Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan

Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture Managing Editor

Paul V.M. Flesher University of Wyoming

Editorial Board

Bruce Chilton Bard College

Willem Smelik University College, London

Moshe Bernstein Yeshiva University

Edward M. Cook Catholic University of America

Luis Díez Merino University of Barcelona

VOLUME 9

Alternative Targum Traditions The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan

By

Alberdina Houtman Harry Sysling

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Houtman, Alberdina. Alternative targum traditions : the use of variant readings for the study in origin and history of targum Jonathan / by Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling. p. cm. — (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of scripture ; v. 9) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17842-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im). Aramaic—Versions—Targum Jonathan—History. 2. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im—Quotations in rabbinical literature. I. Sysling, Harry. II. Title. III. Series. BS1286.A4A734 2009 224.04’2—dc22 2009022045

ISSN 1570-1336 ISBN 978 90 04 17842 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................... ix Abbreviations and Signs .......................................................................... xi 1. Bible and Targum ............................................................................ xi 2. Rabbinic Literature . ......................................................................... xi 3. Journals, Books & Series ................................................................ xii 4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts .............................. xiii Introduction . .............................................................................................. 1 Why this book? ......................................................................................... 1 What to expect? ........................................................................................ 2 Chapter One – Preliminary Issues .......................................................... 7 A. Definition: What is a Targum? .......................................................... 7 1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature ...................... 7 2. The character of Targum as a Bible translation according to rabbinic literature .......................................................................... 14 3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources ............................................................................ 15 4. Modern definitions . ........................................................................ 16 5. Different targum types .................................................................... 21 6. Targum characteristics ................................................................... 25 7. Qumran Aramaic versions . ............................................................ 27 B. Background to the Targums . ........................................................... 32 1. The raison d’être . ............................................................................. 32 2. Sitz im Leben . ................................................................................... 35 C. Survey and Conclusions ................................................................... 39

vi

contents

Chapter Two – Tosefta Targums and Other Targumic Traditions to the Books of Samuel ......................................................................... 41 A. Survey of Previous Research on the Tosefta Targums ................. 42 1. Excursus: the case of the Pentateuch . ............................................ 46 B. Piyyut . ................................................................................................. 48 1. Aramaic poetry . ............................................................................... 50 C. Description of the Corpus . .............................................................. 54 1. The main sources .............................................................................. 56 2. Distribution among the sources .................................................... 60 D. Characterisation of the Toseftan Material According to their Designations ........................................................................................... 61 1. Sefer aer .......................................................................................... 61 2. Lishna Aerina ................................................................................ 78 3. Jerushalmi . ....................................................................................... 82 4. Tosefta . ............................................................................................. 97 5. No special designation . ................................................................. 108 6. Special cases .................................................................................... 113 E. Survey and Conclusions . ................................................................. 131 1. Do all the Tosefta Targums treated here deserve their name? ... 131 2. Are there linguistic tendencies to be noted in the toseftan material? . ...................................................................................... 134 3. Are there other common tendencies to be discovered in the toseftan material? ......................................................................... 134 Chapter Three – Quotations of Targumic Passages from the Prophets in Rabbinic and Medieval Sources .................................... 137 A. Survey of Previous Research on Targumic Quotations .............. 137 B. How to Define a Quotation ............................................................ 142 1. Explicit quotations ......................................................................... 144 2. Implicit quotations ........................................................................ 147 3. Philological interpretation of biblical words . .............................. 152

contents

vii

C. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew Quotations ................ 153 D. Sources: Characterisation of the Material in the Different Sources ................................................................................................... 155 1. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch . ............................................................................. 155 2. Quotations from the Prophets in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles . ........................................................................ 172 3. Quotations from the Prophets in the Tosefta Targums . ............. 181 4. Quotations from the Prophets in magical texts .......................... 192 5. Quotations from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud . ...... 194 6. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud ........ 208 7. Quotations in the Midrashim ....................................................... 214 E. Survey and Conclusions . ................................................................. 231 Chapter Four – Summary and Conclusions ....................................... 235 A. Evaluation of the Terminology . ..................................................... 235 B. Assessment of the Variants . ........................................................... 237 C. The Origin and Early Development of the Targum of the Prophets ................................................................................................ 238 1. The common opinion ..................................................................... 239 2. Evaluation of the evidence . ......................................................... 240 3. Sitz im Leben .................................................................................. 247 4. Epilogue .......................................................................................... 249 Appendix One – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Order of the Works in which they Appear ....................................... 251 A. Targum, Magical Texts and Rabbinic Literature ......................... 251 1. Targum ............................................................................................ 251 2. Magical texts ................................................................................... 253 3. Talmud . .......................................................................................... 254 4. Midrash ........................................................................................... 255

viii

contents

B. Medieval Works ............................................................................... 257 1. Late Midrash and Kabbalah . ....................................................... 257 2. Dictionaries and lexical works . ................................................... 258 3. Bible and Bible commentaries ...................................................... 261 4. Tosafot and other commentaries on rabbinic literature . .......... 263 5. Piyyut and prayer books ............................................................... 264 Appendix Two – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Biblical Order ....................................................................................... 266 Bibliography . .......................................................................................... 270 Primary Literature ............................................................................... 270 Secondary Literature . .......................................................................... 276 Index of Primary Sources ..................................................................... 290 Biblical References . .............................................................................. 290 Early Christian Literature ................................................................... 299 Early Jewish Literature . ....................................................................... 299 Rabbinic Literature . ............................................................................. 299 Medieval Literature .............................................................................. 304

Acknowledgements It is a pleasant duty to express at this point our gratitude to a number of people and institutions that played an indispensable role in the realisation of this work. We are indebted to The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and The Protestant Theological University (PThU) for their generous financial support without which this work would have been impossible. We wish to thank Gerard van Zanden for the correction of the text, the editing of the layout, and the production of the index. He did a wonderful job in turning a demanding two-authored manuscript into a uniform book. It was a pleasure working with him. We are indebted to Johanna Tanja who checked the information on the Targum manuscripts and to Joop van Klink for his selfless advise in computer matters. Helen Richardson corrected our English. Hector Patmore read the last version of the manuscript, and his critical eye detected some remaining flaws. Our colleagues from the Targum research group in Kampen, under the mild guidance of Jan Wim Wesselius, contributed to the realisation of this book by the friendly and stimulating interest they took in our work. Apart from the members mentioned already, we name David Kroeze, Renaud Kuty, Rinske Scholten and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman. Especially Eveline’s knowledge of Targum Samuel was of great help to us. Our work relies heavily on previous work by the Israeli scholars Moshe Goshen-Gottstein of blessed memory and Rimon Kasher. Without their pioneering work our task would have been much harder. We are very grateful to the members of the editorial board of Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture for accepting this work into their series and to Brill Academic Publishers for working our manuscript into a well-finished book. Last but not least we especially offer our gratitude to the initiator of Targum studies in Kampen, Professor Johannes C. de Moor. Without his initiative and his contagious enthusiasm there would probably never have been a Targum research group in Kampen and this book would perhaps not have been written. In appreciation of all his efforts and his great learning, we dedicate this work to him. Amersfoort, March 2009

Abbreviations and Signs 1. Bible and Targum CGF FT(s) FTN

Cairo Genizah Fragments Fragment Targum(s) Fragment Targum, ms Nürnberg — Stadtsbibliothek Solger 2.2 FTP Fragment Targum, ms Paris — Bibliothèque Nationale Hébr. 110 FTV Fragment Targum, ms Vatican Ebr. 440 HT Hebrew text of the Bible, not necessarily the MT MT Masoretic text Neof Targum Neofiti Neof [M] Targum Neofiti, marginal glosses NT New Testament PsJon Pseudo-Jonathan PT(s) Palestinian Targum(s) Tg Targum TJ Targum Jonathan TO Targum Onkelos TT(s) Tosefta Targum(s)

2. Rabbinic Literature AgBer Aggadat Bereshit ARN Avot de Rabbi Nathan b. Babylonian Talmud BerRabbati Bereshit Rabbati DeutR Deuteronomy Rabbah EcclR Ecclesiastes Rabbah EcclZ Ecclesiastes Zutta ExodR Exodus Rabbah CantR Song of Songs Rabbah GenR Genesis Rabbah LamR Lamentations Rabbah LevR Leviticus Rabbah m. Mishnah MasSof Massekhet Soferim

xii

abbreviations

Mek Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael MidrPss Midrash Psalms MidrSam Midrash Samuel MRS Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai . NumR Numbers Rabbah PesR Pesikta Rabbati PRE Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer PRK Pesikta de-Rav Kahana RuthR Ruth Rabbah SER Seder Eliahu Rabbah SifrDeut Sifre Deuteronomy SifrNum Sifre Numbers t. Tosefta Tan Tanhuma . TanB Tanhuma Buber . y. Palestinian Talmud YalkSh Yalkut Shimoni

3. Journals, Books & Series AS Aramaic Studies BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BThB Biblical Theology Bulletin CAL Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica FJB Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge GGA Göttingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen GNB96 Groot Nieuws Bijbel 1996 HAR Hebrew Annual Review IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAB Journal for the Aramaic Bible JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBA M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan 2002 JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

abbreviations

xiii

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPA M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990 JPS Jewish Publication Society translation 1985 JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSS Journal of Semitic Studies LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum M Edn Margulies LevR MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums NBG51 Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap vertaling 1951 NBV De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling 2004 NTS New Testament Studies RB Revue Biblique REJ Revue des Études Juives RQ Revue de Qumran SC Sources Chrétiennes Th-A Edn Theodor-Albeck GenR TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie WBC World Biblical Commentary WCJS World Congress of Jewish Studies WO Die Welt des Orients WV95 Willibrordvertaling, revised edition 1995 WZJT Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts     [‫ ]א‬     [  ]     [? ]          (  )      {‫ }א‬

textual emendation missing text difficult to read completion by the editor text to be erased completion by the copyist

Introduction Why this book? In Kampen, the Netherlands, we have a history of Targum studies. In 1987 Johannes de Moor started a long-term project for the production of a bilingual concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, which was completed in 2005.1 Parallel to this assignment a series of smaller projects was initiated for in-depth studies of individual books of Targum Jonathan. In the course of these projects the members of the team discovered that there is a shortage of knowledge on the origin and development of Targum Jonathan. On the one hand, the limited variation in the manuscript tradition of Targum Jonathan suggests that once the text assumed its final form great care was taken to preserve this form. On the other hand, the period before the fixation of the text is veiled in mist. Internal evidence, such as historical allusions and diverse theological tendencies, suggests a long formative period. External evidence, in particular the finds in Qumran, points to an early existence of Aramaic Bible translations. That is about all we know. It is self-evident that study of contemporary literary sources as well as modern secondary literature on the subject is necessary for the investigation into the development of Targum Jonathan. But that is not enough; new investigation of the primary sources is needed as well. In our view there are two possible keys to open up the formative period, namely the Tosefta Targums and targumic quotations that are found in rabbinic and medieval Jewish literature. In the present study we will try out the possibilities and limits of this approach. A second reason why we embarked on this project is the need for a classification of targumic variants for new critical editions. At the 2001 congress of the International Organization for Targumic Studies (iots) in Basel, the participants established a working group to explore the feasibility of creating a consistent set of text editions for all rabbinic Targums. This was called the Targum Edition Exploratory Committee (teec).2 Its first charge was to determine whether such a project 1  J.C. de Moor et al. (eds), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 Vols, Leiden [etc.], 1995–2005. 2  The committee existed of Moshe Bernstein, Luis Díez Merino, Paul Flesher, Alberdina Houtman (chair), Rimon Kasher, Stephen Kaufman and Willem Smelik.

2

introduction

was feasible, and if so, to set out specific goals and to devise a process and an administrative structure to accomplish it. The committee determined that a text edition project was both desirable and possible, provided that sufficient funds could be raised and human resources recruited, and wrote a proposal for its realisation by the name of ITTEP (International Targum Text Edition Project).3 At the 2004 congress of the iots this proposal was accepted. It was clear, however, that more preliminary work was needed before this enterprise could really start. Amongst other things a design had to be made for the classification of variant readings. Any new project should not only employ the technological advances of the past twenty-five years, but also represent a genuine advance in textual criticism. An active assessment of the different readings, aimed at inferring the base from which variants were generated and the genealogical relationship among the variants, was set out to be the principal goal of the project. For that reason, documentary assessment, Targum by Targum, would need to be coordinated with an evaluation of the criteria of adjudication. In that way, the project would offer a basis for the study of the history of interpretation as well as textual and linguistic study. Only on the basis of the assessment of the variants could it be decided whether they should be incorporated in the apparatus and what place and value they should be given. With the present work, which endeavours to study and classify variant traditions in the Targum of the Prophets, we hope to contribute to a better assessment of part of the variant readings of the Prophets in the build-up to a new critical edition of Targum Jonathan. In the course of our investigations, we also felt the need to think through the terminology used in this field of study, especially the terms ‘t/Targum’, ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘quotation’ since it is not always clear what is meant by these terms. Therefore part of our work is devoted to matters of definition.

What to expect? As mentioned above, we believe that there are two lines of research that can possibly shed light on the formative period, namely (1) investigation into the Tosefta Targums and (2) study of the quotations from alternative Targum traditions that occur in rabbinic and medieval 3  http://targum.info/IOTS/TEECprop36.pdf (accessed Oct. 31, 2008).

introduction

3

Jewish literature. Let us briefly explain what we mean, starting with the Tosefta Targums. The origin of the Tosefta Targums and their relation to Targum Jonathan is still largely unexplained. As regards their contents they seem to be rooted in Palestine, while some of them also reflect some knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud and late Midrashim, though the evidence is not entirely conclusive.4 Their language also exhibits at times a Babylonian influence.5 These seemingly contradictory characteristics are hard to reconcile. In rough outline there are three possibilities: (1) the Tosefta Targums may contain ancient traditions that have been adapted to a more formal style at a later date; (2) they may be later extensions of an originally formal translation; or (3) they may be alternative translations that existed alongside the formal translations and probably had another function. If the first case holds true, then part of the pre-history of Targum Jonathan could well be recoverable through an analysis of these Toseftas as possible remnants of the older Palestinian Targum tradition. We must though also consider the possibility that the Toseftas are not a corpus at all, but that they are rather a stray collection of all kinds of targumic traditions, varying from old traditions that for one reason or another did not become part of Targum Jonathan to younger traditions that are the result of later developments. The second line of research concerns the targumic quotations in other Jewish sources. In view of the numerous quotes in rabbinic and medieval exegetical works, it is clear that the ancient Aramaic interpretations played an important role in the work of later exegetes. The interesting point now is that besides numerous more or less literal quotations from Targum Jonathan, there are also quotations that have no parallel in this corpus. These quotations may turn out to be of considerable importance for the reconstruction of possible precursors of Targum Jonathan. In any case they show that the material surviving in Targum Jonathan is only a portion of an originally larger body of targumic traditions.

4  See e.g. W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden 1995, 1–23, 163–65, 643–45. 5  See e.g. A. Tal, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200; R. Kasher, ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 14–16.

