narrative. The second episode is Genesis 16, PJ where the lives of Sarai and Hagar will be compared and contrasted, particularly their abilities to conceive and provide an heir for Abram. Finally I will revisit Genesis 39, PJ and examine how masculinity is presented in the context of Joseph’s encounters in Potiphar’s house.

1. NARRATOLOGY AND GENDER I am not the first person to use narratology to explore genderrelated issues. Mieke Bal has done so with great effectiveness in Death and Dissymmetry. Furthermore, the volume Anti-Covenant, also edited by Bal, provides many narratologically-oriented readings of gender issues in the HB. This approach has been shown to be effective through the manner in which narratology is able to describe gender and gender ideology as a function of narrative texts. In 147

148

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

short, by schematizing actantial relations on the fabula level of narrative, it is possible to detect the power relations between different actors. Similarly, by examining focalization on the story level of narrative one character’s view of another becomes evident. And finally, studying the dynamics of speech on the text level of narrative can give insight into how a speaker uses words to achieve certain goals. When the gender of the actor, focalizer, or speaker is taken into account, it becomes possible to articulate, at least in part, the gender-related aspects of the narrative in question. Does a speaker speak in a certain way because she is expected to do so as a woman? Or, does the fact of a male focalizer’s refusal to look at a woman indicate something of that figure’s understanding of his own gender? In exploring these questions I may be appealing to socalled “universal structures” in the targumic narratives, in keeping with the structuralist underpinnings of narratology. However, I would argue that these structures are mediated by the cultures in which they emerge. So although the gender dynamics I will describe may have been self-evident to members of early Jewish cultures, they are not self-evident to interpreters from the early twenty-first century. For this reason in this chapter I compare the targumic material I examine with the findings of scholarship dealing with rabbinic literature and the Greco-Roman culture of late antiquity. Space does not permit a completely thorough examination of all the critical issues involved in such a comparison. Yet where cultural and ideological overlaps do exist I acknowledge them and point out that there is sufficient data to warrant further investigation.

2. SOME FURTHER METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS This move of contextualization deserves some methodological discussion. For with the targums there is the problem of how to treat the biblical material in conjunction with the post-biblical material contained therein. In some ways it would be convenient to separate the two types of material one from the other and examine each in isolation. However, such an approach goes against the general thrust of this project. By adopting a narratological approach I have been indirectly arguing that the targums can be treated as narratives that integrate biblical narrative and/or ideological material with post-biblical narratives and/or ideological material. As such, making a strong distinction between the two in the context of analysis

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

149

would be counterproductive. This decision (and it is a decision) leads to the question of the relevance of Hebrew Bible scholarship in the narratological analysis of the targums. To what extent are structures from the HB carried over into the targums, and to what extent are those structures modified by the targumic renderings of HB passages? I answered this question indirectly in Chapter 3 above when I compared Genesis 39, PJ with the same chapter in the HB. Nevertheless, I have not yet answered this question explicitly. In the context of this present chapter the question of the structures of the HB compared to the targumic structures is of particular importance. It may very well be that the targums manifest different approaches to gender and gender related questions than the HB. As a result, the differences and similarities between the two must be discussed explicitly in an attempt to trace the development of gender representations and ideologies within Jewish culture. Throughout the following discussions, then, I will be assuming a certain amount of overlap between the HB narrative and the targumic renderings thereof. Because of this overlap, I will be drawing upon some of the findings of Hebrew Bible scholarship in order to describe and explain certain narratological features of the targums. However, since the targums also manifest some differences when compared to the HB, it will be necessary to approach the Hebrew Bible scholarship carefully. Such scholarship may be adequate to describe some targumic features, but it will not be adequate to describe them all. This is why I will also draw upon comparative legal and ideological material from late antique GrecoRoman and Jewish sources. The targums emerged in the context of late Hellenism/early Christianity and early Rabbinic Judaism. As such they must be treated as documents reflecting some of the norms of these various cultural milieux. As I examine the targumic episodes I identified above, I will not be attempting to trace the origin of the cultural motifs found in the episodes in question. Instead I will be using the various comparative materials as just that: comparative material. By placing the targumic episodes in the context of certain cultural exchanges around the topic of gender, I hope to show how the targums themselves contributed to these cultural exchanges. If the thesis I articulated above is correct, the narratological approach I use should reveal targumic representations of gender with some accuracy. From

150

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

this I will then be able to move to discussions concerning the roles of the targums within their various social and historical contexts. In some cases the targums may confirm the gender stereotypes articulated in the relevant comparative material. In other cases, the targums may present a perspective on gender that is unaccounted for by the known sources. It is these dynamics that I hope to explore in this chapter. And as I also hope to show, the narratological approach I have been using throughout this book provides an apt way to pursue questions of gender and gender-related topics. Nevertheless, I do not want to argue that the narrativizations of gender in the targums reflect actual historical realities concerning gender relationships and issues. Instead what we find in the targums are representations of gender and gender relationships, which means that the actual realities lying behind the targums are more or less unrecoverable. Yet these representations in themselves are important since they informed the discourses of early Judaism. And given that discourses play a crucial role in shaping the realities of those who participate in them,1 the targumic representations of gender must be acknowledged as having some social and ideological currency in the early Jewish context. Thus although the actual histories of gender and gender relationships behind the targums remain inaccessible, it is possible to reconstruct what certain early Jews may have thought about gender. It is precisely this task that I am attempting to carry out in this chapter.

3. NUMBERS 12, N In an essay exploring a feminist interpretation of Genesis 39 and related texts,2 Bach adopts a method influenced by Bal’s narratology to uncover the feminine perspective in narratives that are dominated by male concerns and biases. Reading the biblical version of Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge. Boyarin also builds on Foucault’s methodology in some of his recent studies of early Jewish literature. In particular he gives his methodological orientation explicit articulation in Boyarin, “Archives in the Fiction: Rabbinic Historiography and Church History.” 2 Bach, “Breaking Free of the Biblical Frame-Up,” 318–42. 1

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

151

Genesis 39 and The Testament of Joseph intertextually (i.e. using the latter to interpret the former), Bach argues that focalization is the key agency that can be used to recover the woman’s perspective in the narrative.3 Potiphar’s wife, whom Bach and others— particularly Mann—call Mut-em-enet, reveals her train of thought when she sees that Joseph has left his tunic in her hand, even though from the overriding perspective of the narrative, the woman’s point of view is almost entirely excluded. This latter fact is what helps Bach determine the structure of her essay. In the first section she examines Joseph’s perspective in The Testament of Joseph, and discusses how the narrative embeds Mut-em-enet’s view of Joseph.4 In the following section she discusses Mut-em-enet’s perspective, demonstrating that it is quite different from Joseph’s, which is by far the dominant perspective in the narrative.5 By aligning herself with Mut-em-enet’s perspective, Bach makes a move which she sees as being crucial to the feminist enterprise: she uncovers the woman’s point of view in a narrative she sees as being dominated by male concerns.6 As far as my interpretation of Numbers 12, N is concerned, I will not align myself with the feminist agenda articulated by Bach, at least not entirely. By studying this episode I hope to show how Miriam’s capacities as an agent are severely limited by the way in which the episode is structured. I therefore want to raise several questions when examining this episode: 1) How does Miriam use her agency, if at all? 2) How does Miriam’s use of her agency influence the progression of the fabula? 3) How do other figures in the episode use their agency to influence the reader’s/audience’s perceptions of Miriam? 4) What ideological point is being made by the systematic exclusion of Miriam’s perspective in this episode? And Bach, “Breaking Free of the Biblical Frame-Up,” 320. Ibid., 322–34. 5 Ibid., 334–41. 6 Ibid., 341. Bach writes, “The Feminist reader, refusing to align herself with the narratorial ‘we’, joins the ranks of the disloyal and the unfaithful. Such a betrayal of authorial trust implies the denial of patriarchal rule and rejection of the shadow cast by the giant phallic ‘I’ over everything men write.” 3 4

152

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

5) How do all these things help us understand how Miriam, Moses, and Aaron are constructed as gendered agents in this episode? By addressing these questions, I hope to articulate some of the gender dynamics of this episode and demonstrate how they accord or do not accord with gender ideologies present during the same time period in the same region. 3.0 Text: Numbers 12, N 1. Miriam and Aaron spoke (‫ )מללת‬against Moses concerning the Cushite woman he had married. And behold the Cushite woman was Zipporah the wife of Moses, except that just as the Cushite woman is different in her body from every creature, so Zipporah the wife of Moses was handsome in form and beautiful in appearance and different in her good works from all the women of that generation. 2. And they said, “Has the LORD only spoken with Moses? Has he not also spoken with us?” And it was heard before the LORD. 3. Now Moses was a very humble man, [more] than any human being (‫ )בני אנשא‬on the face of the earth. 4. And the LORD spoke suddenly to Moses and Aaron and they came out the three of them. 5. And the glory of the Shekhinah of the LORD was revealed in a pillar of cloud, and it stood at the door of the tent. And he called Aaron and Miriam and the two of them came out. 6. He [God] said, “Hear now my words! If there is a prophet of the LORD among you, in visions I am revealed to him, and in dreams I speak with him. 7. There is not any prophet like him—my servant Moses—in the entire world, for I created him trustworthy. 8. Speech toward speech (‫< )ממלל לקבל ממלל‬I speak>7 with him in visions, not in appearances or likenesses from The use of “” brackets is to indicate that this portion of text is reconstructed due to damage in the MS. 7

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

153

before the LORD that he describes. Now why did you not fear to speak concerning my servant Moses?” And the anger of the LORD burned against them. And he went. And the cloud turned aside from the tent. And behold, Miriam was leprous like snow. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “I pray, my lord, do not now place guilt upon us because we erred and because we sinned. Do not let Miriam now be unclean in her defilement like the dead. Look, she is like a child that was made in the belly of its mother nine months in water and in fire and it did not come to harm. But when its time to come out into the world arrives its flesh is half consumed. Thus when we were enslaved in Egypt and we turned and are struck in the wilderness our sister observed our enslavement. And now, when the time has arrived to inherit the land why is she withheld from us? Pray over the dead flesh that is on her and it will live! Why destroy her merit?” And Moses prayed before the LORD and said, “I pray in mercy before you, O LORD God, be gracious and merciful to heal her.” And the LORD said to Moses, “Had her father indeed rebuked her in judgment, she would be humbled before him seven days. Let her be driven outside the camp seven days and after then she will be healed.” And Miriam was driven outside the camp seven days. And the people did not travel until the time when Miriam was healed. Although Miriam the prophetess was declared guilty to become leprous there is great instruction for Sages and for Keepers of Torah, for when a man keeps a small precept he receives a great reward because of it. Accordingly because Miriam stood on the shore of the river to determine what would happen in the end to Moses, Israel became sixty thousand, that is they numbered eighty legions. And the cloud of glory and the well, they did not move or set out from their places until the time when Miriam the

154

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS prophetess was healed from leprosy. [Then] the people set out from Hazeroth and settled in the wilderness of Paran.

