Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENTSERIES

230

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Targumic and Cognate Studies Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara

edited by Kevin J. Cathcart

and Michael Maher

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 230

Copyright © 1996 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 19AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-632-5

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors

7 9 11

Parti TARGUMIC STUDIES

PHILIP S. ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory: Notes on the Development of an Exegetical Tradition

14

LUIS DIEZ MERINO

Onomastica y Toponimia: Targum, Midras y Antiguo Testamento

30

BERNARD GROSSFELD

Tin ]H «^n - 'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes': The Treatment of this Biblical Hebrew Idiom in the Ancient Aramaic Versions 52

ROBERT HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumim

67

MICHAEL MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

81

CELINE MANGAN The Attitude to Women in the Prologue of Targum Job

100

JOSEP RIBERA

The Image of Israel according to the Targum of Ezekiel

111

6

Targumic and Cognate Studies

AVIGDOR SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures in the Pentateuchal Aramaic Targumim

122

Part II ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC STUDIES KEVIN J. CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

140

EDWARD M. COOK Our Translated Tobit

153

ROBERT P. GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel

163

JOHN F. HEALEY 'May He be Remembered for Good': An Aramaic Formula

177

CARMEL MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions: St Ephrem's Verbal Magic in the Diatessaron Commentary

187

EMILE PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

208

A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara in Targumic and Biblical Studies

229

Index of References Index of Authors

234 247

PREFACE

This collection of essays by a group of international scholars is intended to pay fitting honour to Professor Martin McNamara, who celebrated his sixty-fifth birthday in 1995. Although Martin McNamara has made significant and innovative contributions in the field of Hiberno-Latin studies, especially in research on the Apocrypha and the Psalms in the early Irish Church, the present volume is intended to pay tribute to his remarkable contribution to targumic studies over a period of almost forty years. When Martin McNamara was a student of theology in Rome in the early 1950s, he happened to live in the same religious community as Alejandro Diez Macho. Diez Macho was then making his initial study of MS Neofiti 1, which he had discovered in the Vatican Library in 1949. A few years later, when Fr McNamara was preparing his doctoral thesis, Diez Macho supplied him with photocopies of the MS, and awoke in him an interest in the targums. The friendship between Martin McNamara and Alejandro Diez Macho lasted until the latter's death in 1984, and the two scholars cooperated in several scholarly projects, notably in the editing and translation of MS Neofiti 1. Martin McNamara's doctoral thesis became The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, which was published in 1966. It gave a major boost to targumic studies in the Christian world, and especially in the English-speaking world. As the list of Martin's works which we include in this volume shows, he has continued since then to produce important books and articles dealing with many aspects of targumic and Aramaic studies. Besides his prolific work as a writer, Martin McNamara has contributed in many other ways to the advancement of targumic and biblical scholarship. For a number of years he organized regular seminars on targumic themes under the auspices of the Irish Biblical Association. In 1992 he organized the Targum conference at the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin, which attracted Targum and Aramaic specialists from many

8

Targumic and Cognate Studies

centres of scholarship to the Irish capital. As a member of the Royal Irish Academy, he has been the driving force behind the Academy's committee on biblical and Near Eastern studies, and he has helped to organize several international conferences in the Academy on various aspects of biblical studies. Martin McNamara has also been busy as an editor and has participated in the production of several important series: he co-edited with the late Carl Stuhlmueller the twenty-three volumes of the Old Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. The series The Aramaic Bible, which is nearing completion, will be familiar to readers of this volume. The editors wish to express their thanks to all the scholars who agreed to contribute to this work. Their readiness to do so was in itself a sign of their esteem for the scholar whom we honour. As we present their work to Fr McNamara, we offer him their congratulations and those of the many other scholars who admire his work, and we wish him many more fruitful years of scholarly involvement in the many areas in which he is interested. We wish to thank Sheffield Academic Press for accepting this volume for publication, and we are indebted to Anne Spillane of the Department of Near Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin, who prepared most of the manuscript. Kevin J. Cathcart Michael Maher

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AnBib ANET ATD BA BASOR BETL BHS Bib BibOr BSOAS CAD CBQ CCSL CIS CSCO EBib EncJud EstBib HTR HUCA ICC IEJ ITQ JANES JBL JBLMS JJS JNES JSS JSSSup JTS KAI NSI