4

introduction

Although it is because of the briefness of some of the quotations not always possible to classify the material dialectically, part of it is decidedly Palestinian. Therefore, with these fragments of what GoshenGottstein coined ‘lost targums’ we now have Palestinian-type renderings of the Targum to the Prophets where hitherto we only had Targum Jonathan and the Tosefta Targums.6 In our view, the Tosefta Targums and the ‘lost targums’ must be analysed in relation to the text of Targum Jonathan. The material must be studied as concerns its linguistic usage as well as its cultural and theological content. Though of course we are not the first to try this approach, we are the first to combine the two lines of research in one study. In the following chapters we will give amongst other things an overview of the work that has already been done. The major studies on the subject are the book of Rimon Kasher on the Tosefta Targums and of the late Moshe Goshen-Gottstein on the fragments of lost targums.7 Both studies are in Hebrew, and therefore regrettably not as easily accessible as desirable. Moreover the books are currently unavailable. Also some of the other — especially the older — scholarly publications are not always easy to get to. In the present study therefore we bring together older knowledge and insights and in the process try to advance knowledge of the subject. The combination of the two lines of research, the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations, will hopefully shed new light on the long-standing question of whether the different traditions should be interpreted as converging or diverging tendencies within the evolution of the text, or as representing two different traditions each with its own typologically different variants. Moreover, we hope that our investigations will bring us nearer to an answer to the question of whether there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. For reasons of efficiency we decided to concentrate our research on the Tosefta Targums to Targum Samuel, because our colleague Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman is working on a pilot project for a new scholarly 6  M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Aspects of Targum Studies’, 9th WCJS, Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 35–44, at 39. His collection of ‘lost Targums’ was published in: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא‬ ‫הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989. 7  R. Kasher, ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996; M. Goshen-Gottstein (with the assistance of Rimon Kasher), ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, RamatGan, 1983–1989.

introduction

5

edition of that Targum. By focussing on evidence for Targum Samuel our finds can be helpful to her work. In turn her experience on the manuscript material of this Targum may shed light on our subject of research. The chapter on the targumic quotations on the other hand includes targumic quotations from all the Books of the Prophets in targumic and rabbinic literature and in magical texts. The set-up of this book is as follows. After the present short account of the reasons for this book and its methodological approach, we proceed with Chapter One in which some introductory issues are dealt with, such as: what is (a) t/Targum; why did it come into being; and how was it used? In Chapter Two we deal with the Tosefta Targums to the Books of Samuel. We will survey previous work on the Tosefta Targums and attempt to characterise the toseftan material on Samuel according to the main sources. We will also see whether all traditions that are generally included in the designation ‘Tosefta Targum’ deserve their name. In Chapter Three we deal with the targumic quotations. Also here we start with a survey of previous research. Next, we deal with the question of definition. Finally, we give a characterisation of the material in the different sources. In the final chapter we combine the findings of the preceding chapters and try to come to some conclusions concerning the status of the variant targumic material and what this may mean for the origin and development of Targum Jonathan. In an appendix all the known targumic quotations from the Prophets are listed, both from the material treated in this study as well as from medieval Jewish works.

Chapter One

Preliminary Issues Before we can start with the presentation of our research, some introductory questions have to be dealt with, namely: what is (a) t/Targum,1 why did it come into being, and how was it used? In this chapter we will sketch in broad outlines the state of research on these issues and position ourselves within the discussion.

A. Definition: What is a Targum? The term ‘targum’ has a very wide spectrum of meaning and has been used indiscriminately for all kinds of Aramaic renderings of Scripture, ranging from the relatively literal Targum Onkelos to the free, midrashlike Aramaic translations of the Writings, while it is sometimes even used to denote a work such as the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon. In this section we will investigate how the term has been used in ancient and modern times and how we can possibly come to a more precise definition. We will start by describing how the word was used in ancient rabbinic literature. Then we will focus on its meaning as a Bible translation. We will first see how the rabbis evaluated t/Targum in the sense of Bible translation and then consult some non-rabbinic sources on the subject. Next we turn to a few modern definitions and see whether they can be used for our purposes. Finally we will consider some borderline cases, namely the Qumran Aramaic versions. The Tosefta Targums, which make up another special case, deserve more attention than can be given here and will therefore be discussed in closer detail in Chapter Two.

1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature In rough outline, √‫ תרגם‬can have two different meanings: (1) ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and (2) ‘to translate, interpret’.2 This broad 1  We write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic. 2  See also Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al.

8

chapter one

semantic field allows the verb and its related nouns to be used in quite a few different ways. We recount the different possibilities with some examples.

1.1. Aramaic language In some cases the word ‘targum’ is used for words or passages in the Bible that are originally in Aramaic. It becomes then synonymous with ‘Aramaic’ and has nothing to do with translation. We give two examples. The first example comes from a tannaitic source, m.Yad 4:5,3 where it says: ‫תרגום שבעזרא ושבדניאל מטמא את הידים תרגום שכתבו עברית ועברית שכתבו‬ ‫תרגום וכתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים לעולם אינו מטמא עד שיכתבנו אשורית‬ :‫על העור ובדיו‬ ‘Targum’ that is in Ezra and in Daniel renders the hands unclean. ‘Targum’ that has been written in Hebrew script,4 or Hebrew that has been written in ‘targum’5 or in Hebrew script, does not render the hands unclean. It never renders the hands unclean unless it is written in Assyrian script, on leather, and in ink.

The second example is taken from a much later source, namely the post-talmudic Massekhet Soferim 1:9–10. This text prescribes how to treat foreign words in the Bible text. ‫ כל‬,‫ והכי קאמר‬,‫ אלא שיש בה ששה דברים של תרגום‬,‫כל התורה כולה עברית היא‬ ,‫ שהדותא‬,‫ גל‬,‫ כגון יגר‬,‫ ושל תרגום אל יהפכם‬,‫הדברים של עברית אל יכתוב תרגום‬ ,‫ שהן שני לשונות‬,‫ ויש אומרים לא דברו אלא על יגר שהדותא ועל גלעד‬,‫עדות‬ ‫עיברית ותרגום‬ The whole Torah is completely in Hebrew, but it contains six words of ‘targum’. And thus it says: all the words in Hebrew one should not write in ‘targum’, and in ‘targum’ one should not reverse them, such as ‫ יגר‬versus ‫ גל‬and ‫ שהדותא‬versus ‫עדות‬. And there are some who say, that they did only say this about ‫ יגר שהדותא‬and ‫ גלעד‬because there it concerns two languages, Hebrew and ‘targum’. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 243–78, at 244–45. For the origin of the word targum, see e.g. F. Starke, ‘Zur Herkunft von akkad. ta / urgumannu(m) “Dolmetscher”’, WO 24 (1993), 20–39. 3  Slightly different versions of this tradition occur in b.Meg 8b–9a and in b.Shab 115b. For a discussion of the differences, see W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, two parts, Hildesheim 1965, I.205. 4  I.e. the ancient Hebrew characters as opposed to the so-called Assyrian script. 5  Here the word must mean ‘Aramaic translation’.

preliminary issues

9

Here, just as in the previous example, it is clear that the word ‘targum’ should be interpreted as Aramaic language. Even up to the present day in some cultural contexts ‘targum’ is regarded as synonymous with Aramaic to such an extent that the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Kurdistan refer to their language as ‘targum’.6

1.2. Translation in general Technically speaking words deriving from the field √‫ תרגם‬can apply to the act of translating from and into any language. For instance, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt in the Targums to Genesis 42:23, the Hebrew word ‫‘ מליץ‬interpreter’ is translated as ‫ תורגמן‬/ ‫מתורגמן‬.7 In rabbinic literature, however, the words are used almost exclusively for the translation of the Bible, and even more specifically, for the translation of the Bible into Aramaic. In some cases, however, the words are also employed for translations into Greek. In Palestinian rabbinic literature there are, for example, quite a few references to the translation practice of Aquila (‫)תירגם עקילס‬.8 This ‘targum’ was a Greek translation of the Bible that was prepared by Aquila the Proselyte around 125 ce, probably under rabbinic supervision. This revision was well appreciated among the Greek-speaking Jews for whom it was a welcome replacement for the Septuagint that had been adopted for use by the young Christian church as the authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly, in the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash-collections the translation of Aquila is often mentioned in a positive way. For example, within a discussion on Greek Bible translations, R. Jeremiah in the name of R. iyya bar Ba said:9 ‫תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר' אליעזר ולפני ר' יהושע וקילסו אותו‬ Aquilas the Proselyte translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and before R. Joshua, and they praised him. 6  See e.g. E. Brauer, The Jews of Kurdistan (completed and edited by Raphael Patai), Detroit 1993, 20–21, 49. 7  See Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245. 8  G. Veltri, ‘Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Ein Beitrag zum rabbinischen Übersetzungsverständnis’, in: M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 1994, 92­–115. 9  y.Meg 1:8, 71c. In b.Meg 3a there is a parallel tradition that attributes the translation to Onkelos. This is probably just a corruption of Aquilas. See P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988, 217–53, at 217–18.

10

chapter one

1.3. Oral translation in the synagogue At a certain point in time, probably the period following the second Jewish Revolt,10 a habit was established to translate the weekly Torah reading and its prophetic complement orally into Aramaic.11 This translation, which went by the name targum, was to be recited after every verse of the weekly portion of the Torah, and after every third verse of the haftarah reading.12 Particular portions of the Bible, although read, were not translated while others were neither read nor translated. The oral character was stressed in later sources by forbidding the reader to prompt the meturgeman, lest anyone should say that the targum was included in the text of the Bible and thus belonged to the Written Torah.13 1.4. Written Targum Targum also served a purpose in private devotional study and in the school system.14 For this purpose written copies were in circulation. From the Qumran finds it is known that written Aramaic translations were already in use during the Second Temple Period. Moreover, there is a well-known story in the Talmud about Rabban Gamaliel Berabbi who was found sitting at the table of Yoanan ben Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand. When he was told by R. alafta that his grandfather once instructed builders to suppress a 10  It is not definitely certain when this started. Zeev Safrai has suggested on good grounds that the origin of the custom probably lies in the Ushan period. See Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246. 11  See e.g. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Hildesheim 1966 (repr. of Frankfurt am Main 1892), 344; P.S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, Leiden 1985, 14–28, esp. 23–26; S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86. The rules for reading the Targum are formulated in the early tannaitic sources like the Mishnah and the Tosefta. See esp. m.Meg 4:4, 6, 10 and t.Meg 3:20, 21, 28, 31–41. They are worked out in more detail in the Talmuds ad locum. 12  For some background and exceptions to this rule, see e.g. W.F. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction and the Targums’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81, esp. 52–60. 13  See the remark of Ulla in b.Meg 32a. 14  See e.g. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23.

preliminary issues

11

Targum of Job beneath a layer of stones, he too gave orders to store his Targum away.15

1.5. Interpretation In the Babylonian Talmud the verb √‫ תרגם‬frequently involves interpretation of halakhic traditions.16 It occurs in this sense about 140 times concerning mishnayot, beraitot and amoraic statements, whereas in the Palestinian Talmud it occurs only 7 times in this sense.17 Let us look at one example from the Babylonian Talmud. In b.RhS 18a the gemara gives an explanation of the difficult expression of m.RhS 1:2 ‘On New Year all that come into the world pass before Him like the children of Maron’: ‫מאי כבני מרון? הכא תרגימו כבני אמרנא‬ What is meant by ‘like the children of Maron’? In Babylonia it is interpreted as ‘like sheep’.

Apparently the word Maron is here connected with Aramaic ‘sheep’.18 Like sheep that pass through a wicket to be counted one by one, so all creatures will pass in a single file, one by one, before their Creator to be judged.

1.6. Preaching 19 In the Palestinian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah we find a story about Yose Meoni who ‘interpreted’ (‫ )תירגם‬in the synagogue of Tiberias.20 From the context one gets the undeniable impression that it means here that he preached. The text from the Palestinian Talmud reads: ‫ למה לית אתון לעין‬."‫ "שמעו זאת הכהנים‬.‫תירגם יוסי מעוני בכנישתא בטיבריה‬ '‫באוריית‬ 15  b.Shab 115a. See also t.Shab 13:2 (edn Lieberman); y.Shab 16:1, 15c; MasSof 15:2. The story is used there as an argument in the discussion whether translated Scripture has the same degree of holiness as Hebrew Scripture. For an illuminating discussion on this issue, see W.F. Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah’, JAB 1 (1999), 249–72. 16  See Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, II.42–44; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 244 sub 1; W.F. Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–224, at 201. 17  See Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, 201. 18  See Sokoloff, JBA, 234. 19  See H. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, Tübingen 1996, 13–14; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245 sub 2. 20  y.Sanh 2:5, 20c; GenR 80:1 (Th- A 950).

12

chapter one Yose Meoni preached (‫ )תירגם‬in the synagogue of Tiberias: ‘Hear this, O priests’.21 Why do you not labour in the Torah?

What follows is an attack on the Jewish rulers who deny the priests their rights on the basis of an interpretation of the same Bible text. It is not entirely clear whether the noun ‘targum’ in Sifra Shemini 1:9 also has this shade of meaning.22 The Sifra-text in question deals with Lev 10:10–11 that prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages by the priests because they ‘must teach the Israelites all the laws which the Lord has imparted to them through Moses’. The text discusses whether ‘targum’ should be considered teaching in the sense meant in Leviticus. The text according to the printed edition excludes ‘targum’ from this category, but there are several textual witnesses that include it. Apparently there were shifting attitudes towards t/Targum as source of public teaching.23

1.7. Mouth-piece The noun ‘meturgeman’, or ‘turgeman’, may — apart from its meaning as translator — also refer to someone who transmits the lesson of his rabbi to a larger audience.24 In this sense it is a synonym for Amora.25 When a sage lectured to his students, it was customary for him not to address them directly but through a meturgeman /Amora. He whispered his words to his assistant, who then articulated them aloud to the public. This usage combines the two basic meanings ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and ‘to translate, interpret’, because the meturgeman /Amora not only made the words of the sage audible to the public, he also explained and rephrased them in language that was understandable to the audience. It seems probable that this relationship between a rabbi and his spokesman is inspired by the relationship between Moses and Aaron.26 In Exod 4:15–16 it says: 21  Hos 5:1. Unless stated differently, the English translations of the Bible in this book are according to the New JPS Translation, Philadephia 1985. 22  For the text, see J.H. Weiss, Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus, Wien 1862, 46d. 23  See for a full discussion of this text S.D. Fraade, ‘Scripture, Targum, and Talmud as Instruction: A Complex Textual Story from the Sifra’, in: J. Magness & S. Gitin, Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, Atlanta 1998, 109–21. 24  See e.g. b.Sot 37b, b.Taan 4b. 25  See Zunz, Vorträge, 350–51; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14. 26  See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24–25; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14.

preliminary issues

13

(15) You shall speak to him and put the words into his mouth — I will be with you and with him as you speak, and tell both of you what to do — (16) and he shall speak for you to the people. Thus he shall serve as your spokesman,27 with you playing the role of God to him.

In Targum Onkelos the last verse half is interpreted as ‘thus he shall be a meturgeman for you, with you playing the role of master (‫ )רב‬to him.’ The same interpretation also occurs in Targum Onkelos to Exod 7:1.28

1.8. To proclaim Quite another use of the basic meaning ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ can be found in Leviticus Rabbah, where it says:29 ‫אוילים יליץ אשם א' ר' יודן הטיפש הזה מתרגם חובתו מפיו ואמ' לא חטאת אני‬ ‫חייב ולא אשם אני חייב‬ ‘Fools mock at guilt’.30 R. Judan said: That fool proclaims (‫ )מתרגם‬his guilt from his own mouth and says ‘am I not bound to bring a sinoffering and am I not bound to bring a guilt-offering?’