3.1 Miriam and Collective Agency The first problem encountered in the Numbers 12 episode has to do with who is speaking and when. This problem is introduced by the feminine form of the verb “to speak”, ‫ מללת‬in the Aramaic (12:1). Concerning the HB version, Jacob Milgrom writes that the feminine form of the Hebrew verb “to speak” (‫ )ותדבר‬indicates that Miriam is the primary agent who speaks against Moses.8 This may be the case. However, the ‫ ו‬conjunction between Miriam and Aaron’s names in the speech report indicates that the siblings are speaking as a collective agent, despite the absence of a collective verb form. Milgrom makes this issue more complex by distinguishing between the speeches of 12:1 and 12:2.9 In 12:1 Miriam could be the primary speaker, for it is here in the targum that the complaint against Zipporah is made. From the targumist’s perspective this could be Miriam’s expression of envy concerning her female counterpart. Yet in 12:2 the targumist uses the collective verb ‫אמרין‬, indicating that both Miriam and Aaron are speaking. This is not surprising since this is where the siblings utter their challenge to Moses’ leadership. As Milgrom writes, this second complaint is what really matters, since the first complaint is “only a pretext”.10 In any case, both Miriam and Aaron are participants in the challenge against Moses, as well as in the murmurings against Zipporah, as is indicated by the ‫ ו‬conjunction in the targum text. As a result their agency in both matters is collective rather than singular. Miriam may have provided the impetus for Aaron to speak, but as

Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 93. Robert Alter confirms this interpretation by quoting Abraham ibn Ezra: “‘she spoke and Aaron assented or was silent, so he [too] was punished.’” Alter does note, however, that it is Miriam and not Aaron who is punished with skin disease. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 741. 9 Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 93–94. 10 Ibid., 94. 8

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

155

far as the use of speaking agency is concerned both Miriam and Aaron are equally responsible.11 In the HB God’s response to this situation involves Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, insofar as he speaks to all of them (12:4). N’s portrayal of God’s response is quite different, however, in that the targum has God speak only to Moses and Aaron, yet Miriam also answers God’s summons. This construction of God’s response is due to a corruption of N’s text. This corruption is obvious since the targum indicates that the three siblings responded to God’s call, when only two of them were addressed. Furthermore, in 12:5 the targum indicates that God calls to both Aaron and Miriam. Despite her exclusion due to the textual corruption, Miriam is treated as a Subject in this portion of the episode. But as shall become evident throughout the rest of this episode, Miriam is denied her Subjectivity, becoming rather an Object of male agency, both divine and human. Thus to answer the first two questions I raised above, Miriam uses her speaking agency to mar Zipporah’s reputation and to challenge Moses’ leadership. In both these matters, however, Miriam is not a lone speaker. Aaron joins her in her utterances. The narrative does not convey whether Miriam pressured Aaron into speaking with her. But it is evident that this use of speaking agency is what drives the fabula forward in this episode. Moses and God must respond to the challenges placed before them. These challenges are further complicated by the fact that Miriam and Aaron have shared in Moses’ leadership in varying degrees. The question presented at this stage of the fabula is how will God quell the challenges presented by Miriam and Aaron, while still granting them the respect they deserve in the camp, if at all?

This is in contrast to what Milgrom argues on the basis of the ‫ותדבר‬ verb form. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 93. According to him Miriam bears the bulk of the responsibility in this matter. To me this denies Aaron his full capacity as an agent in this episode. He could have chosen to allow Miriam to speak by herself. Instead he chooses to speak with her in both complaints as indicated by the collocation “Miriam and Aaron”, which overrides the feminine verb form. 11

156

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

God answers this question by making a distinction between Moses and all other prophets that arise among the people of Israel. He states that when there is a prophet among the Israelites He communicates with them in visions and dreams. With Moses, in contrast, God speaks with a direct theophanic manifestation (12:8). God therefore asks why Miriam and Aaron were not afraid to speak against Moses (12:8). Miriam and Aaron are not given a chance to answer this question before the glory of the Shekhinah turns aside—showing the question to be rhetorical. Instead the narrative indicates that the anger of the Lord burned against Miriam and Aaron (12:9). And, when the cloud does turn away from the Tent of Meeting, Miriam is left standing leprous.12 Aaron confirms this fact: in his capacity of high priest he focalizes Miriam and sees that she is indeed leprous.13 In this use of his agency, Aaron makes a double move. First, he acts within the institutional structures that have been established for him by God within the camp of Israel. In this way he resumes his officially sanctioned role after he has uttered his criticisms of Moses and Zipporah. Second, by focalizing Miriam, Aaron makes Miriam the object of his official gaze. Miriam thus becomes something to be examined, and not a fully functioning participant in the discussions that are to follow in this episode. She is defined by her leprosy and all the implications that that has for her capacity to transmit pollution to the other members of the camp, including Moses and Aaron. If her punishment is going to be commuted in any way, others must argue her case, since she is no longer permitted even to be present in the camp, especially in the tabernacle and by the Tent of Meeting. In In the HB narrative, Alter sees the whiteness of Miriam’s skin as being a kind of poetic justice since it is a clear contrast with the blackness of the Cushite woman. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 743. In the targumic context the poetic justice is not lost since the targumic narrator has already praised Zipporah’s good looks. At this point in the narrative, Miriam becomes Zipporah’s visual and dramatic opposite: her misdeeds (according to the ideological perspective of the narrator) have caused her body to become misshapen and a source of pollution. 13 For Aaron’s capacity to carry out this diagnosis see Lev. 13:2–17 and m. Neg. 12:5. 12

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

157

effect, God’s punishment has removed from Miriam the capacity for any effective use of agency within the camp of Israel. 3.2 Aaron as Miriam’s Advocate Since Miriam now has no recourse to agency at this point in the narrative, she must rely on the elder of her two brothers to represent her. The logic of this move is easy to understand: Aaron as high priest has the divinely ordained role of representing human interests before God. Furthermore, since Aaron and Miriam acted together in criticizing Zipporah and Moses, it is quite possible that Aaron is feeling guilty that God has not punished him as well. For both these reasons Aaron uses his speaking agency to communicate with Moses. His first sentence in the targum is quite telling, because he uses many collective noun and verb forms where he says, “do not place upon us the guilt with which we erred and with which we sinned” (12:11, emphasis mine). Aaron’s word choice here is interesting because he is not the one being directly punished. Miriam has borne the brunt of the divine anger. As a result Aaron may not be speaking as a participant in the transgression at this moment. Rather he may be assuming the role of the high priest who is pleading on behalf of the people of Israel. This view is supported by what Aaron says in 12:12 where he speaks of the merit that Miriam has brought to Israel, and states that it would be to Israel’s detriment to lose that merit at the moment when they are about to inherit the land. By assuming this position Aaron is speaking as an agent of the community, not necessarily as Miriam’s brother who might have an opinion concerning how the events have transpired. If this is indeed the case, Miriam’s personal wellbeing may be a secondary issue for Aaron. What matters for him in making this argument is the wellbeing of Israel. At this point in their journey, Israel cannot afford to lose Miriam’s contribution to the community. In articulating this argument I do not want to imply that Miriam’s wellbeing was not at all a concern for Aaron. However I do want to bring to light the dynamic of the narrative as the targum narrates it. Within the targumic narrative, Aaron is very much confined to the role of high priest. This is the role God established for him, which means that he must act within the structures and powers afforded to him by that role. As a result, when he acts as an advocate, he must demonstrate why Miriam’s wellbeing benefits

158

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

the entire community. This does not negate the fact, however, that he himself was complicit in the speech acts that brought this punishment upon Miriam. The collective verb forms used in 12:11 then, have a double meaning. They convey the fact that the entire community is guilty of sinning against Moses and God through Miriam and Aaron’s stirring up of discontent. But the verb forms also convey the personal nature of the offence committed: “we, [Aaron and Miriam,] are guilty, we, [Aaron and Miriam,] have sinned”. Through this double meaning, then, it becomes possible to understand the urgency of Aaron’s plea to Moses. As high priest he understands what implications this punishment bears for the community of Israel as a whole. Yet as a willing participant in the events that brought this punishment upon Miriam, he desires to have his own guilt absolved. In effect he is arguing that Miriam’s meritorious deeds outweigh the single transgression narrated in this episode. Is it then not possible that Miriam’s punishment should be commuted? By representing Miriam’s character in this way, Aaron uses his speaking agency to remind Moses of how Miriam has acted in divinely sanctioned ways. In this way he submits himself again to Moses and God’s authority according to the hierarchy that has been established for him. God is the supreme agent in the narrative; Moses is subordinate to God and Aaron is subordinate to Moses. Miriam no longer has recourse to any agency due to her uncleanness. Aaron’s use of his speaking agency also serves to remind the readers/audiences of Miriam’s previous status within the community of Israel: in the past she has acted righteously. As such Aaron’s speech highlights the contradiction in Miriam’s character in this episode: how can a righteous individual perform unrighteous actions? The narrative does not really answer this question. Instead it highlights the problem, through Aaron’s speech, through God’s relenting in his punishment (12:14), and through the narrator’s words in 12:16, which I will examine below. This contradiction therefore places Miriam in a double position within the narrative. On the one hand she conforms to the norms that are expected of her. As a righteous woman she performed actions that were fitting with her status as a woman: she observed the slavery of the Israelites and interceded on their behalf, and she watched Moses when he was a child on the river and waited to see what would become of him. Yet on the other hand, when she attempted to use her

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

159

agency to critique the male leadership of Israel, she became the Object of divine punishment.14 She thus becomes a marginalized figure in the narrative. As an Object of divine punishment she is made unclean and therefore must be excluded from the camp of Israel. And, during the period of her isolation, she has no access to the social structures that allowed her to ascend to the position of leadership she once occupied. It is in this way that God exerts his control over the camp of Israel, ensuring conformity to the norms that he established. If a person does not conform to these norms, they become the Objects of his punishment, which either extirpates them, or renders them ineffective as agents in the community. 3.3 The Final Word from the Narrator Like Aaron’s speech examined in the previous section, the words from the narrator in 12:16 are meant to demonstrate Miriam’s conformity to divinely sanctioned norms, if not in the narrative present, then most certainly in the narrative past. Again these words bring to light the contradiction evident in Miriam’s character: she is condemned to be leprous, but she has, in the past, acted righteously. As the narrator indicates, Miriam’s previous actions have worked for the benefit of Israel, but also to Miriam’s personal benefit. Because she acted righteously in the past, Israel’s number was increased to sixty thousand, and the cloud of glory and the well did not move until the period of her isolation was completed. Neither of these things is an insignificant reward for Miriam’s past meritorious deeds. However, it is also important that Miriam does not play much of a role in the Numbers narrative after this point.15 According to Esther Fuchs this is typical of the portrayal of women in the HB narrative. When they behave in officially sanctioned ways their perspectives are included and their characters are lauded. However, when they transgress the officially sanctioned “norm” they are excluded from the narrative in fairly systematic ways: their points of view are conspicuously absent, as are their actions and words. See Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative. Cf. also her “A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1– 2,” 308–9. 15 Again this fits with Fuchs’ understanding of the norms governing the portrayal of the biblical woman. Cf. her discussion concerning Abigail 14

160

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

This may be because as a woman in a male dominated narrative she could not be given much of a role. Yet it may also be because after the deeds of unrighteousness narrated in this chapter, she was not deemed worthy enough for further narrative attention. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two options. In any case, it is also significant that after her punishment has been brought upon her, Miriam does not appear to use any of the agencies available to her within the narratological model. This may be in part due to the fact that as a leper she no longer has access to those forms of agency, at least not within the officially sanctioned realms of acting, focalizing, or speaking within the camp. Yet the fact that both Aaron and the narrator attempt to redeem her character is also important. Since Miriam’s use of agency is excluded from the narrative it is possible that had she used one of her available agencies she might have contradicted the narrative of conformity that both Aaron and the narrator attempt to create for her. The question then becomes, how does an interpreter evaluate Miriam’s character in light of the evidence provided by this episode? Concerning this matter the perspectives of Aaron and the narrator are clear: Miriam is a righteous individual who made a single mistake. This only creates a small stain on her reputation in the history of Israel. This interpretation is one that affirms the ideological perspective of the narrative. Yet if I am to bring the gender dynamics to light in this episode, it is necessary to observe that Miriam’s challenge to Moses’ leadership cannot be divorced from her status as a woman. As a woman she has no share in the leadership structures established within the camp of Israel, despite being identified as a prophetess in Exodus 15:20, N. As such, what leadership she has is informal and therefore unofficial. This does not mean that she has no access to power. It does mean, however, that whatever power she has cannot be channeled and focused by the institutions within the camp. Thus when she utters her challenge to Moses, it is almost as though she is attempting to redistribute the institutional power within the camp, since she claims that her reception of divine revelation is just as legitimate as Moses’. Although this move could be and Michal in the role of wife in Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 141–42 and 144–45.