Anchor Bible Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd edn Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies The Assyrian Dictionary, Chicago Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus christianorum: series latina Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Etudes bibliques Encyclopaedia Judaica Estudios biblicos Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplements Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften G A. Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions

10 OBO OCP OTL OTS PL RB REJ RHPR RevQ SBLDS SC SNTSMS SPB TDNT VC VT VTSup ZAW

Targumic and Cognate Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia Christiana Periodica Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien J. Migne, Patrologia latina Revue biblique Revue des etudes juives Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series Sources chretiennes Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series Studia postbiblica G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vigiliae christianae Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Philip S. Alexander is Professor of Postbiblical Jewish Literature at the University of Manchester. Kevin J. Cathcart is Professor of Near Eastern Languages at University College, Dublin. Edward M. Cook is Associate Research Scholar on the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnatti, Ohio. Luis Diez Merino is Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the University of Barcelona. Robert P. Gordon is Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge. Bernard Grossfeld is Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Studies at the University of Wisconsin. Robert Hayward is Reader in Theology at the University of Durham. John F. Healey is Reader in Semitic Philology at the University of Manchester. Carmel McCarthy is Lecturer in Hebrew and Syriac at University College, Dublin. Michael Maher is Lecturer in Scripture at the Mater Dei Institute of Education, Dublin. Celine Mangan is Lecturer in Scripture at the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin. Emile Puech is Professor at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem. Josep Ribera is Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the University of Barcelona. Avigdor Shinan is Professor in the Department of Hebrew Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

This page intentionally left blank

Parti TARGUMIC STUDIES

THE SONG OF SONGS AS HISTORICAL ALLEGORY: NOTES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXEGETICAL TRADITION*

Philip S. Alexander

Over the centuries the Song of Songs has attracted more comment than almost any other part of the Hebrew Bible. Even a cursory reading of the great surveys of the history of Canticles exegesis by Friedrich Ohly (1958), and, more recently, by Max Engammare (1993) will reveal how extensive the interest has been.1 This interest reflects directly the problematic nature of the book. On the surface it is totally non-religious: it * I have benefited greatly from comments I received on a version of this paper given at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in July 1995, particularly from Hubert Stadler of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. I intend to return to this subject more fully at a later date, but I hope that the present preliminary observations will be a worthy tribute to a scholar who has done so much for biblical studies in Ireland and world-wide. 1. F. Ohly, Hohelied-Studien: Grundziige einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abenlandes bis zum 1200 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1958); M. Engammare, Le Cantique des Cantiques a la renaissance: etude et bibliographic (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1993). See further, C.D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs (London: Longman, 1857), pp. 20-102; R.F. Littledale, A Commentary on the Song of Songs from Ancient and Mediaeval Sources (London: Joseph Masters, 1869), pp. xxxii-xl; H. Riedlinger,Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den lateinischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1958); R. Herde, Das Hohelied in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters bis zum 12. Jahrhundert (Miinchener Beitrage zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung 3; Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioeva, 1968); M.R. Pope, Song of Songs (AB, 7C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 89-229; E.A. Clark, The Uses of the Song of Songs: Origen and the Later Latin Fathers', in Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), pp. 386-427; A.W. Astell, The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990); E.A. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Mediaeval Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990).