1.9. ‫שגיון‬ In Targum Psalms 7:1 we encounter an extraordinary and unique use of the word ‘targum’, namely as a substitute word for the Hebrew ‫שגיון‬. It is not entirely clear what the Hebrew word means. Some modern translations leave it as it is by rendering ‘Shiggaion of David’.31 Others choose a neutral term like ‘meditation’.32 Most modern Dutch translations interpret it as ‘dirge’ (klaaglied).33 The targumic reading is probably based upon an interpretation of the word as an abstract noun of the verb √‫ שאג‬meaning ‘to roar, shout’. As we have seen above, √‫תרגם‬ also has a connotation of loud speech. In this sense it can be used as an equivalent for the word ‫שגיון‬. The meturgeman of this Psalm, however, did not leave it at that, but specified more particularly. In his view it ְ 27  Literally ‘as mouth’ (‫)ל ֶפה‬. 28  See for the meaning of this passage for the understanding of the targumic genre from the perspective of descriptive translation studies, S.D. Fraade, ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006), 69–91, esp. 85–91. 29  LevR 9:5 (edn Margulies, I.180–81). 30  Prov 14:9a. 31  King James Version, Jewish Publication Society. 32  World English Bible. 33  NBG51, WV95, GNB96, NBV.

14

chapter one

was not just ‘a shout’ or ‘an exclamation’, but rather ‘an exclamation of thanksgiving’, ‫תירגמא דאודיתא‬.34

2. The character of Targum as a Bible translation according to rabbinic literature The familiar statement of R. Yehudah bar Ilai in t.Meg 3:41 teaches that ‫המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדי והמוסיף הרי זה מגדף‬, ‘He who translates a verse literally is a liar, while he who adds anything thereto is a blasphemer’.35 From this may be deduced that a targum in its ideal form was not a literal translation, but rather an interpretative rendition. The interpretation, however, should always be solely based on Scripture. A later talmudic commentary on the passage defines Targum as follows: ‫‘ אלא מאי תרגום תרגום דידן‬If so, which is (the proper) Targum? Our Targum!’,36 meaning the official Targum Onkelos.37 Obviously a point had been reached where the rabbis wanted to check further diversification of Targums and establish a single authoritative text that had to meet the requests outlined in the Tosefta text cited above. Nevertheless, in the course of time some elaborate targum traditions that did not appear in the official Targums became quite popular, especially around the feasts. This practice was defended in the Middle Ages by Juda ben Barzillai as follows: ‫ותרגום של ארץ ישראל שיש בו תוספות הגדות הוסיפו החזנין שלהן מחמתן ואמרו‬ 38.‫שמותר לאומרו בבית הכנסת מפני שפירוש הוא‬ And the Targum of the Land of Israel, in which there are aggadic additions, the azanim ­­­­added from them spontaneously and said that it is allowed to tell them in the synagogue because it is explanation.

This shows that in actual practice, at least in the Middle Ages, the more elaborate Palestinian targum traditions were tolerated, because they were presented as an explanation of the liturgical reading rather than 34  See D.M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004, 35. Ed Cook in his Internet translation opted for the more traditional meaning of ‘targum’ by translating ‘A rendition of the thanksgiving of David’ (http: /  / targum.info / pss / ps1.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2008)). Although this certainly is a possible translation, it does not explain the relation to the Hebrew text. 35  This baraita is preserved in a slightly different form in b.Qid 49a. 36  b.Qid 49a. 37  And probably also Targum Jonathan. 38  ‫ספר העתים‬, ms Halberstamm as cited in G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdischpalästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 30. This text dates from ± 1100 ce.

preliminary issues

15

as a translation. The targum that served as a translation of the liturgical reading, however, had to conform to the rule of R. Yehudah bar Ilai. So, a distinction was drawn between targum that served as a translation of Scripture and targum that served as an explanation of the same. From the words of R. Yehudah bar Ilai it seems that the meturgemanim’s guideline was the doctrine of the universal truth of Scripture.39 This doctrine implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations.40 It is this tenet that not only allowed, but also incited the meturgemanim to proceed as they did. What we now consider additions may have been considered necessary circumlocutions by the meturgemanim. The accepted characteristics of the official Targums, as described below in section 6, can easily be explained from this supposition.

3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources Early Christian sources speak about Jewish Bible translations, though not about the Aramaic Targums. This is not surprising, since the Greek translations were obviously more easily accessible to them than the Aramaic ones because of the language barrier. Above, we mentioned the Greek translation of Aquila that was popular among the Greekspeaking Jewish society. The church father Origen criticised this translation because of its hyper-literalness. He called Aquila depreciatively a ‘slave of the Hebrew word’.41 This hyper-literalness was certainly not due to a lack of knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax, since Aquila is known to have had an excellent command of that language. Therefore, there must have been more compelling reasons to stay as close as this to the Hebrew. One reason may have been the sacred character of the text in which every element was considered meaningful: not only the words themselves, but also their order within the verse.42 The 39  See A. Goldberg, ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’, in: P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, Sheffield 1990, 153–66. This essay was originally published in German: ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’, FJB 15 (1987), 1–15; A. Samely, ‘Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency’, JSS 37 (1992), 167– 205, esp. 191–94; D.I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, Tübingen 1992, esp. 212–25. 40  This is also reflected in the NT, e.g. Mat 5:17–18 and Luke 16:17. 41  Origen, Ad Afric., 4 (SC 302, 526). 42  Another reason was suggested by Alexander, by positing that the translation

16

chapter one

significance of the word order was also recognised by Jerome, who was a Bible translator himself. In his letter to Pammachius, on the best method of translating, he defended the preference of a sense for sense paraphrase over a word for word translation. He made, however, one exception, namely ‘the case of the holy Scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery’.43 Apparently he considered the word order to be inspired. In the same letter, Jerome criticised Aquila for his attempt ‘to translate not words only but their etymologies as well’.44 The example he gave is Deut 7:13, where Aquila conveyed the etymology of the Hebrew words rather than their plain meaning. He went on then to criticise Aquila because he translated even particles in the Hebrew that are generally not translated, such as the object marker. As an example he gave Aquila’s rendering of Gen 1:1, where the Hebrew particle ‫את‬, here clearly an object marker, had been translated by the Greek preposition σύν, ‘with’.45 Thus, cloaked in their criticism, these two church fathers gave us three characteristics of the translation of Aquila that are also known from the Aramaic Targums: (1) The translation is a word for word translation that preserves the original word order; (2) Aquila tried not only to give the plain meaning of the words, but also their supposed original or associated meanings; (3) Aquila translated every single element of the Hebrew text, in accordance with the rule that nothing in the Bible is meaningless.

4. Modern definitions In modern times, several attempts have been made to give a definition of Targum. Not surprisingly the definitions concentrate on the concepts ‘Bible translation’ and ‘Aramaic’. Within these boundaries, however, there are still several possibilities. The most important difference is whether or not to restrict the term Targum to Jewish translations or to include Christian translations as well. Roger le Déaut, for instance, chose to reserve the term for Jewish translations. He wrote: probably served as a crib for the Greek speaking Jews to learn Hebrew. See P.S. Alexander, ‘How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 71–89, at 83. 43  Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 5 (CSEL 54, 508). 44  Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 11 (CSEL 54, 523). 45  For a discussion of Aquila’s translation of ‫את‬, see L.L. Grabbe, ‘Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 33 / 1–2 (1982), 527–36, at 532–33.

preliminary issues

17

… il désigne la traduction d’un texte biblique en araméen (ce qui exclut la Septante), fait par des Juifs pour des Juifs (ce qui élimine la Peshitta, dans son ensemble) pour l’usage dans le culte synagogal ou l’enseignement.46

Klaus Beyer, on the other hand, kept the way open for Christian translations: Unter Targumen versteht man die jüdisch-aramäischen Übersetzungen des Alten Testaments, im weiterem Sinne auch die christlicharamäischen.47

The specific translational character of the Targums is generally not touched upon in the definition. Lately Alexander Samely filled this lacuna by proposing a definition that does justice to the interpretative aspect of the targumic translations: Targum is an Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.48

Samely’s approach is in a way a breakthrough, because it concentrates on the character of Targum rather than on its origin and function. This is an advantage over the earlier definitions. It lacks, however, information on the cultural background. In our view, a definition should contain at least the aspects of cultural background and character. The third aspect of function is interesting, but at this stage not necessary for our purposes. As regards the background, it seems prudent to reserve the term, as Le Déaut does, for Jewish Aramaic Bible translations in order not to make the field too wide. Moreover, it is clear that in the works that are generally accorded the name ‘Targum’, the Jewish cultural background plays a dominant role without which they cannot be understood. Let us add, therefore, the word ‘Jewish’ to the proposed definition: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.

This definition is, however, still rather broad and does not help to solve the question of whether or not, for example, the Genesis Apocryphon may be called a Targum or not. Since nowadays there is a consensus 46  R. le Déaut, ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in: R. Kuntzmann & J. Schlosser (eds), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, Paris 1984, 147–95, at 153. 47  K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1983, 273. 48  A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums, Tübingen 1992, 180.

18

chapter one

that the Genesis Apocryphon is not a Targum, we must try to define where the difference lies. It seems to rest on the fact that the undisputed Targums follow the Hebrew text slavishly in its exact wording. Although they sometimes give an interpretative rather than a verbatim translation, nevertheless they always contain some rendering of each Hebrew word in the order in which they appear in the biblical text. So maybe we should sharpen the definition a little more by stressing that it is an interpretative translation of the exact wording, including the word order. This means that the text is translated according to the verbum e verbo method rather than according the sensus de sensu approach. Therefore we prefer to change the term ‘paraphrase’ to ‘interpretative word-by-word translation’, whereby the expression word-byword is used as a means of expressing the fact that each Hebrew word is rendered in its original order. This would lead to the following: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.

This may well serve as an umbrella for all the texts we generally call Targum, but it is still rather wide. We could nuance it still more by defining sub-categories. These sub-categories may be geographical, such as ‘Babylonian Targum’ or ‘Palestinian Targum’, or they may relate to their function, such as ‘liturgical Targum’ or ‘school-Targum’. One could also differentiate between Targums with an official status, such as Onkelos and Jonathan, and Targums that do not have that status, such as the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Another subdivision may be made concerning their completeness. There are comprehensive Targums on one or more complete biblical books, and there are Targums that have only selected texts.49 The last category can be further subdivided into haftarah collections on the one hand and fragmentary Targums and Tosefta Targums on the other. One could also classify according to literary character, selecting relatively literal translations, such as Targum Onkelos, and expansive exegetical translations, such as Targum Writings.50 49  See W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden 1995, 92. 50  Lehman, in his useful article on the Genesis Apocryphon, remarked the following about the character of the different Targums: ‘It may be said that the various Targumim are mainly characterised by the ratio existing between interpretativenarrative portions and strictly translative portions. We have only to compare, e.g. the Targum Sheni to Esther — which deviates into midrashic material throughout its text — and Targum Onqelos which on the whole adheres as literally as possible to the Masoretic text except for occasional use of the interpretative method. Somewhere in

preliminary issues

19

All these possible subdivisions have advantages and disadvantages, dependent on the goal for which they are used. For our goal, i.e. the mutual comparison of different targum traditions, the division according to literary character seems to be the most fruitful, though also a functional subdivision might prove to be useful. Finally, one must be aware that there is an extra complication in the matter of subdivision and classification of t /Targums because the term is used indiscriminately for a literary work and for individual traditions.51 One can talk, for instance, about ‘the Targum of the Prophets’, but also about ‘the different targums of Gen 1:1’. Philip Alexander proposed a division according to external features of targumic extensions, a division that is more suitable for characterising individual traditions than complete literary works. He distinguished two basically different types, which he called type a and type b.52 In his division, type a displays a one-to-one base translation with explanatory additions that can easily be detached. In type b the biblical text is dissolved in paraphrase so that the original wording of the biblical text can hardly be recognised.53 Although this distinction meant a step forward in classing the different types of targum, something essential is missing. His categorisation, as we understand it, encompasses only extended targums. A great part, however, of the Targums Onkelos and Jonathan does not contain any additions, either detachable, or inextricable. In those parts, either a literal translation is given, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each Hebrew word, or an interpretabetween these two extremes we find Targum Jonathan, leaning mainly to the task of translating the text, yet also taking vast midrashic liberties. Targum Yerushalmi belongs even further in the “midrashic” column.’ M.R. Lehman, ‘1 Q Gen. Ap. in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim’, RQ 1 (1958–59), 249–63, at 251. 51  See n. 1. 52  Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 17–21; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Bible Translations’, 228–37. Another, more detailed division is given by Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58. 53  Willem Smelik drew attention to the problems involved in type a. He rightly remarked that although Targum Jonathan as a whole should probably be classified under type a, it turns out that it is not at all easy to identify the pluses indisputably and detach them (W.F. Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets’, JSJ 19 /3 (1998), 245–60, esp. 246–52, 59–60). The same point was raised by David Shepherd, who however focussed less on the division as such, but rather on the assumption that the additions in the type a Targum could be detached at the wish of the meturgeman (D. Shepherd, ‘Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.3–16’, JAB 1 (1999), 125–46).

20

chapter one

tive word-by-word translation is given, in which one or more words are substituted by Aramaic words that are not semantically related. In an illuminating article, Willem Smelik pointed out that Targum Jonathan is characterised by a subtle interplay between pluses and substitutions.54 Basically this holds true for all rabbinic Targums. What distinguishes them is only the ratio between literal translations, pluses and substitutions. If we assume that these two elements, substitutions and additions, are the main building blocks by which an interpretative translation of the Hebrew Bible text can be made, then there are four possible combinations: »  neither of the two means is used »  addition is used, but not substitution »  substitution is used, but not addition »  both substitution and addition are used

The detachability of an addition is connected with the use of substitution. If additions are used without substitutions, then the odds are that the additions are easily detachable without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. These cases would thereby fall under Alexander’s type a. If, on the other hand, a certain targumic interpretation of a verse contains both substitutions and additions, then the odds are that the additions cannot be easily detached, since the whole meaning and structure of the verse will be changed. It would thereby fall under Alexander’s type b. A complicating factor in the classification of targumic types is the occurrence of so-called doublets or multiple renderings. Sometimes a word or expression in the Hebrew text is translated twice or even more times.55 There may be different reasons for this. In some cases, a verb is taken as a double-duty verb if it serves different parts of the verse, socalled gapping.56 In other cases, it seems that the meturgeman wanted 54  See above, n. 53. 55  Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Profeten, Breslau 1872, 39–40; P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927], 139–41; E.Z. Melammed, ‫מפרשי המקרא‬, 2 Vols, Jerusalem 19782, I.331–32; B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti, 2 Vols, Lanham [etc.] 1986, I.52–53; L. Díez Merino, ‘Procedimientos targúmicos’, in: V. Collado-Bertomeu & V. Vilar-Hueso (eds), II. Simposio Bíblico Español (Córdoba 1985), Valencia  &  Cordoba 1987, 461–86, esp. 482–83; Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227; J.C. de Moor, ‘Multiple Renderings in the Targum of Isaiah’, JAB 3 (2001), 161–80. 56  M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 1980, 122–27, 401–4; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 256.

preliminary issues

21

to preserve two different readings of the source text. In still other cases, it seems that the multiple renderings reflect uncertainty on the part of the meturgeman as to the correct interpretation of the Hebrew,57 or that the meturgeman aimed at maximising the sense of Scripture if the Hebrew allowed different interpretations.58 It depends therefore on the situation, whether one or all of the renderings must be seen as a ‘straight translation’, or as a substitution, or whether some of them must be considered an addition. In our view, the main division in these cases should be whether the Aramaic lemmas can be directly linked to a Hebrew lemma or not. If there is no straight link, then the word or phrase concerned must be considered an addition, whereby it depends on the interpretation of the verse as a whole as to whether it must be considered a detachable or an undetachable addition. This complication does, however, not influence the division into four types in a fundamental way. In conclusion we can say that Alexander’s distinction does not suffice to characterise all sorts of targumic interpretation. On the basis of what was stated above, at least two types need to be added, for which we will present a proposal in the following section.

5. Different targum types Instead of the two types proposed by Alexander, we suggest a subdivision into four types that are based upon the combinations we have just discussed.59 For each type examples are given from Targum Jonathan on Samuel.