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

161

seen as being quite subversive, it is not treated with the same harshness as some of the other rebellions narrated in Numbers. Unlike Korah’s rebellion, Miriam’s challenge is not punished with extirpation; Miriam’s punishment is temporary. As was observed above, the narrative justifies this move by stating that Miriam was ultimately a righteous individual who made a mistake. Yet when compared with the Korah narrative in Numbers 16, this explanation is not sufficient. Presumably Korah’s followers were of a similar status, since the narrative states that they were men of reputation within the camp (16:2). It is therefore necessary to look for another explanation as to why Miriam’s punishment was less than what others received. 3.4 Miriam’s Rebellion as a Gendered Event I begin this portion of my argument by repeating the observation that at the beginning of this episode Miriam and Aaron spoke as a collective agent. Although this use of collective agency may indicate a fundamental agreement between Miriam and Aaron concerning their cause, it may also indicate that Miriam needed Aaron to legitimate her complaint. As stated above, because she was a woman, Miriam would have had no access to the official channels of power within the camp of Israel. To bring any weight to her challenge against Moses she would need the support of a powerful male. In this case the powerful male was Aaron her brother. As high priest he could represent her cause to Moses and use his persuasive abilities to garner her some support within the camp. Yet to make their cause appear even more legitimate they would have to level the complaint against Moses together; hence the use of collective agency and collective verb forms (“Has not the Lord also spoken with us?” 12:2). For Miriam, however, this approach to lodging her complaint already places her in a subordinate position with regard to the male power structures within the camp. As a result, this attempt to redistribute Israel’s institutional structures ironically concedes some legitimacy to the structures that Miriam and Aaron are attempting to change. By acting as a collective agent, Miriam and Aaron rely upon Aaron’s status as male leader to influence the situation. Had Miriam made this complaint on her own, it might have been easier to dismiss or ignore her challenge. This concession to the male power structures of the camp almost guarantees the failure of Miriam and Aaron’s cause. Because

162

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Miriam needs Aaron to bring some legitimacy to her challenge, she already admits to her limitations as an agent within the camp. As such, she cannot demonstrate the autonomous legitimacy of her challenge by transcending the limits placed upon her by the male authorities. Rather she is trapped by the structures she is attempting to change. And, as was discussed above, she remains trapped by these structures, which is indicated in the way she swiftly becomes the Object of divine punishment. As a woman Miriam is thus subjugated to the violence of a (divine) male authority, whereas Aaron, a representative of that (divine) male authority escapes punishment, even though he was just as complicit as Miriam in challenging Moses’ leadership. Since this is the case, this episode has much to contribute to an assessment of the ideologically sanctioned roles of women within early Jewish society. As Aaron’s speech and the summative statements of the narrator indicate, there are some divinely sanctioned ways in which women can use their agency. However, should a woman transgress the boundary that legitimates the divinely established power structures, which are by definition male, swift punishment is to be expected. 3.5 Contextual Considerations This type of demarcation of limits for women is attested elsewhere in early Jewish literature. According to Peskowitz, m. Sotah 6:1 constructs just such a demarcation.16 In this Mishnah text there is a distinction made between the adulterous woman who should be subjected to the Sotah ritual, and women who spin wool by moonlight. For Peskowitz this represents a distinction between a socially unacceptable behaviour on the one hand, and a behavior that can be embraced on the other.17 In either case, however, the women are defined as Other of the male perspective dominant in mishnaic discourse. In this Mishnah passage, the woman subject to the Sotah ritual is the Other of the Other.18 In Numbers 12, N, Miriam is certainly portrayed as the Other of the Other—she transgresses the Peskowitz, “Spinning Tales,” 91–120. Ibid., 110. 18 Ibid., 110–11. 16 17

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

163

divinely sanctioned boundaries for women in the camp. But she is not limited to this position. The repeated articulation of her merit within the camp signifies a concerted effort on the part of the targumist to persuade the targum’s readers/audiences of Miriam’s ultimate righteousness. These efforts are conspicuously absent from the HB version, which might indicate that the targumist was attempting to counteract a specific interpretation of the Numbers 12 episode. Whatever the case, Miriam is portrayed in this passage as a righteous woman who erred. This is the likely reason behind the leniency of her punishment. However, it is important to note that Miriam’s righteousness is always evaluated in terms of conformity to officially sanctioned patterns of behavior in a male dominated society. From the perspective of the narrative, Miriam erred because she challenged the institutional norms that had been established for her, even though she was never consulted in the process of establishing these norms. Similarly she lied when slandering Zipporah. Because of these challenges, Miriam was punished, in the latter case perhaps justly. In the former case, however, she became a female victim of the violence needed to create and maintain a male-dominated institutional system.

4. GENESIS 16, PJ One role that women have traditionally occupied, both in narratives and in life, is that of child-bearer. On the surface, this role may be seen as a function of biology: men do not have the physical organs that make them capable of bearing a child. However, this role too can be constructed in completely male terms. This fact becomes quite evident in the Sarai and Hagar narrative of Genesis 16, PJ. In this episode all the agents in the narrative, male and female alike, align themselves with Abram’s (and God’s) perceived need to create a male heir for himself.19 In Spivak’s terms this narrative move evaluates the female characters simply in terms of their reproductive capacities. It does not allow for the possibility that female sexual pleasure is gained from actions that do not have a Fuchs has much to say of this episode and this dynamic. Cf. Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 153–54. 19

164

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

direct bearing on reproduction.20 As a result, the women in the narrative are perceived in exclusively male terms where ejaculation (i.e. reproduction) and sexual pleasure are simultaneous. Unlike Miriam, the women in this narrative do not challenge this male-oriented system of sexual politics.21 Instead they seem to embrace the male system wholeheartedly, evaluating themselves in terms that Abram, God, and presumably the male targumist would understand and approve of. In fact, both Sarai and Hagar use their capacities as agents to affirm and propagate the male-oriented system they are caught up in. Because they do this God blesses them, each in her own way. Yet perspectives that would undermine this maledominated system and represent feminine interests are significantly downplayed in this episode.22 Sarai does use her speaking agency to castigate Abram for leading her away from her homeland and her father’s house (16:5). But even in this move Sarai ultimately submits herself to the male-oriented system of inheritance which values women simply as reproductive agents. More on this below. What I hope to show in this narrative is the way in which the women use their agencies to facilitate male desires and propagate male views of women. 4.0 Text: Genesis 16, PJ 1. Now Sarai the wife of Abram had not given birth for him. But she had an Egyptian maidservant and her name was Hagar the daughter of Pharaoh who had given [her] to Spivak, “French Feminism in an International Frame,” 209–11. This statement is not necessarily true if one reads Sarai’s seemingly masculine behavior in this episode as being potentially subversive of the gender norms of the narrative. The same could be said of Abram’s overwhelming passivity in this episode. For a nuanced and fascinating analysis of this kind of subversive activity see Butler, Gender Trouble. 22 This idea of a uniquely feminine perspective owes a lot to Luce Irigaray’s theories concerning gender difference and the necessity of maintaining such differences for the purposes of empowering women in the political sphere. For a good introduction to Irigaray’s thought see her, Je, Tu, Nous. For an excellent critique of Irigaray’s thought see, Alsop, Fitzsimons, and Lennon, Theorizing Gender, ch. 8, “Sexual Difference”. 20 21

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

23

165

[Sarai] as a maidservant at the time when he took [Sarai] and was crushed by a command from before the LORD. And Sarai said to Abram, “Look, the LORD has prevented me from giving birth. Go to my maidservant and I shall set her free; perhaps I shall be built up from her.” And Abram obeyed the command of Sarai. So Sarai the wife of Abram took Hagar the Egyptian maidservant ten years after Abram settled in the land of Canaan and she set her free and gave her to Abram her husband to be as (‫ )ל‬a wife to him. And he went to Hagar and she conceived and she saw that she conceived and the honor of her mistress was diminished in her eyes. So Sarai said to Abram, “All my humiliation is from you for I trusted that you would make my case. I abandoned my land and the house of my father and I entered a strange land with you. And now because I did not give birth I set my maidservant free and gave her to lie in your bosom and she saw that she became pregnant and my honor was disgraced on her face. Now my humiliation is revealed before the LORD; let him spread his peace between me and you and let the land be filled from us so we will not need the son of Hagar daughter of Pharaoh, son of Nimrod who cast you into the furnace of fire.” Abram said to Sarai, “Look, your maidservant is in your power; do to her what is right in your eyes.” So Sarai afflicted her and she fled from before her. The angel of the Lord found her by a well of water in the wilderness, by the well that is on the road to Hagra. And he said, “Hagar maidservant of Sarai, where are you coming from and where are you going?” And she said, “I am fleeing from Sarai my mistress.” The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress and be subdued under her hand.”23

PJ’s rendering of this verse is only in the editio princeps.

166

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS 10. And the angel of the LORD said to her, “I shall greatly increase your son and they shall not be counted because of [their] multitude.” 11. And the angel said to her, “Look, you are pregnant and you shall bear a son and you shall call his name Ishmael because your affliction is revealed before the LORD. 12. And he shall be like a wild ass of a man; his hand shall exact retribution from his enemies and the hand of his enemies will stretch out to bring evil upon him, and he will be mixed up beside his brothers and will dwell.” 13. And she gave thanks before the LORD for the word spoken to her. And then she said, “You are the Living and Enduring One for He saw but was not seen.” For she said, “Behold, indeed here the glory of the Shekhinah of the LORD was revealed to me vision after vision.” 14. Because of this the well was called the well where the Living and Enduring One was revealed upon it. Behold, it is between Rekem and Haluza. 15. And Hagar gave birth to a son for Abram. And Abram called the name of the son that Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. 16. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael for Abram.

4.1 Sarai as Reproductive Agent This passage opens with a sentence that reveals much concerning the ideology of the narrative: “And Sarai the wife of Abram had not given birth for him” (16:1). In this opening sentence the targumist immediately portrays Sarai as a potential childbearing agent. Yet as is indicated by the final clause of the sentence, Sarai has not given birth for Abram. This clause has a number of implications. First, it is phrased in such a way as to indicate that giving birth for Abram is something what was expected of Sarai, according to the narrative. As a good wife she must provide her husband with an heir. But for whatever reason Sarai has not given birth. This fact very nearly places Sarai in an oppositional position with regard to Abram. Abram’s Object is to produce a son; Sarai has not provided a son for him. When interpreted in this way, it would seem as though Sarai has some responsibility for not giving Abram an heir. This is one of the areas where she is placed the actantial position of

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

167

Subject by the narrative. But Sarai might have acted in a way to resist the male expectations placed upon her, depending on how we want to understand her use of agency here. From a feminist point of view this interpretation is not without merit. Teubal, in an essay on Sarah and Hagar in the HB, argues that the matriarchs in the patriarchal narratives are very much like Mesopotamian priestesses who prevented themselves from becoming pregnant. As such they presented some resistance to the male-oriented system that insisted that they give birth in order to gain value in the eyes of their husbands.24 Speculative as this study may be, it provides one potential explanation as to why Sarai has not given birth for Abram at this point. Furthermore, it can help to explain the reason that Sarai gives Abram in 16:2 as to her lack of fecundity: “And Sarai said to Abram, ‘Look, the LORD has prevented me from giving birth’”. However, Teubal’s explanations remain unconvincing, since no evidence from the targumic context substantiates them. Nevertheless, Sarai’s statement concerning the role of God in her barrenness exposes one of the interesting tensions that can be detected in this episode. The contradiction between the statement in 16:1 and Sarai’s own words constitutes a significant difference in perspective in the narrative. In the former case, the narrator implies (or at least admits the possibility) that Sarai is capable of controlling her fertility. In the latter case Sarai claims quite the opposite: it is God who controls the fertility of women. By using her agency to demonstrate this difference in perspective Sarai seeks to avoid being held directly responsible for her lack of fecundity. Ironically this use of agency passes Sarai from the mastery of one male figure, Abram, and into mastery of another male figure, namely God. It is difficult to determine how this move should be interpreted. On the one hand it could be understood to be a demonstration of significant piety. Yet on the other hand, if a person was to align him or herself with the ideological implications of the narrator’s statement in 16:1, Sarai’s words might be construed as an attempt to avoid her own responsibility in the matter of Abram’s heir.

24

Teubal, “Sarah and Hagar,” 235–36.

168

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

This second interpretation, however, would deny the initiative that Sarai clearly takes in the second part of 16:2 and in 16:3. In these passages Sarai proposes a solution to the dilemma of her barrenness. Using her speaking agency she suggests to Abram that he should bed Hagar, Sarai’s Egyptian maidservant. The advantage for Sarai in making this move is that she can fulfill two needs at once. Assuming that Hagar is fertile, Sarai can provide an heir for Abram through Hagar, all the while taking the credit for herself. And furthermore she can alleviate the pressure placed upon her by both Abram and herself to produce an heir. By entering into this tripartite breeding relationship25 both Abram and Sarai can benefit. Hagar’s needs or wants are irrelevant to the discussion since she is under the mastery of both Sarai and Abram. However, to ensure the legitimacy of the child that will likely be produced, Sarai states that she will use her agency to free Hagar (16:2). According to the Greco-Roman legal standards that form part of the background of the targumic narratives, children produced between slaves and masters would not be considered legitimate unless the slave was first freed.26 In such a situation former slaves were still subservient to their former masters in that they “could not desert him or remarry without his permission”.27 In the case of Hagar, Abram, and Sarai, Hagar is obliged to bear a child for Abram and Sarai. And, as Sarai states in the N version of 16:5, the expectation is that Hagar will bear the child and Sarai will raise him. It is interesting, however, that Hagar is not included in the discussion between Sarai and Abram. Perhaps Sarai expects Abram to make the terms of the agreement clear to Hagar when he beds her. On this point the narrative is not explicit. In contrast, the narrative makes it abundantly clear that Hagar has gone through a significant change in status when coming into Abram’s household. This becomes apparent in 16:1 where Hagar is identified as Pharaoh’s daughter. Specifically, Pharaoh gave Hagar to Sarai at the time when Sarai entered Pharaoh’s harem and a diThis term is taken from Jackson, “Gender Critical Observations on Tripartite Breeding Relationships in the Hebrew Bible.” 26 Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves, 195. 27 Ibid. 25

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

169

vine plague was brought upon Pharaoh as a result (cf. Genesis 12). For Hagar this change in status undoubtedly entailed the imposition of distinct limitations upon her capacity to act as a Subject. As Pharaoh’s daughter she would have had a great deal of freedom to act as a Subject due to the privileges afforded to her by her class. Now that limitations have been placed upon her capacity to act, focalize, and speak she must use each of these agencies in accordance with Sarai’s wishes, otherwise Hagar will face punishment. Again this reflects the norms of the Greco-Roman slave society wherein even the reproductive capacities of slaves became the property of their owners.28 In such a situation, Sarai can claim credit for the child that Hagar might bear, simply because of the class distinctions between the two women. Sarai can thus use her agency to reproduce without having to reproduce. At least that is her plan as this episode begins to unfold. What Sarai does not anticipate is Hagar’s response to demonstrating greater fecundity than Sarai. 4.2 Hagar as Reproductive Agent After Sarai releases Hagar into Abram’s embrace,29 Hagar conceives and begins to exercise some of her agencies. In particular 16:4 reads, “And he [Abram] went to Hagar and she conceived and Cf. Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, especially ch. 1 where Hezser discusses how slaves were denationalized and dehumanized. 29 Alter comments on the use of the word ‫ חיק‬in the HB version of 16:5, which he also translates “embrace”. However, he notes that a more literal translation would be “your lap”, which to him clearly indicates the genitals. As a result, the notion that Sarai delivered Hagar over to Abram’s embrace is, in Alter’s words, “pointedly sexual”. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 78. The Aramaic ‫ עיטקא‬which renders the Hebrew ‫ חיק‬has roughly the same meaning of the Hebrew word, at least according to Jastrow (Dictionary, 1068). Sokoloff has no entries for this word. The closest word for him is ‫ עטף‬which, according to him (Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 402), means “to wrap oneself” usually with one’s garments or tefillin. Semantically, wrapping one’s self probably has some relation to the word “embrace”, but the lexicography documented by Sokoloff causes problems for maintaining this reading. In this case, therefore, Jastrow’s entry is the one that makes the most sense. 28

170

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

she saw that she conceived and the honor of her mistress was diminished in her eyes”. Although there are limitations placed upon Hagar’s capacities as an agent due to her social status, she does use her agency to focalize both herself and Sarai. Furthermore, because focalization is an agency that does not manifest itself to characters in narratives other than the one who is using it, Hagar must have used one of her other agencies to express how she now focalizes Sarai. Perhaps she did not act as deferentially toward Sarai as she did previously, or perhaps she said something to Sarai indicating a lack of respect for Sarai. On this point the narrative is not clear. It is evident, however, that Sarai notices a change in the dynamic between herself and her former maidservant, and the new dynamic is disturbing. For Hagar, in contrast, the fact she has conceived in some senses liberates her from Sarai’s manipulations. Sarai is only capable of using her agency to convince Abram that coupling with Hagar would be of benefit. Yet Sarai is not herself capable of conceiving, whereas Hagar is. This difference in capability, and—if we permit the narrator to guide the ideological tenor of the narrative— this difference in use of feminine agency, sets Hagar above Sarai. By conceiving, Hagar has had some of her Subjectivity restored, insofar as she can perform an action that Sarai cannot. As a result Hagar perceives herself as being superior to Sarai. For Sarai, this change in Hagar’s attitude toward her is unacceptable, insofar as Sarai was the one who initiated the relationship that caused the conception to take place. As in 16:1 and 16:2 when her mastery was similarly called into question, Sarai invokes the divine Master to intervene on her behalf (16:5). But this happens only after she castigates Abram for his role in her humiliation.30 This is a direct contrast with the HB narrative where Sarai’s perspective is routinely excluded. Cf. Fuchs Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 128–29.But not in this case, because Sarai expresses her perspective in this episode, quite forcefully in the HB (16:5). This concerns the presentation of male-perspectives in adultery type-scenes to the exclusion of female perspectives. In 16:5 it is evident that the targum allows Sarai’s perspective to be expressed more explicitly in its narrative than in the HB. However, in the end the expression of this perspective still serves to support Abram’s desire to produce an heir for himself. 30

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

171

From Sarai’s perspective, Hagar’s insult is only one of a series of troubles that Abram has brought upon her. Since she can therefore not trust Abram to take care of her interests, Sarai calls upon God to “spread his peace” between herself and Abram so that the land will be filled by them so that they will not need the son of Hagar (16:5). Like in 16:2 this invocation indicates that Sarai believes that God has the power to control her fertility. This acknowledgement, however, does not necessarily imply that Sarai believes God had any role to play in Hagar’s conception. In effect, Sarai wants to take the credit for that conception, thereby supplanting God in his control over female fecundity. Since Hagar will not allow Sarai to take the credit for the conception, Sarai can only reassert her mastery over the situation by, ironically, admitting a lack of mastery. Sarai does this by invoking the divine Master to make her as fertile as Hagar, if not more so. From Sarai’s perspective only God can accomplish this for her. As a reproductive agent, then, Hagar differs from Sarai, in that she does not have to convince the deity that she must be fertile. Furthermore, it would appear that Hagar differs from Sarai in that she is accustomed to receiving divine revelations (16:13).31 This excess of experience on Hagar’s part reinforces Sarai’s poverty as a woman when she is compared to Hagar.32 In many ways Sarai must betray her femininity and act like a man in this narrative, simply because she cannot conceive and bear a child, actions that are uniquely feminine. As a result she exerts her mastery over Hagar by turning her over to Abram, who is a highly passive agent in this episode. Hagar, being fully woman according to the ideological tenor of the narrative, conceives almost immediately, which to Sarai might indicate a close relationship with the male God who makes women fertile, according to her own words. Hagar’s fecundity, then, goes hand in hand with her relationship with God. For the narrator this is certainly the case. The God who regularly reveals The idea that Hagar was accustomed to receiving divine revelations is paralleled in Ber. R. 45:7 and explained in the secondary literature. Cf. e.g. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 63, n. 18. 32 The poverty of the barren wife in Fuchs’ “Contest Type-Scene” is a recurring motif. Cf. Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 150–68. 31