5.1. Literal word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the Hebrew text, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each Hebrew word. An example of the type is found in 1 Sam 8:1: :‫ָׂשם ֶאת ָּבנָיו ׁש ְֹפ ִטים ְליִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫מּואל ַוּי‬ ֵ ‫ָקן ְׁש‬ ֵ ‫וַיְ ִהי ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ז‬ :‫והוה כד סיב שמואל ומני ית בנוהי דיינין על ישראל‬

mt tj

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons judges over Israel. 57  Smelik, Targum of Judges, 97. 58  Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 59  For another possible subdivision, see Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58.

22

chapter one

5.2. Extended translation with detachable glosses This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the Hebrew text, combined with smaller or larger additions. The additions can be bracketed out without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. Two subtypes can be discerned. In the first subtype the additional material is inserted into the text. To illustrate this we take as an example Targum Jonathan 1 Sam 1:18b. After Hannah had poured out her grief in the Temple and asked God for a son, God promised her through Eli that her request would be granted. Thereupon we read the following: :‫ֶיה – ֹלא ָהיּו ָלּה עֹוד‬ ָ ‫ּופנ‬ ָ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ַּת ֶלְך ָה ִא ָּׁשה ְל ַד ְר ָּכּה ַוּת‬ ֵ‫ו‬ :‫ואזלת אתתא לאורחה ואכלת ואפין בישין לא הוו לה עוד‬

mt tj

The Hebrew may be translated as: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer her countenance.

This is a rather strange sentence, and therefore the Targum chose to add an adjective to the word ‘countenance’, indicating in what way her facial expression had changed after the good news. This led to the following translation: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer a sad countenance.

In the second subtype longer additions precede or follow the actual translation. An example of this approach can be found in 1 Sam 2 in the interpretative translation of the song of Hannah. The verses 2–5 are interpreted as prophecies concerning specific persons or groups. Let us look at 1 Sam 2:2a: – – – – – – – – – – – ‫על סנחריב מלכא דאתור אתנביאת ואמרת דעתיד דיסק הוא וכל חילותיה‬

mt

– – – – – – – – – – – – – ‫על ירושלם ונס סגי יתעביד ביה תמן יפלון פגרי משריתיה בכין יודון כל‬

mt

‫ֵאין ָקדֹוׁש ַּכיהֹוָה ִּכי ֵאין ִּב ְל ֶּתָך‬ – – – – ‫עממיא אומיא ולשניא ויימרון לית דקדיש אלא יוי ארי לית בר מנך‬

mt

tj

tj

tj

The biblical ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You’ is translated as follows:

preliminary issues

23

Concerning Sennacherib, the king of Assyria she prophesied and said that he was to come up against Jerusalem, he and all his armies. And a great miracle would be done through him. There the corpses of his army would fall. Thereupon all peoples and nations of every language would confess saying ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You.’

The biblical text itself is translated fairly literally, but there is a long addition preceding the translation that pictures the context in which this confession will be made according to the meturgeman.

5.3. Interpretative word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text, with substitutions that recast the passage into terms of the current world in which they live or interpret the meaning of the text. The first example is taken from 1 Sam 15:6a.60 ‫א ִֹס ְפָך ִעּמֹו‬ ‫ֲמ ֵל ִקי ֶּפן‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ַה ֵּקינִ י ְלכּו ֻּסרּו ְרדּו ִמּתֹוְך ע‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ואמר שאול לשלמאה איזיל זור אתפרש מגו עמלקאה דלמא אשיצינך עימיה‬

mt tj

And Saul said unto the Shalmaites, “Go, depart, part from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them.”

The Hebrew text reads ‘Kenites’ instead of ‘Shalmaites’. Throughout the Targums, the Kenites are identified with the Arab tribe of the Shalmaites, which is in line with the views expressed in rabbinic literature.61 In this way this substitution actualises the text to the world of the audience. The second example, which is taken from 1 Sam 1:1a, gives an interpretation of an ambiguous word. ‫ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬ ‫ֵמ ַהר‬ ‫צֹופים‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ִאיׁש ֶא ָחד ִמן ָה ָר ָמ ַתיִ ם‬ ‫והוה גברא חד מרמתא מתלמידי נבייא מטורא דבית אפרים‬

mt tj

The Hebrew word ‫ צופים‬is generally interpreted as a gentilitial name or as a toponym and is translated accordingly as Zuphites or Zophim. The meturgeman, however, read it as a participle qal from √‫‘ צפה‬to 60  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 118. 61  See L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983, 48, 117.

24

chapter one

keep watch, look out’ and interpreted it as a cipher for prophet, which leads to the following translation:62 There was a man from Ramah, from the pupils of the prophets, from the hill country of the House of Ephraim

5.4. Extended interpretative translation This type includes targums that offer a strongly interpretative translation of the Hebrew text. The smaller or larger additions cannot be removed since they cohere with substitutions of (parts of) the original text. For this type we take a look at 1 Sam 15:17 and its targumic interpretation. – ‫ַאּתה ְּב ֵעינֶיָך‬ ָ ‫– ָקטֹן‬ – ‫ִאם‬ – ‫מּואל ֲהלֹוא‬ ֵ ‫ֹאמר ְׁש‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ואמר שמואל הלא מן שריותך הויתא שיט וחלש – בעיני נפשך‬

mt

‫– רֹאׁש‬ – – – – – – – – – – ‫ברם זכות שבטא דבנימין אבוך היא גרמת לך דבעא למעבד בימא קדם‬

mt

:‫ַעל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ְל ֶמ ֶל‬ ‫ יהוה‬‫ָאּתה – – וַּיִ ְמ ָׁש ֲח‬ ָ ‫ִׁש ְב ֵטי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ :‫בני ישראל – בדיל כין רביך יוי למהוי מלכא על ישראל‬

mt

tj

tj

tj

The Hebrew text may be translated in English as: And Samuel said, “You may look small to yourself, but you are the head of the tribes of Israel. The Lord anointed you king over Israel.”

In the version of Targum Jonathan this verse may be translated as: And Samuel said, “Were you not from your beginning despised and weak in your own eyes? But the merit of the tribe of Benjamin your father brought it about for you, because he tried to cross the sea before the [other] sons of Israel. On account of this the Lord anointed you to be king over Israel.”

The Hebrew text contrasts Saul’s own initial perception of his status (cf. 1 Sam 9:21) with the status God awarded to him as head of the tribes of Israel. The Targum tries to find a reason for this apparent contradiction in an aggadic tradition about Benjamin who was the first to enter the sea. Benjamin’s act of trust was judged as a merit by God, which subsequently led to the honour bestowed on Saul. Although, 62  Cf. 1 Sam 9:5. See Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 93; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 187–88, 265.

preliminary issues

25

with the exception of the double occurrence of the pronoun ‫אתה‬, each word of the Hebrew text is translated in its original order, the base text is hardly recognisable, due to the aggadic nature of the translation. The additions cannot be removed without distorting the text severely. Notwithstanding, the meaning stays close to the original intention of the text. Finally, there are also cases that formally belong to this same category, but where the result of the targumic operation renders a drastic turn, or even a total rewriting, of the original meaning. This is the case, for instance, in the Targum of Canticles. In this Targum a new midrash-type story, which tells of the relationship between God and Israel, is created out of the biblical text. In the first chapters, for example, the complete story of the Exodus passes. Nevertheless, in this new story almost every word of the Hebrew text is translated or reflected on. This is well formulated by Philip Alexander: ‘Each element in the original is taken as a symbol or cypher to be decoded and arranged in a coherent story, within the broad hermeneutical perspective that the text is an allegorical statement about God’s relationship to Israel through Tora.’63 In our view, this kind of Aramaic rewording of a text can hardly be called ‘targum’. It seems a kind of amalgamation between the genres of targum, midrash and rewritten Bible. Since this type of targum does not occur within the corpus of Targum Jonathan, we need not pursue this difficult question here further.

6. Targum characteristics In the above characterisation, the attention was focussed on the exegetical changes and additions. Before we proceed, it is good also to give some attention to the general translational approach of those texts that are commonly designated as Targums, because even texts that do not as a rule contain exegetical additions, such as Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan to the Former Prophets, are not simple word-by-word translations but pursue distinct tactics. What kind of tactics can be discerned?

63  Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 236. See also Alexander, ‘Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs’, BJRL 75 (1993), 159–73, at 172. A similar view is expressed in the Dutch study of M.J. Mulder, De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975, 23–24.

26

chapter one

»  The Targums are interpretative translations; they strive to open the source text to the audience.64 »  The original word order is maintained. As stated above,65 the doctrine of the universal truth of Scripture implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, or even blank spaces, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations. Within this framework, the specific order of the words is also a matter of concern.66 Since Aramaic and Hebrew are cognate languages, it was relatively easy to hold on to the original word order, much easier than it was, for instance, for Aquila in his Greek translation of the Bible. It is therefore the more remarkable that in some cases the word order in the Aramaic Targum deviates from the Hebrew order.67 On the other hand, Shepherd, in his comparative study of Aramaic translations of Job, showed that although the rabbinic Targum of Job contains a few transpositions, these are negligible in comparison to the number of transpositions in the other Aramaic versions. He concludes therefore that in the case of the rabbinic Targum, divergence of the word order is so rarely found that transposition may be considered a practically unused tool in the hands of the meturgeman responsible for this rendering of the Hebrew text of Job.68 We cannot speak with certainty about all rabbinic Targums, but from our team’s experience with the work on a bilingual concordance to the Targum of the Prophets we can claim with confidence that the same holds true for Targum Jonathan.69 »  Obscurities are resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew. The same applies here as in the preceding category, namely 64  In contrast to a literalist translation that strives to bring the reader to the source text. See S.P. Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, in: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 87–98, at 91. 65  See above, p. 15. 66  See for example the remark of Aquila (above, p. 16), that in the case of the Holy Scriptures even the order of the words is a mystery. 67  For some examples from Targum Jonathan, see Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, 16–17. 68  D. Shepherd, Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, Assen 2004, 223. 69  From 1987–2005 a team of the Dutch Protestant Theological University in Kampen worked on a bilingual concordance of Targum Jonathan under the directorship of Johannes de Moor. This resulted in a series of 21 volumes that were published between 1995–2005 with Brill in Leiden, entitled A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets.

preliminary issues

27

that the rule is not applied consistently. There are cases where some minor elements in the Hebrew text have been skipped over, but they are exceptions.70 »  Ambiguities in the text that are due to the meaning of a particular Hebrew word are resolved by differentiation. Hebrew words with a general meaning may be translated by different Aramaic equivalents depending on the context, i.e. functionally equivalent rather than formally equivalent. To give an often-used example, the Hebrew word ‫‘ כהן‬priest’ is translated by the Aramaic ‫ כהנא‬when it refers to a priest of the God of Israel, whereas it is translated by ‫ כומרא‬when it refers to an idolatrous priest.71 »  On the level of interpretation the Targum is exclusive because usually only one interpretation of a verse is offered. The targumic interpretations are often based on word substitutions of rare and difficult terms by their supposed meanings.72 »  By means of stock phrases, standard translations and simplifications, the coherence of the Bible is strengthened. »  Expressions that might seem disrespectful with regard to God or His people are avoided. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic references to God are often, though not always, reworded in more neutral wording.73

7. Qumran Aramaic versions Let us now look, with the above in mind, to some works about which there is as yet no scolarly agreement concerning whether they should be called Targum or not. We start with the so-called Genesis Apocryphon. The scroll containing an Aramaic version of Genesis stories, which was found in 1947 with six other scrolls in Qumran, was named ‘A 70  For the case of Tg Job, see Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 111–22. 71  E.g. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 115–16; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 36–38; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 258; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 146. 72  This is a hermeneutic principle that occurs abundantly in tannaitic literature. In the tannaitic Midrashim such simple renderings are generally introduced with the term ‫אין … אלא‬. See e.g. S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962, 48–52; W. Reiss, ‘Wortsubstition als Mittel der Deutung. Bemerkungen zur Formel ‫’אין … אלא‬, FJB 6 (1978), 27–69. 73  For a balanced view on this question, see e.g. M.L. Klein, ‘The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 162–77.

28

chapter one

Genesis Apocryphon’ by its first editors, Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin.74 In their view, the text is the earliest Aramaic example of pseudo-epigraphic literature that has come down to us.75 Soon afterwards, Manfred Lehmann characterised it differently, by writing: ‘1 Q Gen. Ap., too, oscillates between midrashic deviations from the Masoretic text and literal translations. However, the former outweigh the latter. We can thus place 1 Q Gen. Ap. in the midrashic column of the Targumim.’76 Paul Kahle and Matthew Black thought in the same direction, wondering whether the text should not rather be considered an early specimen of a written Aramaic Pentateuch Targum from Palestine than an example of pseudepigraphic literature.77 Black elaborated this suggestion in an appendix to his book The Scrolls and Christian Origins.78 He pointed to the fact that the order of the Aramaic text in the scroll follows chapter and verse of the Hebrew original, and that it contains ancient exegetical traditions and explanatory additions in the manner of the Targums. Fitzmyer, in his commentary on the Genesis Apocryphon, acknowledged Black’s analysis for part of the text, especially for the part that corresponds to Genesis 14, but rejected the idea of labelling the whole composition a Targum. Though there certainly are passages where the word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis suggests ‘targum’, so too there are passages where the embellishment of the text is strongly reminiscent of aggadic midrash.79 By a comparison of the Genesis Apocryphon with the Pentateuchal Targums Onkelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, for the parts where the text really seems to be a translation of the Hebrew text, Fitzmyer concluded that the Genesis Apocryphon is older than any of the Targums mentioned.80 As it happens, some of the features that are char74  N. Avigad & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX–XXII, Jerusalem 1956, 8. 75  Avigad & Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 39. 76  Lehmann, ‘1 Q Genesis Apocryphon’, 251. 77  M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, London 1961, Appendix C: Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 192–98, at 193. 78  See n. 77. 79  J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 20043, 18. Paul Kahle, in his book The Cairo Geniza (Oxford 1959) retracted his earlier suggestion that the work was probably a Targum and instead characterised it as a Midrash book (198). 80  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 28–34.

preliminary issues

29

acteristic of the Targums are absent from the Genesis Apocryphon. There is, for instance, in the Genesis Apocryphon none of the tendency to substitute for the Tetragrammaton any phrase like ‘the Memra of the Lord’ or the like, in order to avoid disrespectful associations.81 Another feature that is regularly encountered in the Targums, namely the disambiguation of multi-interpretable words, especially in connection with the holy and the profane, is also absent in the Genesis Apocryphon.82 Whereas the Hebrew Bible for example uses the same word ‫ כהן‬for both Israelite priests and idolatrous priests, the meturgemanim, as we have seen above, generally chose to differentiate between them, reserving the word ‫ כהן‬for a priest of the God of Israel. In the Genesis Apocryphon, however, it was apparently not considered inappropriate to call Melchizedek a ‫כהן‬.83 On the basis of both the handwriting84 and the language85, the scroll can be dated between the first century bce and the first century ce. This fits in with Fitzmyer’s observation that as regards translation policy the Genesis Apocryphon seems to be older than the rabbinic Targums. If we now evaluate the Genesis Apocryphon on the basis of our definition of Targum and on the list of generally accepted characteristics of the genre, we must conclude that according to those criteria the Genesis Apocryphon should not be considered a Targum: »  the exact wording of the biblical text is not respected consistently; »  there is no circumlocutory rendition of the divine name; »  it contains no disambiguation of multi-interpretable words. Let us now turn to the Aramaic version of Job. From Qumran Cave XI an Aramaic version of Job has surfaced in a fragmentary state, which 81  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 33. 82  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 111–19; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 154. 83  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 34; P. Grelot, ‘De l’apocryphe de la Genèse aux Targoums: sur Genèse 14, 18–20’, in: Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays: In Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Kraków 1992, 77–90, at 81. 84  The handwriting of the scroll is ‘Herodian’ and should be dated somewhere between the middle of the first century bce and the end of the Qumran settlement at 70 ce. See e.g. N. Avigad, ‘The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem 19652, 56–87, esp. 71–72; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 13. 85  The language can be dated somewhere in the first century bce or ce. See E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon’, JBL 76 (1957), 288–92; Idem, ‘The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–35, at 22; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 17–25.