172

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

himself to Hagar is the God who allows Hagar to become pregnant. When understood in this light, Sarai’s barrenness thus has a double meaning. On the one hand it means that she has not fulfilled the obligations that the male figures in the narrative have placed upon her as a woman. And on the other hand it also means that her relationship with the child-giving God is somehow deficient. If Sarai was aware of Hagar’s encounters with God— something on which the narrator is silent—then everything about Hagar calls Sarai’s value as a woman into question. It would then be little wonder that Sarai afflicts Hagar to the point where Hagar feels it necessary to flee from Abram’s household into the desert (16:6). 4.3 God’s Role in the Episode As indicated above, God is presented in this episode as the Master over women’s bodies: he is the one who allows them to conceive or not to conceive. As a result there is a problem from Sarai’s perspective, in that God has not granted her the child that will allow her to fulfill her purpose as a woman, according to the narrative. Hagar, in contrast, has been granted a child, and this has only increased Sarai’s problems. However, God’s attitude toward Hagar once Hagar has fled from Sarai’s affliction is interesting. God does not seem to concern himself with Hagar’s wellbeing as such. Instead he is concerned with the survival of Hagar’s child. For this reason he, through the speaking agency of his angel, urges Hagar to return to Abram’s household, even though this means she must endure affliction from Sarai once again (16:9).33 This position is furthermore confirmed in what the angel states concerning Hagar’s son. The promises of future multitudes descending from him, despite his conflicted relationships with those around him, is a direct fulfillment of the promise God made to Abram in Genesis 15. As such, God’s concern is not even so much for Hagar’s son, as it is that he should fulfill the promise he made to Abram a chapter earThe MS version of PJ does not include 16:9, probably omitted due to haplography. Both 16:9 and 16:10 begin with the words, “And the Angel of the Lord said to her...” 33

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

173

lier. Like in the discussion between Abram and Sarai, Hagar’s needs and/or wants are excluded from promises God makes. God will prosper Ishmael because he is Abram’s son, and not because Hagar is his mother. God is thus the source and the propagator of the male-oriented ideology that can be detected in this episode. It is him who promises an heir for Abram in Genesis 15, and it is him who promises to increase the potential heir that Hagar has provided for Abram. At this point in the narrative, God ignores Sarai’s stated desires and/or needs. Likewise, Hagar’s desires and/or needs are never made explicit. The only way we know Hagar will survive is because of God’s promise that her son will survive and prosper. As a result, the targum presents a male-oriented narrative where God sanctions the male perspective that dominates it. Hagar herself further affirms this perspective by praising God and naming him in this episode. Although this could be interpreted as a legitimation of feminine agency in relation to God, like Numbers 12, N the feminine agency in this passage is sanctioned only within certain parameters. Hagar supports the male-oriented perspective represented by God by responding positively to the promises God makes concerning her son. As a result, the narrative in part valorizes her character. God therefore cannot be seen here as a liberator of women. In fact, he can only be seen as a character who reinforces the dynamics of male–female relationships in this narrative which is dominated by male concerns. As will become more evident in the following pages, God is presented here as the über-male to whom all human figures, both male and female, must be subjugated. 4.4 Contextual Considerations This episode bears similarities to some halakhic norms governing marriage and fertility as they are articulated in the Mishnah. For example, in m. Yeb. 6:6 a husband is required to divorce his wife after ten years of marriage if she has not produced a child for him.34 Indeed this halakhah is based on the HB version of GeneFor two discussions of this passage see Wegner, Chattel or Person?, 60; Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis, 130–34. 34

174

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

sis 16:3 where it says that Sarai turned Hagar over to Abram after they had lived in the land of Canaan for ten years. When read in a post-Mishnaic context, however, the targum can be seen to be confirming this halakhic norm through the actions of the actors in the narrative. What makes this narrative different from the halakhic norm, however, is that it is Sarai taking the initiative. This is why I stated above that in some ways she is acting like a man in this passage; it is she who finds the substitute for herself. Needless to say, this episode does not support the minority view articulated in the Tosefta version of Yebamot 8:6. In that version, a minority voice of the halakhah states that the woman as well should find another husband after ten years of a childless marriage.35 In short, the PJ version of Genesis 16 supports an ideology that favors the rights and privileges of men, rather than the rights and privileges of women. By presenting the women in this narrative as being simply reproductive agents, or at least agents whose primary concern is with reproduction, the narrative ignores the experiences, both sexual and otherwise, that make women unique as gendered figures. Instead the women in this narrative understand their expression of gender solely in terms that would be supported by the norms of the patriarchal world of which they were a part. Unlike Miriam they do not use their agencies to overtly disrupt or subvert that patriarchal worldview. They rather do their utmost to conform to the norms that are placed upon them by the male figures in their lives, whether it be Abram or God. It is true that Sarai may act like a man in arranging the relationship between Abram and Hagar. However, in performing these actions Sarai would likely be commended, since she is acting out of a desire to protect and propagate her husband’s interests. This complicity with the male desire to father an heir indicates much concerning the way Sarai has been narrativized to be presented in male terms. As such she could very well be used as a model of behavior for the women in early Judaism, a setting which created narratives that were just as male-dominated as the HB. Yet as we shall see in the next section, the patriarchy of early Jewish literature is structured differently than the patriarchy of the GrecoRoman ideologies that form part of the background to the targum35

Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis, 130–33.

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

175

ic narratives. To demonstrate this difference it is necessary to revisit the PJ version of Genesis 39.

5. GENESIS 39 REVISITED In this section I will examine gender critical questions in relation to the presentation of masculinity in Genesis 39, PJ. Since I have already conducted a section by section analysis of this episode in Chapter 2 above, it is not necessary to repeat such an analysis here. Neither will I use the narratological vocabulary as explicitly as I have in the previous sections of this chapter. What I want to demonstrate here is how the narratological structures identified in Chapter 2 above can lend themselves to a gendered reading of narrative. I will therefore be presupposing the interpretation offered in Chapter 2 without making explicit reference to it. To begin, however, it is necessary to make some preliminary remarks concerning masculinity in the ancient context. 5.1 Masculinity in Late Antique Greco-Roman and Jewish Cultures In essay concerning masculinity and the Gospel of Matthew, Anderson and Moore write: The Greco-Roman sex/gender system, it would seem, is best mapped as a gradient . . . or sliding scale. Clustered at one end of the scale were those who, notionally at least (for the scale was treacherously slippery and unstable), qualified as the supreme exemplars of hegemonic masculinity: adult male citizens, primarily, although not exclusively, those of high social standing: rulers, heads of elite households, powerful patrons, and so on. Clustered at the other end of the scale were countless others who, in different ways and to different degrees, seemed (in the eyes of the elite, in any case) to fall into a catchall category that might best be labeled unmen: females,

176

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS boys, slaves (of either sex), sexually passive or “effeminate” males, eunuchs, “barbarians”, and so on. 36

Anderson and Moore continue: That factors other than anatomy were in play in this gendered hierarchy is evident from the fact that free adult females, for example, were generally higher on the scale than adult male slaves. From the hegemonic perspective, the subordinate and unmanly status of the lesser groups derived from their inability to master others or even themselves, unlike those who were more fully men. Mastery of others and/or of oneself emerges as definitive of masculinity in many surviving Greco-Roman texts, the emphasis arguably shifting increasingly to selfmastery during and after the Augustan epoch.37

In the world of rabbinic Judaism, Satlow argues that the situation was very similar. For Satlow, rabbinic masculinity was achieved through self-restraint, what Anderson and Moore call self-mastery. What differentiated rabbinic Jewish males from their Greco-Roman counterparts, however, was that self-restraint was achieved through Anderson and Moore, “Matthew and Masculinity,” 68–69. This excerpt from Anderson and Moore clearly articulates the ideal masculinity of the Greco-Roman period. Interestingly enough, this concept of an “ideal masculinity” is something that has emerged specifically in the context of masculinity studies. Cf. Alsop, Fitzsimons, and Lennon, Theorizing Gender, ch. 6, “Theorizing Men and Masculinities”. The critique that Alsop, Fitzsimons, and Lennon offer to this mode of theorizing is that in some ways it overlooks the possibility of an ideal femininity that contrasts with the ideal masculinity. By focusing on an ideal masculinity, femininity is often conceived of being the opposite of the masculine ideal. However, as Alsop, Fitzsimons, and Lennon point out, this need not always be the case. Culturally, the ideal femininity may have significant overlap with the masculine ideal. Unfortunately the essays in the Anderson and Moore volume do not necessarily address this critique. Had they done so they might have been able to provide a more nuanced understanding of masculinity in the Greco-Roman period, as would have the other studies cited in this section. 37Anderson and Moore, “Matthew and Masculinity,” 69. 36

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

177

the pursuit of the divine in the context of Torah study.38 Satlow writes: This construction of manhood did not arise from nothing; it only slightly reconfigures elements found in both Jewish Hellenistic writings and in the literature of the non-Jewish elite, especially moralists and philosophers.39

Boyarin, in contrast, argues that rabbinic Judaism presented a critique of Greco-Roman conceptions of masculinity. For him, the rabbis blurred the distinction between male and female to the extent that rabbinic conceptions of masculinity were radically different from those of the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.40 As will become evident in the following analysis these issues are of special importance with regard to the Genesis 39, PJ episode. There is a question mark placed over Joseph’s masculinity due to his slave status. Yet as will also become evident, Potiphar’s masculinity is questioned by this episode as well. In this episode only God’s masculinity remains constant, whereas the masculinities of the human agents are dynamic, capable of being manipulated by God to achieve certain goals. 5.2 A Gendered Interpretation of Genesis 39, PJ The first time we encounter a passage with gender implications in Genesis 39, PJ is in 39:1. In this passage Potiphar sees that Joseph is an attractive young man and desires to sodomize him. As observed in Chapter 3 above, Potiphar’s gaze in this instance is explicitly sexual in that he desires to have sexual relations with Joseph. In looking at Joseph in this way Potiphar constructs himself as an active sexual agent, whereas Joseph is passive in response to Potiphar’s gaze. This is in large part due to the master–slave dynamic between the two of them, in that Joseph here is constructed as chattel, a commodity to be traded or sold.41 As such he is not permitted to exhibit any kind of mastery, either over himself or other Satlow, “Try to Be a Man,” 20. Ibid. 40 Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct, cf. especially chs. 2 and 3. 41 Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, cf. especially ch. 2. 38 39

178

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

people. He is expected to be submissive to the will of his master whatever that might be. However, Potiphar’s self-mastery is quickly called into question by the decree that is issued against him by God. By causing Potiphar’s testicles to dry up, God not only rescues Joseph from a humiliating situation, but God also asserts his own mastery over Potiphar. This is similar to PJ’s renderings of the episodes involving Sarah and the foreign kings (Genesis 12 and Genesis 20). In both cases God intervenes to prevent the kings from having sexual relations with Sarah. Here in Genesis 39, since Potiphar cannot control his own body in response to God’s decree, God is shown to be more of a male than Potiphar, according to the Greco-Roman ideology. Potiphar’s mastery, both over himself and over Joseph, is thus shown to be conditional on God’s good will. Furthermore, Joseph is placed in a structural position that has typically been occupied by a female, namely Sarah. PJ’s rendering of the next few verses bears out this feminine presentation of Joseph, in that God is shown to bless all that Joseph does. Again Joseph is the Object of male mastery. When Potiphar sees this, he puts Joseph in a position of power within the household. Potiphar therefore responds to God’s mastery over Joseph’s situation. And Potiphar, in his own conditional mastery, uses what power he has to raise Joseph’s status.42 In relation to the other slaves in the household Joseph comes to have a greater degree of mastery. Conceivably he can give orders and those orders must be followed due to the status he has been granted. However, just as Potiphar’s mastery is conditional upon God’s good will, Joseph’s mastery over his fellow slaves is conditional on Potiphar’s good will. As is demonstrated toward the end of this episode, Joseph’s situation can change quite drastically if Potiphar deems it necessary. The place where Joseph’s masculinity seems most paradoxical is in his encounter with Potiphar’s wife. I use the word paradoxical because in this encounter he is still bound by the master–slave dynamic that has been present from the beginning of this episode. To maintain his position in the house he must remain loyal to Potiphar and the limit Potiphar placed upon him concerning Potiphar’s For an excellent discussion concerning hierarchies and distinctions between slaves see ibid., ch. 4. 42