30

chapter one

became known as 11Q10 or 11QTgJob.86 The manuscript can probably be dated to the first century ce.87 The text is, however, possibly based on an older Vorlage, since the language can approximately be dated to the second century bce.88 This version has a decidedly different character from the later rabbinic Targum of Job. The number of expansions in the Aramaic version from Qumran is small in comparison to the large number in the later rabbinic Targum.89 The version from Qumran lacks homiletic expansions and allusions to midrashim.90 While the term ‘targum’ has been applied to the Aramaic translation of Job from the very beginning,91 it still remains to be seen whether this is an appropriate designation. In order to avoid unwished-for association with the community of Qumran, other designations have been proposed, such as ‘old Targum’,92 ‘first century targum’,93 or ‘Hasmon-

86  M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974. Another tiny fragment of the same text was found in Cave 4. See J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Qumrân Grotte 4. II Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128 – 4Q157), Oxford 1977, 90. 87  The script is of the type labelled by Albright as ‘Herodian’ (W.F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL 56 (1937), 145– 76, at 151). 88  J.P.M. van der Ploeg & A. van der Woude (Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971, 4) and Sokoloff (The Targum to Job, 25) date it to the second half of the second century bce; B. Jongeling et al. (eds), Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Leiden 1976, 5–6 date it to the first half of the second century bce; T. Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, JJS 25 / 3 (1974), 425–43 at 442 dates it to the second half of the third century bce or the first half of the second century bce. Against these early datings, Stephen Kaufman opts for a dating in the first century bce on grammatical grounds (S.A. Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27, at 327), while Bruce Zuckerman comes to the same probable date on the basis of palaeographical considerations concerning the Vorlage of the Qumran Targum (B. Zuckerman, ‘The Date of 11Q Targum Job: A Paleographic Consideration of its Vorlage’, JSP 1 (1987), 57–78, esp. 74–75). 89  Jongeling et al., Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 4; R. Weiss, ‫התרגום הארמי לספר‬ ‫איוב‬, Tel Aviv 1979, 20. 90  Weiss, ‫התרגום הארמי לספר איוב‬, 20–21. 91  The tone was set from the beginning by J.P.M. Van der Ploeg by using the word targum in his preliminary communication about the scroll: ‘Le targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran, Première communication’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen afd. Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1962. 92  So Muraoka in his articles ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’ and ‘Notes on the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, RQ 9 (1977), 117–25. 93  J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The First-Century Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 161–82 (first published as ‘Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, CBQ 36 (1974), 503–24).

preliminary issues

31

ean targum’.94 The text as we have it may fittingly be described by our definition of Targum. If, on the other hand, we compare it with the list of generally accepted characteristics of the Targum, some differences can be noted. As regards the word order, the Qumran Aramaic version of Job is less strict in its following of the Hebrew text than the later rabbinic Targum. Stephen Kaufman, in his review article of the editio princeps, noted that the translator of the Qumran Aramaic version ‘… was not bound to the word order of MT as is almost always the case in later targums’.95 Takamitsu Muraoka tried to explain the deviating word order from a possibly Eastern provenance, by pointing out that particular transpositions in the word order seem to reflect a SumeroAkadian word order in which the verb generally follows the subject or the object, or both.96 Whatever the reason, from the synoptic study of David Shepherd, who compared the three ancient Aramaic versions of Job, it becomes clear that among these versions the rabbinic Targum is the most true to the Hebrew word order.97 The same study shows that for the book of Job the Qumran and Peshitta version omission is employed on a frequent basis for a variety of reasons in the attempt to produce a linguistically intelligible and stylistically acceptable translation. The rabbinic Targum, by contrast, presents virtually no evidence for such practices and omits elements in translation only exceptionally.98 As concerns the very literal way of translating, it can be noted that the translator responsible for the Qumran Aramaic version saw himself as interpres rather than expositor.99 That means that according to the criteria set out above, the Qumran Aramaic translation does not fall into the category of ‘Targum’. The last item to be discussed in this section is the Aramaic version of Leviticus.100 Among the texts of Qumran cave 4 are two small Aramaic fragments corresponding to parts of Leviticus 16. These fragments 94  Beyer, Die Aramäischen Texte, 274. 95  Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, 324. 96  Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’, 439–41. 97  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 218. 98  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 117. 99  Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, 95. 100  Most of the following is based on L.T. Stuckenbruck & D.N. Freedman, ‘The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture, Leiden 2002, 79–95.

32

chapter one

have become known as 4QTgLev or, more neutrally, 4Q156. Despite their small size and their poorly preserved state they have received much scholarly attention,101 especially because of the light they throw on Aramaic translation of Scripture during the Second Temple period.102 Loren Stuckenbruck and David Freedman have compared these Aramaic fragment texts synoptically with the Hebrew text as well as with the other Pentateuchal Targums, the Peshitta and the Samaritan Pentateuch.103 This comparison led to the following conclusions: the text is apparently not related to any of the other known Aramaic versions. As concerns the criteria we introduced above, it can be said that in one case the word order of the Qumran Aramaic version deviates from the order of the Hebrew text, namely in Lev 16:14. Also in Lev 16:14 one Hebrew word, ‫פני‬, has been left unrendered in the Qumran Aramaic version. For the Hebrew object marker ‫ את‬the fragments have once ‫( על‬16:20), and leave it twice unrendered (16:21). This fragment is too small to say anything definite concerning its translational style. The fact, however, that even in this tiny fragment there are cases of changed word order and words that have been left unrendered, seems to place this Aramaic version of Leviticus in the same category as the Qumran Aramaic version of Job.

B. Background to the Targums The next item we want to discuss briefly in this introductory chapter is the background to the Targums. What is their reason for existence and how did they function? Let us start with the first, namely the raison d’être.

1. The raison d’être For a long time, the common opinion was that the Targums came into being during the Second Temple Period because of a social necessity to translate the Bible into the vernacular of the people due to the loss of knowledge of Hebrew.104 This view was shaken by the famous dis101  See L.T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Bibliography on 4QtgLev (4Q156)’, JSP 10 (1992), 53–55. 102  The script has been assigned by Milik to the late second / early first century bce. See J.T. Milik, ‘Targum’, in: R.G.M. De Vaux, et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), Oxford 1977, 86. 103  See n. 100. 104  E.g. Zunz, Vorträge, 65; P. Schäfer, ‘Bibelübersetzungen II (Targumim)’, in:

preliminary issues

33

coveries in the Judean desert that have shown that Hebrew was still very much alive during that time.105 The newly acquired knowledge can mean two different things: either the idea of a language necessity is true, which would restrict the Targums to certain areas or groups of people, or there was another reason for the origin of the Targums. Let us start with the first possibility. The Targum could have originated in a nearly monoglot milieu where the knowledge of Hebrew was sparse, such as probably was the case in the Galilee.106 This explanation is close to the traditional view, but restricts the possible place of origin to an area where Aramaic was the main language. The nearly monoglot situation could also concern certain groups in society, like women and illiterates.107 This was the view of Rashi, who wrote in his commentary to b.Meg 21b ‘that the Targum is meant to teach women and commoners, who do not understand the sacred language’. Samuel Luzzatto in his book ‫אוהב גר‬ followed Rashi, by stating that Targum Onkelos was not conceived for the learned, but for the commoners.108 He continued, however, to state that the main concern of Onkelos in his Targum was to remove any stumbling block from the path of the masses and the proselytes, so that their hearing of the reading of the Scriptures would be beneficial to them.109 Thus, Luzzatto introduced here yet another category of people who might have problems with Hebrew, namely the converts. Since Onkelos himself is reported to have been a proselyte,110 this is an interesting thought. Part of the motivation for his targumic activity would then have been love for his fellow proselytes who had problems with Hebrew. TRE 6, 216–28, at 216; M.L. Klein, ‘Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics’, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45. 105  For a good overview of the scholarly discussion on the language situation in Palestine in the first centuries ce, see e.g. Smelik, Targum of Judges, 1–23. 106  This is suggested as a possibility by Smelik, Targum of Judges, 9. 107  See e.g. Massekhet Soferim 18:5 where it says: ‘… And he translates in order that the rest of the people may understand, as well as women and children’. 108  ‘‫ אבל בעבור ההדיוטות‬,‫’לא נעשה בעבור החכמים‬, S.D. Luzzatto, ‫ מאמר‬.‫אוהב גר‬ ‫מחקרי על תרגום אנקלוס הגר‬, Vienna 1830 (repr. Jerusalem 1969), 1. In modern scholarship this view is still adhered to for the case of the Palestinian Targums. See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 241–51, at 244. 109  Luzzatto, ‫אוהב גר‬, 1. In his later article ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 124, he extends this allegation to Targum Jonathan. 110  E.g. b.Meg 3a, b.BB 99a, b.AZ 11a.

34

chapter one

A variant to this view was brought forward by Paul Flesher on the basis of the translational characteristics of Targum Neofiti. In his opinion Neofiti’s character, as being a ‘straight-translation’ combined with additional material, can best be explaned by being composed for an audience with varying knowledge of Hebrew. A straightforward wordby-word translation is suitable for people who have some familiarity with the Hebrew version of the Bible, because the recognition of the Hebrew original in the Aramaic translation would give them confidence in the reliability of the translation. Such a translation is however difficult to understand for people who know little to no Hebrew, since the grammatical structures and choice of vocabulary are often foreign to their daily speech. By means of small additions the composer tried to adapt the literal translation to the more common parlance, in this way making the translation acceptable for a broad audience with different language abilities.111 The second possibility is that there was another reason for the coming into being of the Targums: the adaptation and interpretation of Scripture. As early as in his 1976 article on Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century, ayyim Rabin suggested that being able to speak Mishnaic Hebrew was no guarantee for understanding all the vocabulary or constructions of an archaic and rich literature in the Hebrew language.112 Or in the words of the third century Palestinian Amora R. Yoanan: ‘The language of the Torah is one thing and the language of the Sages is another’.113 Therefore, some sort of explanation was needed even for native speakers. Moreover, the rabbinic authorities aimed at propagating interpretations that they approved of, while suppressing undesirable readings.114 These two needs could be fulfilled by a concise word-by-word commentary on the biblical text. Since most people probably mastered Hebrew as well as Aramaic, both languages could theoretically be used. However, Hebrew was considered inappropriate for this purpose because the uninstructed could easily mis111  P.V.M. Flesher, ‘Targum as Scripture’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, Leiden & Boston 2002, 61–75, esp. 72–75. 112  . Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen 1976, 1007–39, at 1030. 113  b.AZ 58b and b.ul 137b, as cited by Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 272. 114  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 692.

preliminary issues

35

take the paraphrase as part of the sacred text.115 The choice for a standard literary form of Aramaic seemed therefore advisable. This cognate language made it possible to stay close to the Hebrew text, while at the same time being clearly distinguishable as not being part of Scripture. In a recent article, titled ‘Is There a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew Speaking Society?’, Abraham Tal came up with a hypothesis that relies heavily on the suggestion of Rabin discussed above.116 The novelty of his article is that he worked the issue out in more detail while at the same time adding an extra aspect. In his paper, he first described the developments of the Samaritan Pentateuch, concerning both linguistic innovations and harmonisations with respect to contents. The Qumran variants he attributed to the same phenomenon. Then he discussed the references in rabbinic literature to the deviant biblical text of R. Meir. In his view, this proliferation was unacceptable to normative Judaism. Therefore a search was begun for a means to secure the Bible text while at the same time meeting the apparent need for modernisation. The solution was found, according to Tal, in the presentation of an actualised Aramaic translation. Making use of the Standard Literary Aramaic of the Second Temple Period, instead of a popular dialect, this translation dovetailed nicely with the Hebrew text. The choice of Aramaic over the contemporaneous Hebrew prevented the wrong conception that the interpretation could be seen as Holy Scripture. Clear prescriptions for the use of Targum in the liturgy, such as the reading of the Bible from a scroll as opposed to the recitation by heart of the Targum, and the division of tasks between separate persons, were aimed at suppressing any possible misunderstanding still further. According to this view, the raison d’être of the Targums was a campaign to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah.

2. Sitz im Leben There is, of course, a close connection between the reason for existence of a certain work and its sociological setting. However, where the reasons for existence are fixed, though not retrievable with certainty, the sociological settings may differ in the course of time. At this point we pass over the later developments and concentrate on the settings in the rabbinic period. 115  See also Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 284. 116  A. Tal, ‘Is there a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-speaking Society?’, REJ 160 (2001), 247–64.

36

chapter one

2.1. The synagogue The early rabbinic sources, both halakhic and aggadic, provide us with ample evidence that from a certain point in time the Targums were closely associated with the synagogal services.117 Examination of this evidence shows that the habit of accompanying the scriptural reading in the synagogue with an oral Aramaic translation probably originated in the Ushan period.118 Apart from this external evidence, there is also the internal targumic evidence. It has been noted, for instance, that the Palestinian Targums of the Torah seem to have been composed for an audience in a liturgical setting. This can, among other things, be deduced from the insertion of vocatives and from the midrashic expansions at the beginning and /or the end of the traditional scriptural readings.119 The more literal Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, however, do not have these characteristics. Does this mean that they had a different Sitz im Leben? Or do they probably represent a different stage in the development of the Targum tradition? There is sufficient evidence that these Targums were used in the synagogues, but this evidence does not go back beyond the tenth or eleventh century.120 Were they probably originally used then in another function? And what may that function have been? Let us consider the possibility of the school system as the original setting for these Targums. 2.2. The school Many modern scholars have proposed connecting the more literal Aramaic Bible translations with the school system.121 Within this general 117  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של המתורגמנים‬, Jerusalem 1979, 1–38; A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 14–28; R. Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their Sitz im Leben’, 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 75–85, esp. 75–77; Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245–49; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 31–39. 118  See Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading’, 189–91; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246; see also Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations’, 272, who arrives at the same dating on different grounds. 119  For a thorough listing of these characteristics, see A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של‬ ‫המתורגמנים‬, Jerusalem 1979, 30–38, 63–83, 185–202. See also Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 76–77. 120  See Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 75. 121  E.g. A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the school’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 77–79; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the

preliminary issues

37

theory, however, two different lines of thought can be distinguished. The first line connects the Targum with the basic education in the primary school, the Beit Sefer. In the Beit Sefer the Targum was studied in conjunction with the Bible, probably for the purpose of understanding the words. The Targum served as an explanation of the Hebrew text. In that context it is not surprising that the notoriously difficult book of Job should be among the first books of the Bible to be translated.122 The second line of thought, according to which the Targum is connected to the school system, was set out by Philip Alexander. Alexander has proposed on several occasions that the Targum had a function in the acquisition of the Hebrew language by non-native speakers.123 In his view, Hebrew had steadily declined, perhaps ever since the return from the Babylonian exile, until by 200 ce it had effectively disappeared as a vernacular.124 From at least the third century onwards the everyday vernacular of the Rabbis would have been Aramaic.125 So children had to learn Hebrew at school, because they did not learn it anymore in a natural way from their parents. According to Alexander, this was done in the first stage by rote learning portions of Scripture. In the second stage a translation of the text in the vernacular was used to help the students understand the meaning. This translation was absolutely crucial to the learning process. It had to be carefully constructed so as to correlate as closely as possible with the original. Therefore each word had to be translated in its original order and obscurities had to be resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew.126 The Targum functioned as a crib to aid the student pass over from his native tongue to the Hebrew text.127 On the basis of this Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, 240; Idem, ‘How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, 71–89; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 28–31; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 249. For a general overview of the ancient Jewish educational system, see S. Safrai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 2 Vols, Assen & Amsterdam 1974–76, II.945–70. 122  Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 82. 123  See n. 121. 124  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 73. 125  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 76. He allows for the possibility that for some Rabbis Greek would be the first language. 126  See above, pp. 26–27. Only incidentally Hebrew words were left untranslated. See e.g. Isa 40:12 where the word ‫ מדד‬has apparently no equivalent in the Aramaic translation. 127  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 82.