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

179

wife.43 Yet given that Potiphar’s wife outclasses Joseph, Joseph also has some duty toward her as well. However, it must be remembered that in this context the woman’s desires are subservient to the mastery of her husband.44 Joseph must therefore master himself in two ways: first he must master himself to obey the commands of Potiphar; second, he must master himself to resist the seductions of the woman. Yet the paradoxical part of these two forms of mastery is that they both express a kind of subservience. In the first instance Joseph is subservient to Potiphar and his wishes; in the second instance Joseph is subservient to God insofar as he refuses to lie with the woman so that he will avoid punishment in the world to come. This seeming contradiction in Joseph’s selfmastery may be what Boyarin is driving at when he argues that Jewish masculinity in late antiquity provided a critique to the dominant Greco-Roman norm.45 Greco-Roman ideologies of masculinity would have permitted Joseph to express mastery over himself as well as over Potiphar’s wife if he was in the position of the hegemonic male.46 But given that Joseph is bound by his class as a slave, the only mastery he can express in this context is reflexive. Granted, this gives Joseph a certain nobility according to the GrecoRoman norm, as well as in the context of the targumic narrative. Yet according to the norms of the Greco-Roman ideologies of masculinity, this still leaves Joseph as being something less than male. This becomes even more evident as the episode progresses and Potiphar’s wife manipulates the other slaves and the dynamics in the household to work against Joseph. In performing these actions Potiphar’s wife exercises a kind of mastery that Joseph could never hope to achieve: she can manipulate the slaves’ opinions at a whim because she outclasses them. Joseph may have a greater status than the rest of the slaves, but he cannot influence the treatment of the other slaves in the same way as Potiphar’s wife. As such, Joseph remains subordinate to the woman in this narrative,

See Chapter 2 above. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Wives, Whores, and Slaves, cf. ch. 8. 45 Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct. 46 See Anderson and Moore’s comments above. 43 44

180

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

thus demonstrating that his masculinity is outclassed by hers, the one figure in the episode who is not a male. Throughout this episode the only figure whose masculinity remains constant is God. God decentres Potiphar’s masculinity at the beginning of the narrative, and also demonstrates that Joseph has very little mastery over his circumstances were it not for the help of the Memra of the Lord. As such, God is portrayed as a kind of über-male in this episode, displacing any male figures who might rival him in mastery of the situation. Yet it is interesting to note again that God does not interfere in the situation between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife.47 In this context this non-interference adopted by the deity seems curious, since Potiphar’s wife poses the greatest threat to Joseph’s position in Potiphar’s household due to her various expressions of mastery. One possible answer to this problem might be to state that God mastered even this situation. For had God directly interfered in the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, Joseph might not have been thrown into prison. And, had Joseph not been thrown into prison, he would not have encountered the chief steward who would eventually bring Joseph to Pharaoh’s attention. Thus in God’s non-interference it is still possible to see a divine mastery of the situation, even though that mastery is not explicitly articulated. In the context of this episode, therefore, God is portrayed as the ideal male; all other figures in the episode merely imitate the perfect masculinity exhibited by God.

6. CONCLUSIONS Throughout this chapter I have traced some gender related issues as they are presented in three targumic narratives. In the first two cases I have shown that there is some commonality between the targumic presentation of femininity and some halakhic treatments of the feminine in the Mishnah. The tracing of these parallels, however, is by no means comprehensive. Other early Jewish and rabbinic literature might treat the feminine differently from the targumic narratives surveyed in this chapter. Nevertheless, among For sources that do introduce the motif of divine intervention see Kalimi, Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy, 89–97. 47

BRIDGING NARRATIVE AND HISTORY

181

these parallels there seems to be some consistency in that the desires/wishes of women are subordinated to the desires/wishes of the male figures in the narrative. Perhaps most significantly the desires/wishes of women are subordinated to the desires/wishes of the male God presented in and through these narratives. Having stated this, women are not the only figures who are subordinated to God’s desires/wishes. Men too find themselves placed under the mastery of divine agency, in that they cannot act, focalize, or speak without divine sanction. This is exemplified by the third sample text, Genesis 39, PJ. In this way God is presented as the supreme male in relation to whom all expressions of gender or mastery are relativized. In many ways this conception of divine and human gender offers a significant critique of Greco-Roman concepts of masculinity and femininity. Despite this fact, the targums do not eliminate the strands of male-domination that are still evident within their narratives, as my narratological analysis suggests. As a result, the targums can be seen as significant resources for the study of gender and discourses thereof within early Judaism. Furthermore, narratology can be seen to be a helpful tool in exposing the gender dynamics within the targums. With these things in mind, it is now possible to discuss the general conclusions of my project.

5 CONCLUSION When reflecting on the outcomes of this project, two things come to mind. First, the viability of a narratological approach to the targums has been demonstrated in some concrete and dramatic ways. When targumic passages manifest a high degree of coherence, narratology reveals how and why this coherence works, it teases out the structural dynamics of such passages, and enables the interpreter to detect the ideological and discursive issues embedded in the narratives. However, narratology has also been problematised, in that there are demonstrable limits to what narratology can do. These limits can also be seen to provide opportunities for further reflection, both on the specific narrative structures of the targums, as well as on the methodologies used to study targumic literature. As far as the targumic narrative structures are concerned, much work still needs to be done. Are there certain characteristics that define the targumic narratives in contrast to the HB narrative? Are there any patterns in the ways in which the targums “translate”/“transform” the biblical narrative? Is it possible to create a “targumic narratology”? What are some of the conceptual and methodological issues related to such a task? In terms of the methodological questions raised by this book, again much work needs to be done. If the targums were created to be understood as continuous narratives, how does one account for the incoherent passages that are frequently found in the targums? What might have been the narrative functions of such passages? Can such passages give insight into the historical and social functions of the targums? Can one create stronger conceptual links between the targums and other early Jewish discourses, especially in the absence of concrete historical evidence? How does a narratological approach to the targums fit with other “literary” approaches to early Jewish literature? These and other questions have been opened up by this study. 183

184

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

I will now trace out some of the ways in which these questions came to be formulated. I began my project by making the narratological distinction between fabula, story, and text levels of narrative. This distinction proved useful as a means for isolating certain narrative phenomena, in particular the types of agency used by agents within narratives. However, this distinction was soon shown to be somewhat artificial. As a complex phenomenon, narrative is an interweaving of these different levels which are separated solely for the purposes of analysis. It is impossible to analyze one level of narrative without invoking the other levels, thus reinforcing their interdependence and interpenetration. On a practical level, this meant that the targumic passages analyzed could not be kept in isolation in two senses: 1) they could be used to illustrate a single narratological phenomenon, but often discussion had to be given to related phenomena on other levels of narrative; and 2) to get a near to complete sense of the narrative significance of a particular passage, the passage had to be analyzed in the context of the episode of which it was a part. There were also cases where episode boundaries had to be crossed in order to understand what a passage was communicating. Moreover, certain passages (Exodus 13:17, PJ; and Exodus 12:42, N) invoked the entirety of the HB, and even the eschatological hopes of the Jewish people. To make the narratological approach work, consideration had to be given to the lines of coherence created by the various narrative phenomena within the targums. Coherence was such a crucial theme in this book that chapters 2 and 3 were explicitly devoted to it. Investigating this theme produced several concrete results. First, it was apparent that in some cases targumic passages manifest high levels of coherence—so much so that the narratological approach can be used with great success with such passages. This became especially evident in the examination of Genesis 39, PJ. Second, this strong coherence within the boundaries of a single episode raised the important question of whether the targumists intended to “translate”/“transform” some episodes in their entirety, rather than just single words or sentences. Put differently, what was the basic unit of biblical meaning for the targumists? Third, there were cases where I demonstrated that certain targumic passages were highly gapped. To fill these gaps it would have been necessary for the targums’ read-

CONCLUSION

185

ers/audiences to either be knowledgeable of other extra-targumic narrative traditions, or for the targums to fill the gaps themselves. In most cases the targums did not fill the gaps found in their narratives. Audience knowledge therefore became a critical factor when attempting to determine how and what these passages communicated. However, given that modern scholars have no independent way of defining or delimiting what knowledge might have been possessed by the targums’ readers/audiences, it is ultimately impossible to determine how or what these passages communicated. Finally, when encountering incoherences that have usually been attributed to diachronic growth in the targums, it became necessary to ask: why do such incoherences remain? Why did the editors not smooth out the narrative to create a sensible whole? Although I suggested how narratology might be able to answer these questions, fully satisfying answers do not yet exist. Indeed, these questions identify one direction for further research. Of the findings just identified, one of the most interesting and revolutionary is the question concerning the basic unit of biblical meaning in the targums. By suggesting that the targumists might have been concerned with entire biblical episodes, I am not arguing that they completely ignored words and sentences. Instead, it may have been possible that the HB’s words and sentences were considered media through which larger narrative themes and ideas were communicated. Building on the findings of Chapter 2, Chapter 4 in some ways addressed this issue. By providing an analysis of the larger gender-related themes in selected targumic episodes, I demonstrated that the specific words and sentences used by the targums contributed to overall thematic unities rather than to fragmented and discontinuous texts. This structural insight led to the finding that narratology can show the targums’ respective contributions to early Jewish discursive history. In the case of gender, the targums appear to reflect and embody the values of a male dominated society. Women are given specific roles within that society, and deviating from some of those roles is considered to be deserving of divine punishment. Despite this representation of women and their roles, the targums were also shown to reflect the early Jewish norm that all gender is relativised in relation to God, the divine über-male. I have now identified several queries as needing further investigation. Yet the concrete results of my research have demonstrated

186

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

that narratology creates many opportunities for scholars to explore new topics related to the study of targumic literature. As I stated in the introduction, I wrote this book as if it was a methodological experiment. For me, this term “experiment” had the meaning of preliminary exploration with the intent of opening up a new field of research. Not only has it demonstrated the viability of narratology as a way to approach the study of targums. But it has also generated new answers to old questions. These answers will have to be discussed and evaluated as the field of targum studies continues to develop.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onqelos on Genesis 49. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Accordance for Mac, Scholar’s Collection 7.0 CD ROM. OakTree Software, Altamonte Springs, 2006. Alexander, Philip S. “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” In Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, edited by William Horbury, 71–89. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999. ———. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling, 217–53. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. ———. “Notes on Some Targums of the Targum of the Song of Songs." In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretatation of Scripture in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 159–74. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 60–71. ______. The Targum of Lamentations: Translated, with a Critical Apparatus, and Notes. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. Alsop, Rachel, Annette Fitzsimons, and Kathleen Lennon. Theorizing Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002. Reprint, 2007. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. ———. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary. New York: Norton, 2004. Anderson, Janice Capel, and Stephen D. Moore. “Matthew and Masculinity.” In New Testament Masculinities, edited by Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, 67–91. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Arendt, Hannah. The Life of the Mind. San Diego: Harcourt, 1978. 187