38

chapter one

theory, Alexander proposed that the original Sitz im Leben may have been the primary school, and that it was only subsequently taken over from there as part of the reading of the Torah in synagogue.128

2.3. Individual and academic study Apart from the study at school, the Targums also had a function in the study of adults. Two different kinds of study can be distinguished. The first is the study of the male members of the congregation who could be called to read the Torah and had therefore to prepare their weekly portion. In this preparation also the Targums played a role, as may be deduced from the following saying of R. Ammi:129 One should always complete his weekly portions of Scripture with the congregation, the biblical text twice and the Targum once.

The meaning of this saying is not entirely clear, but it seems that in preparation of the sabbath service the male members of the congregation prepared together by studying the weekly portion of Scripture together with its Targum. The second kind is the study of scholars in the Beit Midrash who studied Targum as part of the Oral Torah. This may be illustrated by a famous saying of Rav Joseph that was uttered in response to a question about Sennacherib’s claim that he had God’s orders to destroy Jerusalem,130 R. Joseph said: But for the Targum of this verse, I would not know its meaning: Because this people have wearied of the Davidic dynasty, which rules them with gentleness like the waters of Shiloah which flow tranquilly, and have set their desire upon Rezin and the son of Ramaliah.

The reference is to TJ Isa 8:6. This dictum shows that the Targum was seen and used as a repository of Oral Torah to which scholars could turn in order to find the correct interpretation of Scripture. The double function of the Targums in the synagogal service and in study becomes clear from the prescription concerning forbidden passages. There are clear prescriptions concerning certain scriptural 128  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 81. 129  Rav Ammi was a third century Palestinian Amora. The dictum can be found in b.Ber 8ab. 130  Rav Joseph was an early fourth century Babylonian Amora, who was famous because of his extensive knowledge of the oral law. He is connected with the redaction of the Targum. The dictum can be found in b.Sanh 94b.

preliminary issues

39

passages that they are to be read but not translated in public.131 In the Tosefta it says ‘But the teacher of Scripture teaches [these passages] in his usual way.’132 Here an important distinction is drawn between the translating of scriptural passages in the public context of the synagogal service and the rendering of those same passages in the context of the Beit Midrash.133 Moreover, the idea of an educational function besides the liturgical function explains the existence of Targums of parts of Scripture that are not used in the liturgy.

C. Survey and Conclusions In the first section of this chapter we dealt with the question of definition. We decided to define Targum as ‘a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.’ This definition can be used for Targums as literary works as well as for the individual targumic rendering of biblical passages. Depending on which of the two is meant, different subdivisions can be made. For the last category of the individual targumic renderings, we proposed a subdivision into four types. On the basis of our own definition and some generally accepted targumic characteristics we decided to exclude the Aramaic biblical versions from Qumran from the corpus of Targum. Secondly, we have given a short overview of the state of the art on the questions of the raison d’être and function of the Targums. We saw that the old view that the Targums came into being out of necessity because of the supposed dwindling knowledge of Hebrew is not fully satisfactory. The alternative that is proposed by Abraham Tal, namely that the Targums were created in an attempt to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah, is attractive, but not really provable. With regard to function we saw that the Targums functioned in various ways. They were used in the synagogue, in the educational system and in private worship. The theory of Philip Alexander that the 131  m.Meg 4:10; t.Meg 4(3):31–38; y.Meg 4:11, 75c; b.Meg 25b; MasSof 9:9–10. See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 14–28; M.L. Klein, ‘Not to be Translated in Public — ‫’לא מתרגם בציבורא‬, JJS 39 (1988), 80–91. 132  t.Meg 4(3):38. 133  See Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 260–61.

40

chapter one

Targums were utilised in primary education not just to understand the Bible text, but as a crib to teach Hebrew to non-native speakers, is innovative, but as yet hard to prove. In conclusion we must say that there is still no consensus on the origin and function of the Targums. More research is needed to substantiate the views that have been brought forward. We hope that the following chapters may, in all modesty, contribute something to the ongoing debate.

Chapter two

Tosefta Targums and Other Targumic Traditions to the Books of Samuel Within Targum research the so-called Tosefta Targums1 (TTs) occupy a special place. They are, generally speaking, additions to the Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, hence the name ‘tosefta’ which is Aramaic for addition. The designations ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘targumic Tosefta’ are somewhat misleading because we do not know whether in all cases they refer to additions, but since these designations are commonly used in scholarly literature on the subject, we decided to adopt the usage for the time being. At the end of this chapter we shall recapitulate and decide whether the name can be maintained for all the traditions it is generally used for, or that we have to look for more appropriate designations for some of them. The TTs preserve alternative targumic readings, which apparently circulated widely. They are often more elaborate than the official targum traditions that have been preserved in the official Targums Onkelos and Jonathan. Their provenance and date vary considerably and there is no apparent system in the sources in which they occur, although there are certain TTs that only occur in some specific geographic areas.2 Moreover, the TTs do not occur in the Babylonian redaction.3 This absence in the Babylonian tradition may well explain the designation Tosefta, since in relation to this authoritative redaction they can be considered additions. In this chapter we will first survey some previous work on the TTs (a). Then we make a short excursus on the genre of piyyut in order to sketch a framework for some of the Aramaic poems that are also 1  Notwithstanding our decision to write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic (see above, p. 7, n. 1), we write here Tosefta Targum(s) with capital letters because it is such a central theme in this book, even though in most of the cases it concerns particular instances. 2  R. Kasher, ‫ ביאר ותרגום לעברית‬,‫ ההדיר‬:‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 60; A. Houtman, ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83, esp. 275, 277–79. 3  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 60–62.

42

chapter two

sometimes included in the field of TTs (b). After that we will describe the corpus that is used for this study (c), followed by an attempt to characterise the material according to the main sources (d). Finally, we will try to come to some conclusions (e).

A. Survey of Previous Research on the Tosefta Targums The seemingly random occurrences of the TTs and their diverse character caught scholarly attention as early as in the nineteenth century. Because the TTs are sometimes designated in the sources as ‫תוספתא‬ ‫דארעא דישראל‬, ‘Tosefta of the Land of Israel’, or the like, the study of the TTs to the Targum of the Prophets has in the history of research often been combined with the question of whether or not there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets comparable to the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch.4 Leopold Zunz, one of the founders of the critical study of rabbinic literature, the so-called Wissenschaft des Judentums, suggested that the TTs were remnants of a once complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. He based this on the above-mentioned designation of the TTs as Palestinian, but also on the reference of several medieval Jewish authors to a ‘Targum jeruschalmi’ on certain parts of the Prophets.5 Samuel David Luzzatto refuted Zunz’ suggestion on linguistic grounds.6 He used for his arguments the additions of David Kimi in his commentary on the Prophets, and furthermore some pieces of a fifteenth century manuscript — known today as ms H. 116.7 According to Luzzatto, the language of these toseftan additions, which he considered to be marginal notes, resembles that of the Babylonian Talmud and they can, therefore, hardly be considered remnants of a Palestinian Targum.8 4  See also W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 77–85. 5  L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Frankfurt am Main 18922, 80–83. 6  S.D. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 132. 7  Presently part of the Montefiore Endowment, Lauderdale Rd synagogue, London. See on ms H 116 of Jew’s College, A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Leiden 1968, IVB.139; D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job, Leiden 1994, 54–55. 8  Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches’, 132: ‘… die Sprache dieser Zusäße stimmt mit der des babylonischen Thalm. überein, und ich sehe keinen Grund, sie als Stücke eines jerusalemischen Thargums zu betrachten, wie Zunz thut, vielmehr scheinen sie mir gleichfalls babylonischen Ursprungs, nur um einige Jahrhunderte jünger als das ursprungliche Thargum.’

tosefta targums

43

In his important study on the history of Targum Jonathan, Zacharias Frankel only briefly touched on the subject and, although admitting that apart from Targum Jonathan there may have existed another Targum of the Prophets, he doubted — on the same linguistic grounds as Luzzatto — whether this could have been a Palestinian Targum.9 At about the same time, the Christian orientalist Paul de Lagarde, who was a fierce opponent of the new scientific approach of the Wissenschaft des Judentums,10 published the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin, including its marginalia.11 These marginal readings are indicated by various introductions, such as ‫תרגום‬ ‫ירושלמי‬, ‫ספר אחר‬, 12 ‫פליג‬, ‫לישנא אחרינא‬, and ‫ואית דמתרגמין‬. The marginal readings and their introductory formulas were subsequently thoroughly investigated by Wilhelm Bacher.13 Bacher distinguished between mainly aggadic readings (with the sigla ‫ תרגום ירושלמי‬and ‫)ספר אחר‬, that in his view were taken from another source, and nonaggadic readings (with the designations ‫לישנא אחרינא‬, ‫פליג‬, ‫ואית‬ ‫ )דמתרגמין‬that were variants within the targum text itself.14 On the basis of his findings, Bacher postulated a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets by analogy with the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Pinkhos Churgin, in his classic study on Targum Jonathan,15 criticised the work of Bacher. In his view all groups of marginalia in Codex Reuchlin contain fragments that either explain or complement the rendering of Targum Jonathan, so that there is scarcely any foundation for a supposition that they represent distinct sources.16 Neither 9  Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872, 40. 10  This opposition was apparently based on anti-modernist and anti-Semititic sentiments rather than on scholarly arguments. See e.g. R.B. Lougee, Paul de Lagarde 1827–1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany, Cambridge (Mass.) 1962, 94–96, 193–215. 11  P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Göttingen 1872, repr. Osnabrück 1967. 12  This is probably a passive participle of √‫‘ פלג‬differing in opinion’. Bacher connects it to the talmudic expression ‫‘ פלוגתא‬different opinion’ (work cited in note 13 on this page). The word is always written after the variant. 13  ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72. 14  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, at 35: ‘1) Die vorwiegend agadische Gruppe (‫)ספר אחר ;]תרג' אחר[ תרגום ירושלמי‬, bei welcher schon die Benennungen auf eine von der gewöhnlichen verschiedene Version schliessen lassen. 2) Die nichtagadische Gruppe ('‫)ואית דמתרגמי ;פליג ;ליש' אח‬, deren Bezeichnungen ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass wir es mit Varianten innerhalb eines und desselben Targum zu thun haben’. 15  P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927]. 16  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 151–52.

44

chapter two

is there, according to him, a basis for a theory of an old Palestinian Targum of the Prophets of which the ‫ספר אחר‬, and the ‫תרגום ירושלמי‬ might be remnants, as Bacher suggested.17 The Russo-Austrian rabbinical scholar Abraham Epstein also had his doubts about a Palestinian origin for all the TTs.18 On the basis of research into the language and contents of TTs to the Pentateuch in early Bible editions, he concluded that at least some of them seem to have been composed quite late, that is after the Babylonian Talmud gained influence, and outside Palestine. In the twentieth century the research was continued and could be substantially extended thanks to the gradual publication of the material of the Cairo Genizah. The key person in the process of disclosure of this material was the late Michael Klein who carefully described the Targum fragments of the Cairo Genizah, including the TTs, for which Targum research owes him much.19 Abraham Tal, in his book on the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, discussed the dialect of the TTs in relation to Targum Jonathan.20 He made a distinction between TTs that are additions in the literal sense of the word — that is TTs that are added in the margins of Targum Jonathan, sometimes even in a different handwriting — and TTs that are incorporated within the regular text. For the first type he advocated a late date for the origin of much of the extant material on the basis of both the language and the content. In his view, the composers of these TTs were not native speakers, but scholars who had acquired their knowledge of Aramaic from Babylonian as well as Palestinian sources.21 The latter type is in his view older and may have been inserted at an early stage of the transmission history of Targum Jonathan. Any original grammatical differences have been smoothed out in the process of redaction and transmission. On the lexical level, however, the different origins can often still be detected.22 17  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 152. 18  A. Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targum Yerouschalmi’, REJ 30 (1895), 44–51. 19  M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, HAR 8 (1984), 89–99; Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986; ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’, in: D. Muños León (ed.), Salvación en la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith: En memoria del professor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 409–18; Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992. 20  A. Tal, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200. 21  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192. 22  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 196–97.

tosefta targums

45

Pierre Grelot studied and compared several TTs to the Books of the Prophets in connection with Targum Jonathan.23 In some cases he argued for the priority of the Palestinian Targum as found in the TTs, where in his view the more paraphrastic Palestinian version constituted the basis for Targum Jonathan. The short translation of Targum Jonathan seems in those cases to be a reduction of the longer TT.24 In other cases, however, he came to the conclusion that the TTs are Palestinian Amoraic adaptations of Targum Jonathan, stemming from the same milieu as Pesikta Rabbati and Targum Writings.25 In his view it is not certain whether there ever existed a complete Targum of the Prophets contemporaneous with the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, but Palestinian targums of the haftarah readings at least must have existed. It is not impossible, according to him, that these targums were committed to writing at the same time and in the same milieu as the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, on the basis of older oral traditions.26 The German scholar Uwe Gleßmer defended in 1988 a doctoral dissertation on the origin and history of the Targums of the Pentateuch in the light of the TTs.27 A few years later he wrote together with Heinz Fahr a study on a TT to the Book of Joshua.28 Both studies suggest that the TTs concerned preserve early stages of the Palestinian Targum tradition.29 Rimon Kasher made a significant contribution to the study of the TTs of the Prophets by collecting, publishing, translating and discussing 23  P. Grelot, ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, RB 70 (1963), 371–80; ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie 2:14-15’, RB 73 (1966), 197–211; ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 79 (1972), 511–43 [this article has to be read with the note that appeared a year later: ‘À propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, RB 80 (1973), 363]; ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28. 24  Grelot, ‘Une tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie, II, 14-15’ (see, however, the critique of R.P. Gordon, ‘Sperber’s “Additional Targum” to Zechariah 2:14-15; Studying a Targumic Cento’, in: Idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994, 96–107); ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, 212. 25  ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, 543. 26  Grelot, ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34’, 227. 27  U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literar­kritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988. 28  H. Fahr & U. Gleßmer, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.-S. B 13,12), Glückstadt 1991. 29  Gleßmer, Entstehung und Enwicklung, 467, 471, 474; Fahr & Gleßmer, Jordan­ durchzug, 109–10.

46

chapter two

all the TTs known to him in his book ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬.30 In this important study he also touches on the question of date and provenance of the TTs. According to Kasher the varied nature of the TTs makes it improbable that they stem from a common ‘Urtext’. He rather believes that meturgemanim at different times and places made their own TTs for the benefit of liturgical reading, sometimes using existing traditions, at other times creating new ones.31 Most recently, our fellow countrywoman Alinda Damsma defended a dissertation on Targum Ezekiel and its relationship to the targumic Toseftas at University College London.32 Both critical text and translation of the TTs to the Book of Ezekiel are presented in her study, accompanied by an analysis of their contents, with special reference to the long segments of unique mystical lore that are preserved in the TTs to Ezekiel 1. It transpires that this material sheds light on a relatively dark chapter in the reception history of early Jewish mysticism, being closely related to Hekhalot literature, and to the Shiur Qomah tradition in particular. As to the TTs to the Book of Ezekiel as a whole, this study underscores Rimon Kasher’s observations on the heterogeneous character of the TTs. It is furthermore established that the intriguing mixture of Aramaic usage that characterizes the TTs to Ezekiel bears strong resemblances with Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, the literary dialect of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch and the Targums to the Writings, which is dated to the geonic period. To summarise, we can conclude that no consensus has been reached yet concerning the origin and nature of the TTs, which is not surprising given the diverse character of all the traditions that are included under the umbrella term Tosefta Targums.