188

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Bach, Alice. “Breaking Free of the Biblical Frame-Up: Uncovering the Woman in Genesis 39.” In A Feminist Companion to Genesis edited by Athalya Brenner, 318–42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Baker, Mona. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge, 2006. Bal, Mieke, ed. Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Bal, Mieke. Death & Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. ______. Loving Yusuf: Conceptual Travels from Present to Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. ———. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Translated by Dorothea Shefer-Vanson. Sheffield Almond Press, 1989. Beattie, D.R.G. “The Targum of Ruth: A Preliminary Edition.” In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 231–90. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Beattie, D.R.G., and M.J. McNamara, eds. The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Reprint 2004. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systematic Analysis.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, edited by D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, 254–63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Bowker, J.W. “Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos.” Journal of Semitic Studies 12 (1967): 51–65. ———. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Boyarin, Daniel. “Archives in the Fiction: Rabbinic Historiography and Church History.” In The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography, ed. Dale B. Martin and Patricia Cox Miller, 175–92. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ______. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. ———. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Second ed. London: Routledge, 1990. Reprint, 2007. Butts, Aaron Michael. “Observations on the Verbless Clause in the Language of Neophyti I.” Aramaic Studies 4, no. 1 (2006): 53– 66. Chester, Andrew. Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. Clarke, E.G., W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1984. Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Epigraphical Rabbis.” Jewish Quarterly Review 72, no. 1 (1981): 1–17. Cook, Edward M. “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, edited by D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, 142–56. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ———. “The ‘Kaufman Effect’ in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum.” Aramaic Studies 4, no. 2 (2006): 123–32. Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch nach den Idiomen des Palästinischen Talmud des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum und der Jerusalemischen Targume. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1905. Reprint, 1978. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Reprint 1997. ______. Writing and Difference. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Diez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinese Ms. De La Biblioteca Vaticana. 5 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968–1979.

190

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Diez Macho, Alejandro. “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums.” In Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7, 222–45, 1960. Dray, Carol A. “Is Subtlety in Translation the Reason for the Targumic Use of Various Verbs of Fleeing?” Aramaic Studies 2, no. 1 (2004): 25–35. Eco, Umberto. Experiences in Translation. Translated by Alastair McEwen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Reprint 2008. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 6 volumes. Translated by Maurice Simon. London: Soncino Press, 1960. Fischel, Henry A. Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy: A Study of Epicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrash Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Flesher, Paul V.M. “Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch.” In Targum Studies Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 101–34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ———. “Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum?: The Evidence of Genesis 28–50.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19 (1999): 35–79. ———. “Targum as Scripture.” In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 61–75. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in Their Social and Linguistic Context.” In The Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E.: Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University October 14–17, 2001, edited by Birger Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm, 467–508. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2003. ———. “The Targumim in the Context of Rabbinic Literature.” In Introduction to Rabbinic Literature, edited by Jacob Neusner, 611– 29. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ———. “The Translations of Proto-Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums.” Journal of the Aramaic Bible 3 (2001): 75–100. Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith. Tavistock: Tavistock Publications, 1972. Reprint: London: Routledge, 2008. Fraade, Steven D. “‘Comparative Midrash’ Revisited: The Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Midrash.” In Agendas for the Study of Midrash in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Marc Lee Raphael, 4–17. Williamsburg: Department of Religion, The College of William and Mary, 1999. ———. “Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third--Sixth Centuries.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 253–86. New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Friedlander, Gerald. Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer (the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1971. Friedman, H. and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah: English, 3rd edition. 10 volumes. London: Soncino Press, 1983. Fuchs, Esther. “A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1–2.” In Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminski, 307–26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. ———. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman, Jsotsupp. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method, 2nd edition. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 1989. Gafni, Isaiah. “Rabbinic Histoiography and Representations of the Past.” In The Cambridge Companion to The Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 295–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988. ———. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. Reprint, 1995.

192

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Ginsburger, M. Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël Zum Pentateuch). Nach der Londoner Handschrift (Brit. Mus. Add. 27031). Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903. Reprint, 1974. Golomb, David M. A Grammar of Targum Neofiti. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Standard Literary Aramaic.” In Actes du Primier Congrès International de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique, Paris 16–19 juillet 1969, ed. A. Caquot and D. Cohen, 280–89. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Why Jews Translate the Bible.” In Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, edited by Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas, 179–95. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Greetham, D.C. Theories of the Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. ______. Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature. Translated by Batya Stein. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. Hayward, C.T.R. “Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: The Case of Eliezer and Nimrod.” Journal of Semitic Studies 38, no. 1 (1992): 31–55. ______. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa: Allanhead, Osmon, 1981. ———. “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Bread of the Presence.” In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 115–28. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hebrew Union College. “Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.” Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion, http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/. Accessed on 18 June 2008. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time: A Translation of Sein und Zeit. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper Collins, 1962. Heinemann, Joseph. “The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim.” Harvard Theological Review 68, no. 1 (1975): 1–15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Slavery in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Houtman, Alberdina. “The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah.” Aramaic Studies 3, no. 1 (2005): 3–14. Houtman, Alberdina and Harry Sysling. Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Irigaray, Luce. Je, Tu, Nous. Translated by Alison Martin. London: Routledge, 1993. Reprint, 2007. Jackson, Bernard S. “Gender Critical Observations on Tripartite Breeding Relationships in the Hebrew Bible.” In A Question of Sex?: Gender and Difference in the Hebrew Bible and Related Literature, edited by D. Rooke, 39–52. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: The Judaica Press, 1971. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Kalimi, Isaac. Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy: Studies in Scriptures in the Shadow of Internal and External Controversies. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002. Kaufman, Stephen A. “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their use in the study of First Century CE Texts.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, edited by D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, 118–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______. “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23 (1985): 117–24. Klein, Michael L. “Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16, no. Orlinsky Memorial Volume (1982): 134–40. ———. “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.” Biblica 57 (1976): 515–37. ———. “The Preposition qdm (‘before’): A Pseudo-AntiAnthropomorphism in the Targums.” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979): 502-07.

194

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Kloekhorst, Alwin. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. ———. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kutscher, E.Y. “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’: A Preliminary Study.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1957): 1–35. Kvam, Bjørn Olav Grüner. “‘Come, Let the Two of Us Go out into the Field’: The Targum Supplement to Genesis 4:8a–a Text-Immanent Reading?” In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 97–103. Leiden: Brill, 2002. LaCocque, André, and Paul Ricoeur. Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies. Translated by David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Landy, Francis. Beauty and the Enigma and Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Lasair, Simon Adnams. "Review of Beverly P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.” Journal of Semitic Studies (2009). _______. “Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic Problem.” AJS Review 34.2, (November 2010): 265–87. Le Déaut, Roger. La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la Signification de la Pâque Juive à Partír du Targum d’Exode XII 42, Analecta Biblica. Rome: Institute Biblique Pontifical, 1963. ———. Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux Recensions Palestiniennes Complètes avec Introduction Parallèles, Notes et Index. 5 vols. Vol. 2 Exode et Lévitique. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1979. Levy, B. Barry. Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Lanham: University Press of America, 1986. Linafelt, Tod, ed. Strange Fire: Reading the Bible after the Holocaust. Washington Square: New York University Press, 2000. Maher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Mann, Thomas. Joseph and His Brothers: The Stories of Jacob, Young Joseph, Joseph in Egypt, Joseph the Provider. Translated by John E. Woods. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. McNamara, M.J. Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible—a Light on the New Testament. Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972. ———. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Milgrom, Jacob. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Moore, Stephen D. and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Mortensen, Beverly P. “Pseudo-Jonathan’s Temple, Symbol of Judaism.” In Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, edited by Paul V.M. Flesher, 129–37. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Müller-Kessler, Christa. “The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of Its Dialect and Origin.” Journal of the Aramaic Bible 3 (2001): 181–98. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Peskowitz, Miriam. “Spinning Tales: On Reading Gender and Otherness in Tannaitic Texts.” In The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity, edited by Laurence J. Silberstein and Robert L. Cohn, 91–120. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Phelan, James. “Narrative Judgments and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative: Ian McEwan’s Atonement.” In A Companion to Narrative Theory, edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz, 322–36. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Phelan, James, and Peter J. Rabinowitz, eds. A Companion to Narrative Theory. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York Schocken 1975. Reprint, 1995. Prince, Gerald. “On a Postcolonial Narratology.” In A Companion to Narrative Theory, edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz, 372–81. Malden: Blackwell, 2005.

196

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

Rabin, Chaim. “Hittite Words in Hebrew.” Orientalia 32 (1963): 113–39. Rajak, Tessa. “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature.” Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 111–22. Reider, D. Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch Copied from the London Ms. (British Museum Add. 27031). Jerusalem: Salomon’s Printing Press, 1972. Richter, David H. “Genre, Repetition, Temporal Order: Some Aspects of Biblical Narratology.” In A Companion to Narrative Theory, edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz, 285– 298. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Robinson, Douglas. What Is Translation?: Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions. Kent: Kent State University Press, 1997. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Random House, 1993. Samely, Alexander. Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. ———. The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992. ———. “Is Targumic Aramaic Rabbinic Hebrew?: A Reflection on Midrashic and Targumic Rewording of Scripture.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 92–100. ———. “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality in Rabbinic Discourse and the Pentateuch Targum.” Journal of the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 87–123. ———. “Writing in an (Almost) Classical Vein: The Art of Targum in an Aramaic Paraphrase of the Amidah.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75, no. 3 (1993): 175–264. Satlow, Michael L. “‘Try to Be a Man’: The Rabbinic Construction of Masculinity.” Harvard Theological Review 89, no. 1 (1996): 19– 40. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Shinan, Avigdor. “The ‘Palestinian’ Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985): 72– 87. ———. The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch [in Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

———. “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations.” In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, edited by D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, 203–17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Shinan, Avigdor. “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 241–51. New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of Amarica, 1992. ______. The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the “Palestinian” Targumim on the Pentateuch and its Place within Rabbinic Literature (Based on the Targumim on Genesis and Selected Passages from the Other Four Books) [in Hebrew]. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: PhD Dissertation, 1977. Smelik, Willem F. “Language, Locus, and Translation between the Talmudim.” Journal of the Aramaic Bible 3 (2001): 199–224. ———. “Orality, Manuscript Reproduction, and the Targums.” In Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization, edited by A.A. den Hollander, U.B. Schmid and W.F. Smelik, 49–81. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah.” Journal of the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 249–72. ———. “Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 29, no. 3 (1998): 245–60. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash, and Targum. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ———. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. 2nd ed. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Second Impression ed. 4 vols. Vol. 1 The Pentateuch according to Targum Onqelos. Leiden Brill, 1992. Reprint, 1992.