1. Excursus: the case of the Pentateuch For the Pentateuch we have the interesting situation of several targum collections that give only a selection of translated parts. Besides the TTs, there is also the intriguing phenomenon of the Fragment Targums. These collections seem, at least in part, to have been consciously 30  See n. 2. See further, R. Kasher, ‘‫חנוכה‬-‫’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת‬, Tarbiz 45 (1975), 27–45; Idem, ‘?‫’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים‬, AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21. 31  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 19–20; Idem, ‘‫’האם יש מקור אחד‬, 20–21. 32  A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London, September 2008.

tosefta targums

47

selected and assembled.33 In some respects the corpus of TTs may be compared to these Fragment Targums. Klein described the TTs to the Pentateuch as ‘expansive passages of aggadic midrash which have their source in the Palestinian-Targum tradition’.34A certain similarity to the Fragment Targums is obvious and accordingly the two corpora sometimes have been compared.35 This comparison is further encouraged by the heading of the Fragment Targum according to ms Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Hébreu 110 that reads ‫אתחיל תוספות‬ … ‫‘ וחילופין תרגו ירוש לתורה … בעזרת האל הנאזר בגבורה‬I begin [copying] additions and variants, the Jerus Targ to the Pentateuch; with the help of the God, who is girded with might.’ It seems therefore that both corpora consist of additions as well as variant readings. There are, however, also differences to be noted. According to Klein the major differences between the TTs in Onkelos and the Fragment Targums can be summarised as follows.36 Firstly, the TTs are in his view expansive passages of aggadic midrash, while the Fragment Targums also carry brief verses, phrases or even single words. By the way, as we shall see below, this is not true for the TTs to Samuel that we investigated. Secondly, even though Palestinian in origin, the TTs have been used to supplement Onkelos and consequently have undergone a conscious dialectal adaptation to the language of Onkelos. The Fragment Targums on the other hand have retained the language of the Palestinian Targums. In Klein’s view, moreover, a piece of targum is ‘tosefta’ only when it does not occur in a manuscript of one of the other categories, and he further claims that targumic poetry is not to be categorised as ‘tosefta’, simply because it is in verse.37

33  M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12. 34  Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi. 35  E.g. Bacher, Kritische Untersuchungen, 55–58. 36  Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi–xxvii. This description is taken up by Philip Alexander, in his survey article ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988 (repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004), 217–53, at 221–22. 37  M.J. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS, Div. A, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58, at 151. The rather vague references to Klein’s work in note 1 of this article could, however, not be traced.

48

chapter two

According to Bernstein this definition has the virtue of simplicity, but it eliminates tosefta as a literary genre, and the issue therefore merits further and deeper discussion.38 In his opinion an investigation should be made to discover which literary form was the original milieu of these texts and whether they were composed independently or as part of running narratives. Thereby it must be borne in mind that, apart from the differences between the Fragment Targum and the TTs that were noted by Klein, the Fragment Targum covers the entire Pentateuch, while the extant TTs are limited to a few select passages from Genesis and Exodus.39 Incidentally, this is not true for the TTs to the Prophets, for they are relatively evenly spread over all the prophetic books. Since there is no Fragment Targum of the Prophets, no comparison can be made to the TTs of that part of the Bible, which makes the issue in a way even more complicated. However, given that in addition to similarities there are also essential differences between the Targums of the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan as regards their literary history, the possibility that the TTs to the Prophets may have served a similar goal as the Fragment Targums cannot be dismissed offhand. We will therefore return to this question in the concluding chapter of this book.

B. Piyyut There is one specific literary genre that has to be described briefly here before we proceed to the description of the corpus, and that is the liturgical poetry. The liturgical poetry, the so-called piyyut,40 originated in all probability in the Galilean synagogues in the fourth to fifth centuries ce, thus in the same time and milieu that the Targums also flourished. These liturgical poems were presumably meant as innovations to counterbalance the perfunctory recitation of fixed texts.41 38  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 39  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 40  For a short introduction, see e.g. W.J. van Bekkum, ‘Pijjut’, TRE 26, 634–40; E. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, in: S. Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 363–74. We wish to thank Professor Wout van Bekkum for some useful remarks on an earlier draft of the section. 41  In accordance with the dictum in m.Avot 2:13, where it says ‘When you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed form’. See e.g. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 364, 366.

tosefta targums

49

In this process of innovation, the azanim, whose role gradually developed from servant of the congregation to liturgical leader, played an important role. In their reciting of the prayers, they started to vary the fixed prayers with piyyutim, either of their own invention or using existing material, combining their liturgical duties with poetic skill. In those piyyutim the liturgical motifs of the Shema and the Amidah would be ingeniously meshed with topics from the appropriate Torah and haftarah portions. These productions generally show great scholarly erudition in their frequent allusions to the full range of biblical and rabbinic literature and in the artistic liberties their creators, the paytanim, took with the Hebrew language, by recasting usual roots in unusual morphological forms, and by investing words with new grammatical status.42 Those liberties sometimes went so far that to our ears their language might seem strange and artificial. That may, of course, be partly due to our inadequate understanding. But besides that, recent analysis of their language indicates that their particular usage would probably have been well suited to an audience that understood both Hebrew and Aramaic, since they obviously presume knowledge of contemporary Galilean Aramaic without which part of the wordplay would be lost.43 Moreover, even though they are in Hebrew, they seem to be closely related — in their usage and in the traditions they presume — to the extant Targums that, as a matter of course, are in Aramaic.44 One could say with Shinan that prayer, piyyut, Targum and homilies are primarily ‘literature of the synagogue’, while Mishnah, Talmud and Midrashim are ‘literature of the Beit Midrash’.45 According to Laura Lieber, in a groundbreaking article on the subject,46 the 42  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 372. 43  See S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86, at 280 and the works cited there in n. 62. Yet it must be noted that even with knowledge of both languages many of the intricate allusions and puns probably went over the head of the average synagogue-goer. 44  Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 280. 45  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations’, in: D.R.G. Beattie & M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994, 203–17, at 203. 46  L. Lieber, ‘“Oh my Dove, Let Me See Your Face!” Targum, Piyyut, and the Literary Life of the Ancient Synagogue’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual Markers of

50

chapter two

Targums are an important key to the understanding of the piyyutim by the lay audience of the synagogue. They form, as it were, a bridge between the academic literature of the Beit Midrash and the poems and sermons that were meant for the larger public in the synagogues. We may refer in this context to the saying of R. Juda ben Barzillai that was mentioned already in the previous chapter about the aggadic traditions from the Palestinian Targum that were used freely by the azanim.47 As concerns their form, the piyyutim contain poetic devices such as parallelism, assonance and metre, and mostly follow some poetic scheme, such as acrostic or anadiplosis (‫)שרשור‬, placing the last word of each line or section at the beginning of the next. Another popular device is the use of millot keva, placing a particular word or short phrase that is essential for the understanding of the text in a fixed place in each line.48 A relatively early phenomenon in the development of piyyut is the incorporation of short intermezzos meant to function as refrains or choral responses.49 In the later stages of the piyyut, from about 500 ce onwards, rhyme also became an important technique. These liturgical-exegetical poems that accompanied the Torah readings are generally in Hebrew, but there are also Aramaic examples, as we shall see in the next section.

1. Aramaic poetry There is ample evidence of an early existence of Aramaic poetry. According to Heinemann, the oldest Aramaic poems are ancient oral compositions, the origin of which is even older than that of the classical piyyut.50 Within the texts of Qumran, for example, some specimens of early Aramaic poetry have been found, such as the description of Sarai’s beauty in the Genesis Apocryphon.51 Contextualization, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 109–35. 47  See above, p. 14. 48  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 370. 49  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 371. 50  J. Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדמונים‬, Ha-Sifrut 4 (1973), 362–75, at 373–74. 51  See J.C. Vanderkam, ‘The Poetry of 1 Q  Ap Gen xx-2-8’, RdQ 10 (1979), 57–66; A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. — c. 600 C.E.): Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems, Assen 1997, 11–26 (commentary), 305 (text), 385 (translation).

tosefta targums

51

From talmudic times we know of the funeral songs, which were for a great part written in Aramaic, in accordance with the talmudic saying that Aramaic is the language for dirges.52 A collection of these Aramaic eulogies has been published by Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom.53 Also the Targums, especially the Palestinian ones, contain some striking poetic passages. In some cases these are composed of translated biblical poetry, such as for instance the lyrical description of the Messiah in Gen 49:11–12 or the rephrasing of the Song of David in 2 Sam 22.54 In other cases we find poetical introductions that were probably recited by the meturgemanim during the morning services on special sabbaths and holidays, and which served as illumination to central verses from the festive readings. This kind of poetry has from the end of the nineteenth century onwards been recognised as a particular targumic genre, the so-called ‘Introductory Poems’.55 They are Aramaic poetic introductions to the liturgical reading of Scripture on special occasions,56 and are in that sense functionally related to the piyyut. Leopold Zunz, Wilhelm Bacher and Moses Ginsburger were among the first to publish and discuss some of these poems.57 In the twentieth century this work was continued by Yehuda Komlosh, Joseph Heinemann, Ezra Fleischer, Michael Klein, Pierre Grelot, Alphons Samuel Rodrigues Pereira, Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom,58 and 52  y.Meg 1:1, 71b; y.Sot 7:2, 21c. By contrast, funeral songs for great scholars were in Hebrew. See H. Sysling, ‘Laments at the Departure of a Sage: Funeral Songs for Great Scholars as Recorded in Rabbinic Literature’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 81–102. 53  Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‫ישראל‬-‫שירת בני מערבא — שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ‬ ‫בתקופה הביזנטית‬, Jerusalem 1999, 282–329. 54  For a discussion of the Aramaic version of the Song of David, see Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 27–57 (commentary), 306–08 (text), 386–90 (translation); Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 634–64. 55  According to the terminology of Klein (Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxviii–xxix), who also called them ‘reshuyot’ by analogy with the Hebrew poems that served as an introduction to certain liturgical prayers. See M.L. Klein, ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel’, in: S.F. Chyet & D.H. Ellenson (eds), Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, Atlanta 1993, 43–56. 56  Especially Passover, Shavuot, Ninth of Av, Purim, and New Moon of Nisan. 57  L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 2 Vols, Berlin 1865–1867, 18– 22, 74–80, 150–51; W. Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtaraTargum’, MGWJ 22 (1873), 220–28; M. Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, ZDMG 54 (1900), 113–24; Idem, ‘Les Introductions Araméenes a la Lecture du Targoum’, REJ 73 (1921), 14–26, 186–94. 58  Y. Komlosh, ‘‫’כתבי יד של תרגומים‬, in: Y.L. Maymon (ed.), )‫ ספר יובל (תשי'ח‬,‫סיני‬,

52

chapter two

more recently by Michael Rand.59 These poems originated in Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine period when Aramaic was the main language in Palestine, and they continued to be used for certain well-defined parts of the liturgy long after any practical reason to use Aramaic had ceased.60 According to Zunz, we find a remnant of this usage until the fourteenth century: on the seventh day of Passover and the first day of Shavuot the Torah-reading and the haftarah were followed by a Targum, partly according to the Palestinian Targum tradition as becomes clear from the Mazorim of this period.61 This custom may, however, at certain places have continued even longer, until early modern times, witness the fact that for example the Roman Rite Festival Prayer Book that was printed in Bologna in 1540 still contains the Aramaic version of the haftarot for Passover and Shavuot.62 In some communities these Aramaic readings were preceded by the named Aramaic introductory poems. In fact, even today most European and America traditional synagogues chant an Aramaic introductory poem on Shavuot, before the Torah lection, the Akdamut Milin.63 A few of these poems are demonstrably old, such as for instance the famous ‫איזל משה‬, ‘Go, Moses!’,64 of which a copy has been found in a (1957–58), 466–81; Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 362–75; E. Fleischer, ‘‫’ראש ראשי חדשים‬, Tarbiz 37 (1967–68), 265–78; Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89–99; Idem, Genizah Manuscripts, passim (see the list in the first volume, p. L); Idem, ‘Introductory Poems’; P. Grelot, ‘Un poème acrostiche araméen sur Exode 12’, Semitica 38 (1990), 159–65; Idem, ‘Trois poèmes acrostiches sur Exode 12,2’, RB 106/1 (1999), 41–65; Idem, ‘Deux poèmes araméens sur Exode 20:1–2’, REJ 159 (2000), 49–61; Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 58–109 (commentary), 309–17 (texts), 391–402 (translation); M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, JQR 75/3 (1985), 309–21; Idem, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, Jerusalem 1999. 59  M. Rand, ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition: The case of the Kinot’, in: A. Gerhards & C. Leonhard (eds), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship, Leiden & Boston 2007, 127–44. 60  Many of the poems listed by Zunz occur in the eleventh/twelfth century French Mazor Vitry. 61  See Zunz, Vorträge, 426–27. 62  Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien’, 220–21. Especially in Italy the custom of translating into Aramaic all the haftarot for Passover and those for the two days of Shavuot, was preserved until recently. See e.g. E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78, at 42 n. 62. 63  M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89. 64  For a recent discussion of the poem, see H. Sysling, ‘“Go, Moses, and stand by the sea”: An acrostic poem from the Cairo Genizah to Exodus 14:30’, in: R. Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 139–54.

tosefta targums

53

fourth or fifth century papyrus in Berlin.65 Others are of a later date. These later poems are mostly not anonymous but give the name of the writer hidden in the text in an acrostic or otherwise. Some of the older poems, that were probably originally composed as introductions to the Palestinian Targum for festive occasions, survived after Targum Onkelos replaced the Palestinian Targum. At that stage they were sometimes adapted to the language of Targum Onkelos / Jonathan in the same manner as happened to the Tosefta Targums,66 and occasionally they also attained the status of a Tosefta Targum. Like the classical Hebrew piyyut, these Aramaic poems often use acrostics as the literary scheme. Furthermore they may be written in the style of dialogues or disputes. The originally oral character becomes visible in the use of returning formulas.67 The Aramaic is often interspersed with Greek words.68 Remarkable is for instance the use of the word ‫( קיריס‬κύριος) as a designation for God, because this name does not occur in any rabbinic literature apart from the Palestinian Targums.69 It may be that the expression was banned from rabbinic literature after the Christians started to use it as a designation for both God the Father and for Jesus.70 The occurrence of the word in the Palestinian targum tradition would then point to either its antiquity or to a disregard of rabbinic authority. The content of the targumic poems is characterised by mythological tendencies that are totally absent from the authoritative Targums Onkelos and Jonathan.71 Also this might point to a certain independence of rabbinic authority, since the rabbis are not known for their fondness of these themes. Whereas mythological themes in rabbinic literature, 65  Papyrus P 8498, edited by J. Yahalom, ‘‫’”אזל משה” בפפרוס‬, Tarbiz 47 (1978), 173– 82. See also Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, 82–86. 66  See Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 95. 67  Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 371. For the Christian use of the title (ὁ) κύριος for Jesus, see e.g. J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 115–42. 68  Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, 318–19. 69  E.g. PsJon Num 11:26, Neof Deut 32:1. See JPA 492a. The word also occurs as a title in Palestinian synagogue inscriptions, as becomes clear from J. Naveh, ‫על פסיפס‬ ‫ואבן — הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות‬, Tel Aviv 1978, Index, 151. 70  Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 368. 71  See e.g. the mythological portrayal of Moses as described by Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, 39–41. See also Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 158–60. Another view, denying the mythological tendencies as one of the characteristics of this genre, was recently expressed by M. Kister, ‘‫’שירת בני מערבא — היבטים בעלמה של שירה עלומה‬, Tarbiz 76/1 (2008), 105–84, esp. 153–62.