198

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

———. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. 4 vols. Vol. 4a The Hagiographa: Transition from Translation to Midrash. Leiden Brill, 1968. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. 4 vols. Vol. 3 The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan. Leiden Brill, 1962. ———. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. 4 vols. Vol. 2 The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Leiden Brill, 1959. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “French Feminism in an International Frame.” In In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, edited by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 184–211. New York: Routledge, 1987. Reprint, 2006. Sternberg, Meir. Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. ———. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Teubal, Savina J. “Sarah and Hagar: Matriarchs and Visionaries.” In A Feminist Companion to Genesisedited by Athalya Brenner, 235– 250. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Townsend, John T., translator. Midrash Tanhuma: English. Hoboken: KTAV, 1989. Valdés, Mario J., ed. A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. van Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline. “Targum Samuel.” Theological University of Kampen, http://targum.nl/THUKCe/kritiek/ critical.aspx. Accessed 18 June 2008. ———. The Targum of Samuel. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Vermes, Geza. “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum.” In Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, edited by Geza Vermes, 127–38. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ———. “Redemption and Genesis XXII: The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus.” In Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, edited by Geza Vermes, 193–227. Leiden: Brill, 1973. ———. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

———. “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16.” In PostBiblical Jewish Studies, edited by Geza Vermes, 92–126. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Wegner, Judith Romney. Chattel or Person?: The Status of Women in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 16–50. Dallas: Word Books, 1994. Whiston, William, translator. The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Reprint, 2004. York, Anthony D. “The Dating of Targumic Literature.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 5, no. 1 (1974): 49–62. ______. “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 10, no. 1 (1979): 74–86. Zetterholm, Karin Hedner. “The Attempted Murder by Laban the Aramean: Rabbinic Hermeneutics and the Emergence of an Ideology.” In The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E.: Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University October 14–17 2001, edited by Birger Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm, 453–66. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2003.

INDEX Aaron, 64, 65, 70, 71, 126, 128, 129, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 189 Abel, 73, 74, 75, 76 Abraham, 26, 69, 77, 78, 79, 85, 92, 123, 124, 131, 139, 142, 154, 191, 193 Abram, 67, 68, 72, 139, 147, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174 actantial, 50, 58, 60, 78, 89, 137, 148, 166 action, 48, 49, 50, 57, 59, 61, 74, 75, 76, 78, 86, 96, 97, 101, 104, 170 actor, 49, 50, 59, 67, 75, 89, 94, 95, 97, 98, 148 agency, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 181, 184 Alexander, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 40, 42, 187, 196, 197, 198 Alter, 36, 37, 38, 51, 52, 59, 60, 62, 66, 95, 99, 101, 128, 154, 156, 169, 187 anachrony, 53, 54, 64, 67 Anderson and Moore, 175, 176, 179 anticipation, 44, 54, 68, 131, 133

Aramaic, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33, 39, 41, 42, 43, 58, 81, 86, 90, 96, 108, 109, 111, 131, 135, 136, 141, 144, 154, 169, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 B. Bath., 123 Bach, 150, 151, 188 Bal, 35, 37, 38, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 69, 80, 83, 147, 150, 188 Bar-Efrat, 36, 38, 188 Bavli, 5, 123 Benjamin, 137, 191 biblical narrative, 1, 32, 36, 38, 110, 112, 183 Boyarin, 116, 117, 118, 121, 124, 125, 136, 150, 177, 179, 188, 189 Butler, 164, 189 Butts, 25, 189 Cain, 73, 74, 75, 76 CAL, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 25, 130 coherence, 1, 2, 32, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 106, 107, 108, 115, 117, 118, 122, 140, 183, 184 coherent, 1, 45, 83, 108, 118, 125 Cook, 10, 19, 25, 189 Dalman, 10, 25, 189 Egypt, 62, 63, 85, 86, 88, 92, 104, 120, 126, 130, 131, 132,

201

202

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

135, 137, 139, 141, 142, 153, 195 Esau, 59, 123, 124 Exodus R, 119, 121, 123, 131 fabula, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58, 62, 69, 72, 86, 148, 151, 155, 184 femininity, 171, 176, 180 feminist, 37, 150, 151, 167 Fischel, 76, 190 Flesher, 6, 10, 13, 20, 24, 29, 30, 41, 82, 109, 187, 188, 190, 192, 194, 195 focalization, 51, 52, 53, 57, 64, 66, 72, 77, 79, 89, 93, 94, 98, 148, 151, 170 focalizer, 52, 57, 66, 72, 75, 89, 94, 148 Fraade, 21, 29, 41, 109, 191 Fragment Targum, 9, 11, 15 Fuchs, 37, 39, 159, 163, 170, 171, 191 Gafni, 81, 191 gap, 36, 81, 118, 122 gaps, 109, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 184 gender, 35, 37, 46, 87, 147, 149, 152, 160, 164, 174, 175, 177, 180, 185 Genesis R., 123 Genette, 35, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 191 God, 21, 59, 61, 68, 70, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 120, 123, 128, 131, 132, 140, 141, 142, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163, 167, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185, 187 Golomb, 25, 192

Greimas, 50 Hagar, 46, 147, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 198 Hasan-Rokem, 43, 111, 192 Hauptman, 173, 174, 192 Hayward, 11, 26, 192 HB, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 58, 59, 60, 62, 66, 67, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 95, 97, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 117, 128, 133, 141, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 159, 163, 167, 169, 170, 173, 183, 184, 185 Hebrew, 1, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 16, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 39, 41, 42, 67, 81, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 106, 109, 133, 140, 141, 149, 154, 168, 169, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 Heinemann, 132, 192 hermeneutic, 23, 31, 33 Hermeneutics, 18, 23, 199 Hezser, 31, 86, 88, 90, 92, 101, 169, 177, 193 ideology, 36, 37, 72, 116, 147, 166, 173, 174, 178 intertextual, 118, 121, 122, 124, 129, 130, 131, 133, 143 intertextuality, 116, 118, 130, 134 Irigaray, 164, 193 Isaac, 66, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 124, 131, 139, 142, 192, 193, 198 Ishmael, 77, 166, 173

INDEX Jackson, 168, 193 Jacob, 58, 59, 92, 123, 124, 135, 154, 190, 195 Jastrow, 4, 25, 135, 169, 193 Jethro, 62 Joseph, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 134, 136, 137, 147, 151, 177, 178, 180, 192, 195 Josephus, 126, 127, 199 Judah, 134, 135, 137 Kalimi, 105, 180, 192, 193 Kaufman, 10, 19, 25, 189, 193 Korah, 60, 70, 161 Kugel, 21, 92, 94, 110, 194 Laban, 30, 59, 199 LaCocque, 86, 87, 95, 194 Le Déaut, 26, 139, 140, 141, 144, 194 Levy, 19, 136, 137, 140, 142, 144, 194 Lot, 67, 68 Maher, 171, 194 Mann, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 102, 151, 195 masculinity, 46, 147, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181 master-slave dynamic, 89, 91 mastery, 87, 102, 167, 168, 170, 171, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181 McNamara, 13, 22, 26, 188, 189, 193, 195, 197 Meg, 3, 7, 34, 40 Memra, 26, 84, 89, 90, 92, 96, 103, 130, 139, 142, 143, 180, 192 midrash, 18, 20, 21, 30, 42, 43, 92, 111, 116, 118, 124, 131

203 Milgrom, 154, 155, 195 Miriam, 46, 64, 65, 119, 120, 126, 128, 129, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 174, 195 Mishnah, 3, 4, 40, 44, 162, 173, 180, 199 Mortensen, 26, 28, 29, 30, 71, 112, 194, 195 Moses, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 120, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 139, 142, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 169, 187, 196 narration, 48, 56, 69, 99, 104, 125 narrative, 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185 narrative expansion, 15, 20, 40, 118 narrative expansions, 8, 11, 15, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 117, 118, 129

204

NARRATOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH TARGUMS

narratology, 1, 2, 12, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 80, 81, 115, 117, 118, 122, 133, 134, 138, 141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 150, 181, 183, 185, 186 Narratology, 1, 2, 35, 36, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57, 69, 83, 115, 121, 134, 138, 147, 188, 195, 196 narrator, 52, 55, 56, 66, 69, 72, 75, 99, 108, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 167, 170, 171 Noah, 67, 68 Og, 67, 69 Passover, 67, 68, 139, 140, 141, 142 Patte, 23, 67, 195 Peskowitz, 162, 195 Pharaoh, 62, 63, 86, 119, 120, 126, 127, 130, 134, 136, 164, 165, 168, 180 Phelan, 35, 38, 195, 196 Pomeroy, 168, 179, 195 Potiphar, 21, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 147, 151, 177, 178, 180, 194 Potiphar’s wife, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 151, 178, 180 Power, 49, 51, 59, 61, 74 PRE, 11, 92, 120, 121, 131 Prince, 36, 195 rabbinic literature, 27, 28, 29, 125, 148, 180 rabbis, 11, 177 Rabinowitz, 35

Rajak, 121, 126, 127, 129, 196 Rebecca, 66 retroversion, 54, 68, 69, 122, 128, 129, 131, 132 Reuel, 62 Richter, 37, 38, 196 Samely, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 60, 110, 117, 118, 196 Sarah, 66, 69, 120, 139, 142, 167, 178, 195, 198 Sarai, 46, 147, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174 Satlow, 176, 177, 196 Shekhinah, 152, 156, 166 Shinan, 11, 20, 21, 27, 43, 111, 196, 197 Smelik, 5, 22, 27, 28, 29, 40, 109, 197 Sokoloff, 4, 5, 25, 135, 136, 169, 197 Sotah, 119, 121, 162 speaker, 56, 66, 95, 98, 143, 148, 154, 155 speech, 4, 52, 54, 55, 56, 66, 75, 77, 79, 96, 99, 101, 110, 136, 137, 148, 152, 154, 158, 159, 162 Spivak, 163, 164, 189, 198 Sternberg, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 50, 53, 99, 100, 101, 121, 122, 198 story, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 72, 87, 91, 97, 100, 101, 102, 106, 128, 148, 184 structuralism, 35 synagogue, 27, 28, 29, 34, 40, 42, 88 Tanhuma, 123, 198

INDEX Targum Neofiti, 7, 10, 25, 188, 192 Targum Onqelos, 7, 10, 20, 25, 187, 188, 190, 195, 197 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 7, 8, 11, 26, 28, 29, 71, 112, 171, 189, 192, 194, 195 targumic genre, 1, 3, 5, 6, 17, 23, 24 Teubal, 167, 198 text, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 66, 69, 72, 116, 118, 120, 121, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 152, 154, 155, 162, 181, 184 translation, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 32, 33, 40, 84,

205 109, 112, 119, 120, 123, 126, 135, 140, 144, 169 Vermes, 7, 10, 12, 20, 21, 26, 74, 77, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 198, 199 Wegner, 173, 199 Wenham, 97, 102, 103, 199 women, 29, 37, 64, 65, 92, 152, 159, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 172, 174, 181, 185 York, 9, 10, 28, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 Zetterholm, 30, 190, 199 Zipporah, 62, 64, 65, 128, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 163