54

chapter two

if they occur at all, are often justified by biblical proof-texts or softened down by exegetical qualifiers such as ‫‘ כביכול‬as it were’,72 in the liturgical poetry they are used overtly, in their own right. In the corpus we have studied we find, for example, a large TT to 1 Sam 17:42 in the form of an acrostic poem, consisting of a dialogue between Goliath and David.73 This kind of poetic insertion increases the dramatic effect of the biblical text and focuses attention on central points in the narrative.74 It is conceivable that this became a rather popular device to enliven the synagogue worship. It may even be that sometimes things got out of hand, witness the following tradition that is based on Eccl 7:5,75 ‫ מאיש שומע שיר כסילים אלו המתורגמנין‬,‫ אלו הדרשנים‬,‫טוב לשמוע גערת חכם‬ ‫שמגביהין קולם בשיר להשמיע את העם‬ ‘It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof’, these are the interpreters, ‘than to listen to the song of fools’, these are the meturgemanim who raise their voices in poetry to instruct the people.

C. Description of the Corpus The targumic traditions that are generally called Tosefta Targums are found scattered in various manuscripts and printed editions. They can be found in Targum manuscripts, in haftarah collections, in prayer books, and in medieval rabbinic works. They may occur as an integral part of the text or as marginal additions. At times they have been transmitted separately.76 Sometimes they are marked as Tosefta or Jerusalemite targum or the like, while at other times they go without 72  See M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003, 213. 73  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, in: J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Neukirchen 1993, 265–92; J.C. de Moor & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, JSJ 24 (1993), 266–79; Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 109–11; E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 364–83. See below, pp. 114–118. 74  A. Shinan, ‘The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. IV. The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 693–94. 75  EcclR 7:5, EcclZ 7:5, YalqSh Eccl §973. A comparable tradition occurs in EcclR 9:17 and YalqSh Eccl §989. See Zunz, Vorträge, 358. 76  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151; Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot’, 410; U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995, 165; C. Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006, 356–57.

tosefta targums

55

any special designation. The language of the TTs varies: sometimes it is close to the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan, sometimes it shows a clear Babylonian influence, and at still other times it is outspoken Palestinian. In many cases the TTs are clearly additions to the rather basic translation of Targum Jonathan, while at other times they seem to be totally independent of it. In some cases targumic traditions in Targum Jonathan seem to be abridged versions of longer versions that have been preserved as TTs. This very diverse character of the TTs makes it difficult to categorise them. Depending on the scholarly interest, one could opt for a subdivision based on geography, source, function, form, or relation to Targum Jonathan. Until now, the TTs have in scholarly research mostly been defined in relation to Targum Jonathan. For instance, Pinkhos Churgin, in his monograph on Targum Jonathan, used the term ‘interpolated targum’ for the TTs, a designation which in itself is telling. In his view Targum Jonathan fell prey to later editors who forced into it other material. The Targum was susceptible, according to Churgin, to changes due to its purpose as a didactical instrument and to its place in public worship.77 Later midrashic material was inserted as interpolation into the simple and straightforward translation of Targum Jonathan.78 In addition there are interpolations of an exegetical character, which attempt to clarify either the Hebrew text or the accepted rendering of Targum Jonathan.79 Among these interpolations Churgin also reckons the double translations within Targum Jonathan.80 So his definition of ‘interpolated targum’ encompasses more than what is generally considered Tosefta Targum. Kasher, in his book on the subject, included all kinds of variant traditions that occur in combination with Targum Jonathan in his corpus.81 This is a clear and practical choice, though it may be challenged on different grounds, as we shall argue later. Kasher distinguished three types of extensions: a preceding extension, an interwoven extension, and a concluding extension. A small number of the TTs differ essentially from Targum Jonathan. These targums he termed substitute tar-

77  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126. 78  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126–39. 79  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–45. 80  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–41. 81  Excluding variant traditions that occur as quotations in other rabbinic or medieval literature such as described in Chapter Three of the present work, unless they also occur elsewhere in manuscripts or early editions of Targum Jonathan.

56

chapter two

gums.82 Within this last category he made the following subdivision: 1. independent substitute targums,83 2. interwoven substitute targums,84 and 3. literal substitute targums.85 In any case, Kasher’s classification invariably takes Targum Jonathan as its point of departure and describes the variant traditions in relation to that text. For the present study we have concentrated on the TTs on Samuel that were brought together by Rimon Kasher in his book on the Tosefta Targums, completed with a TT on 1 Sam 2:9 that was discovered by the late Michael Klein,86 a Jerushalmi variant on 1 Sam 6:19, and some marginal readings of the sefer aer type of Codex Reuchlin that were not included in Kasher’s study.87 We decided to include these sefer aer additions in order to probe Bacher’s supposition that they might be remnants of an independent tradition.88 Altogether there are forty-six TTs on Samuel, of which three are on the same verse, namely 1 Sam 17:8. In the following subparagraphs we will first describe the main sources of the TTs to Targum Samuel, before proceeding to discuss and characterise the individual traditions.

1. The main sources Although our work makes extensive use of the book of Kasher, the names we use for the textual witnesses may differ. Names change through time and habit, and sometimes through simple human mistakes. In this work we use the names that occur in the work of our Kampen colleagues Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and David Kroeze in an attempt to minimise confusion and to set a kind of standard for future work.89 The sigla of Kasher are given in brackets for easy comparison.

82  ‫( תרגום חילופי‬Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 20, 26–28). 83  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27. 84  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27. 85  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27–28. 86  T-S NS 128.14. See Klein, Targumic Manuscripts, 51, nr 615. 87  We did not include the sefer aer variant ‫ ויתלעבון‬to 1 Sam 31:4 since that seems to be a correction of the base text of Reuchlin that reads ‫ויתעלבון‬, a case of metathesis of consonants. Both readings make sense and both are supported by several manuscripts. 88  See above, p. 43. 89  See http://www.targum.nl/ (accessed Oct. 31, 2008).

tosefta targums

57

1.1. Codex Reuchlin The most important source for our investigation is Codex Reuchlin, a Bible manuscript of the Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. It has been written in Ashkenazi script, by Zera bar Yehudah, and is dated 4866 (1105–1106 ce). The place of provenance is probably Italy. The codex contains a very valuable collection of alternative targum traditions of which some may be designated as TTs.90 1.2. Other continuous Targum manuscripts Besides Codex Reuchlin there are several other continuous Targum manuscripts that contain TTs. This group can be subdivided according to the cultural geographical background of the manuscripts. We start with the Sephardi manuscripts: »» ms Opp Add 40 75–76 (Kasher 1‫)א‬. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Bilingual Targum of the Prophets. The manuscript can be attributed to the school of Joshua ben Abraham Ibn Gaon of Soria, early 14th century. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms Opp Add 40 75. »» ms Madrid 7542 (Kasher 1‫)ד‬. Former Prophets and Ruth in Aramaic and Latin written by Alfonso de Zamora in 1533. »» ms H. 116 (Kasher 1‫)ה‬. TJ from 1 Sam 5:11 onwards, Targum to Psalms, Job, and Proverbs. TJ completed in 1486 ce, probably in North Africa.91 »» ms M1–M3 Salamanca (Kasher 1‫)ח‬. Targum of the Prophets and the Writings with a Latin translation. Written by Alfonso de Zamora, volume 3 completed in Alcalá de Henares, 1532. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms M1. »» ms Hébreu 75 (Kasher 1‫)י‬. Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan, Megillat Antiochus in Aramaic, and Testament Naphtali. The manuscript was probably produced in Spain, in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. »» ms Kennicott 5 (Kasher 1‫)כ‬, Oxford. Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan and the commentaries of Rashi, Kimi and Levi ben Gershon. Spain, probably 1487. TTs integrated in the text. The manuscript is replete with errors and abbreviations. 90  See also Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 15. This codex is available in a facsimile edition: A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe (formerly Durlach no. 55): with a general introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, Copenhagen 1956 91  See also Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14–15.

58

chapter two

The following Ashkenazi manuscripts were used: »» ms El. f. 6 (not in Kasher), Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Jena. Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. German square, irregular handwriting, sublinear vocalisation, thirteenth or fourteenth century. »» ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 (not in Kasher). Staatsbibliothek, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Bible with Targum, including Targum Chronicles. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Written by Barukh b. Zera; Masorahs, punctuation and decorations by Simson, dated 1343. »» ms Laud Or. 326 (Kasher ‫)ב‬, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, preceded by various readings of different schools for the Writings. Not punctuated. Ashkenazi square script, twelfth century. »» ms 11 Göttweig (Kasher ‫)ח‬. Convent Göttweig, Austria. Pentateuch and Prophets with Targum, alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Ashkenazi script, fourteenth century. »» ms Hébreu 17–18 (Kasher ‫)ך‬, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Bible with Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan and Targum Writings, including Targum Sheni to Esther and the Dream of Mordecai in Aramaic, Targum alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Ashkenazi script, fourteenth or fifteenth century. For our purposes only the second volume is relevant, i.e. ms Hébreu 18. »» ms Add. 26,879 (Kasher ‫)נ‬, British Library, London. Prophets with Targum (without Jeremiah) and the commentary of Rashi. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Franco‑German square script, both Masorahs and commentary of Rashi, thirteenth century. »» ms Parma 3187, 3188, 3189 (Kasher ‫)ת‬, Biblioteca Palatina Parma. Former Prophets, Later Prophets and Writings (incomplete), with Targum, including the Dream of Mordecai in Aramaic. The Twelve Prophets are missing. Psalms without Targum. Thirteenth or fourteenth century. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms Parma 3187. »» ms Marburg 4 (Kasher 6‫)ז‬. Marburg — Hessisches Staatsarchiv Bestand 147, Handschriften-Mappe B. 1 Sam 17:8–17:21. Provenance unknown.92 92  We placed it here with the Ashkenazi witness because it contains a TT that

tosefta targums

59

Whereas normally the Yemenite manuscripts, being close to the Babylonian tradition, do not contain TTs, the following late Yemenite manuscript has some TTs added in the margin: »» ms Or. 1471 (Kasher 2 ‫)ט‬. British Library, London. Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan, including an Arabic translation for Judges 4:23–5:31. Targum alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums in the margin. Yemenite script. Dated 1589 ce.

1.3. Collection of haftarot »» ms Gaster 1478 (no siglum in Kasher). According to Kasher this is a typewriter copy of ms 1020 that was lost.93 The Gaster list is a photocopy of handwritten descriptions and it is not always legible. But it seems to say: ‘Hagadah. Midrash Hagadot from Haphtaroth (Persia) copies of Agadic portions in [Happ..?. illegible word]’.94 1.4. Early editions Sephardi »» Leiria (Kasher 1‫)ב‬. First printed edition, Leiria 1494. Former Prophets with Targum and the commentaries of Kimi and Levi ben Gershon. Italian »» First Rabbinic Bible (Kasher 3‫)א‬. Published in 1516/17 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, edited by Felix Pratensis. The Prophets are provided with Targum Jonathan and Kimi’s commentary. 1.5. Cairo Genizah manuscripts »» T-S NS 128.14 (not in Kasher).95 University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Cambridge. Prophets with Targum Jonathan (fragments): 1 Sam 2:8–2:10, and in the margin 2:11; 3:19–3:20. Tiberian vocalisation. Judaeo-Arabic heading in the middle of verso followed by an Aramaic liturgical composition. Oriental semi-cursive script. Date unknown. »» T-S B11.56 (not in Kasher).96 University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Cambridge. Fragment of a codex, 8 folios, Targum occurs mainly in that group. 93  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 306. 94  We owe this information to Ms Anne Young of the Special Collections of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester. 95  M.L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992, 41, nr. 615. 96  Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 22, nr. 261.

60

chapter two

Jonathan 2 Sam 5:10–9:10a. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets with Hebrew lemmata. Oriental semi-cursive script, unvocalised. Date unknown.

1.6. Bible commentaries Sephardi »» ms Parma 2883 (Kasher 6‫)ס‬, Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets, Italy 1328.97 Kimi cites pieces of targum under the heading ‫תרגום‬ ‫של תוספתא‬.98 »» ms Vatican 71 (Kasher 6‫)כ‬, Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets, Italian handwriting, 1346. Kimi cites pieces of targum under the heading ‫תרגום של תוספתא‬.99 Ashkenazi »» ms Munich 5 (Kasher ‫)ם‬, written in 1233 in Ashkenaz, contains among other things a commentary to the Prophets ascribed to Rashi.100 This commentary contains many targum citations. Apparently the source was a manuscript where the additions were incorporated without any sign; it says e.g. ‫ יונתן תרגם המקרא הזה‬followed by what we would call a TT. 1.7. Mazorim »» ms Add. 27,070 (Kasher ms London 634, 3‫)ה‬, Roman rite, fifteenth or sixteenth century. »» ms Add. 17,058 (Kasher ms London 636, no siglum), Roman rite, fifteenth century.

2. Distribution among the sources If we now examine how the TTs are distributed among these sources, the following picture emerges. Of the 46 traditions examined, only 8 occur in more than one source, viz. 1 Sam 17:8b; 17:8c; 17:39; 17:42; 18:19; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:12; 22:3–47 passim). The last one of these only occurs in two Mazorim, ms Add. 27,070 and ms Add. 17,058. By far the 97  Although Kimi was born in France, and his commentary appeared in Italy, born of a family of Spanish immigrants he considered himself a Sephardi. For example his book ‫ ספר השרשים‬is ascribed to Rabbi David Kimi ha-Sephardi. 98  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14. 99  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14. 100  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 15.

tosefta targums

61

most TTs, 34, are known to us only from Codex Reuchlin. Four traditions are known from other single witnesses, two from ms Kennicott 5 (2 Sam 18:25; 20:22), one from the Leiria edition (2 Sam 19:30), and one from the Genizah fragment T-S NS 128.14 (1 Sam 2:9).

D. Characterisation of the Toseftan Material According to their Designations The following paragraphs are the result of our attempt to characterise the TTs according to their designations. In order to ease the comparison we give both the text of Targum Jonathan according to the Sperber edition and the variant reading. In the case of substitute targums the words that differ from Targum Jonathan are underlined. When necessary also the Masoretic text is given. The bibliographic information refers to previous publication or scholarly discussion.101

1. Sefer aer In Codex Reuchlin we find twenty marginal readings that refer to a sefer aer, another book, of which nineteen are discussed here.102 The variants are easily recognisable because they are marked in the margin by two dotted bows, as shown in the picture.

Within the text a small circle indicates the place to which the variant refers. All variants are unique in the sense that they do not appear in other known sources. They are as follows: 1 Sam 2:22; 4:12; 17:18; 21:16; 26:9; 26:20; 28:19; 30:16; 2 Sam 1:6; 1:21; 3:5; 3:27; 6:19; 15:4; 15:11, 21:1; 21:3; 21:5; 21:12. Five of these traditions are aggadic, which is more or less in line with Bacher’s observation that in the whole codex about a quarter of the material designated as sefer aer is aggadic.103 We shall first examine these aggadic instances and then proceed to discuss and classify the other variants with the designation sefer aer. 101  No special reference is given to the work of Kasher, since the reference in the headings of the TT will suffice. 102  See above, n. 87. 103  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 22.

62

chapter two

1.1. Aggadic variants

1 Sam 2:22 (Kasher 42) Codex Reuchlin 57r

>‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫וא דא‫ספ אח‫ספ אח‫ספ אח