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

15

contains not a single mention of the name of God, nor does it refer to any of the great themes of sacred history—the Torah, the covenant, the election of Israel. It is full of erotic, sensual, even carnal images. One recent interpreter has seriously suggested that it could be categorized as 'pornography'. 2 From rabbinic sources it is clear that as late as the second century CE some still had doubts whether or not Canticles was inspired scripture.3 But it did, in the end, find a secure place in the canon of both the Synagogue and the Church, and once there successive generations were faced with the problem of making it an edifying portion of Holy Writ. The form of the book, as well as its content, created problems. Canticles consists totally of short, unrubricated passages of direct speech. There is no narrative framework to tell us who is speaking, who is being addressed, or the context in which the words are uttered. All this has to be deduced from clues embedded within the speech itself. Bible commentators—and indeed literary critics in general—display, on the whole, a prosaic mentality and consequently do not cope well with lyric poetry. They are most comfortable with narratives, and as a result much of the interpretation of the Song of Songs has involved constructing a story into which the discrete poems can be inserted and which gives coherence 2. See D.J.A. Clines's provocative study 'Why is there a Song of Songs and what does it do to you if you read it?', Jian Dao: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1 (1994), pp. 3-27: 'I find myself asking, Is the book [of Canticles] to any degree responsible for the way it has been read? Can a book, indeed, be innocent of its reception? What is it about this book that has allowed and legitimated a reading so against its own grain? I don't rightly know how to answer this question; but I have a suspicion that a work which came into the world as soft pornography proves ultimately to be irredeemable in polite society' (p. 19). 'In the Song, the woman is everywhere constructed as the object of male gaze...To her male spectators, the readers of the poem, of course, she cannot say, "Do not stare at me"; for she is brought into existence precisely to be stared at, and the veil she would willingly cover herself with is disallowed by the poet's gaze. She has been the victim of male violence and anger (1.6), and she bears the marks of it on her face; and now the poet invites his readers to share his sight of the woman's humiliation. It is the very stuf of pornography' (p. 24). 3. M. Yad. 3,5. Fragments of Song of Songs have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (see E. Tov's important discussion of this material in 'Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4', JJS 46, [1995], pp. 88-111). This suggests that already by the first century BCE the book wa being read allegorically, since it is hardly conceivable, given the religious outlook of the group behind the Scrolls, that they would have read the text literally.

16

Targumic and Cognate Studies

to the text from beginning to end.4 The broad thrust of the exegesis of Canticles has been overwhelmingly historicizing. This is true whether the book was read naturalistically as an epithalamium for the nuptials of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter, or allegorically as an account of the soul's relationship to God and its journey along the via mystica, or as a sort of cryptic biography of the Virgin Mary and her relationship to Christ, an interpretation popular in the twelfth century among Christian exegetes at the height of Marian devotion. The particular interpretation on which I shall focus in the present paper takes this historicizing tendency to an extreme. It treats the Song of Songs as an allegorical history of the relationship between God (= the Bridegroom) on the one hand, and Israel and/or the Church (= the Bride) on the other, and it correlates each individual poem with 'real' historical events. Its distinguishing mark is that it is systematic: the historical correlations are in correct chronological order and cover an extended period of time, in some cases stretching from the creation of the world to the end of history. The heyday of this approach was the seventeenth century, when it enjoyed a particular vogue among Protestant commentators. The key figure appears to have been Thomas Brightman. Brightman argued that the Song is a prophetic history of the Church under both the old and the new dispensations from the time of King David until the Second Coming, and so detailed were the correlations which he made between the text and history that he found allusions in it to events in Geneva in the time of Calvin! He summarizes his reading thus: The authority of this Song is declared in the Inscription. Then he [Solomon] prosecuteth his purpose in verse, which is wholly employed in describing the condition of the Church, as well as it was Legall, from the time of David to the death of Christ, in the 3 first chapters and to the 6. 4. The headings of some of the Psalms provide an early example of an attempt to create a context for unrubricated speech: e.g. Ps. 56: 'A Miktam of David, when the Philistines seized him in Gath' (see further, Pss. 7, 18, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142). Similar attempts can be found in the Diwans of mediaeval Hebrew poets such as Solomon ibn Gabirol. Such headings constitute a sort of primitive commentary and illustrate the difficulties later scholars had in coping with poetry. The creation of a 'co-text' from clues contained within direct speech is found in the targumim of the Pentateuch (A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums [Tubingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992]), of the Prophets (R.P. Gordon, 'Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets', JSS 39 [1994], pp. 7-17) and of the Writings (notably in Targum Shir ha-Shirim).

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

17

verse of the 4. chapter. As also, as it was Evangelicall unto the Second Comming of Christ to the end of the book.

Brightman underscored his view of Canticles as predictive prophecy by suggesting that its implied narrative runs parallel to that of the Revelation of John, a text which, like other Protestant scholars of his day, he read historically, and on which he wrote an influential commentary: This Prophesie following [i.e. Canticles] agreeth well neere in all things with that of Saint lohn in the Revelation. They fore-shew the same events in the like times. And either of them directeth his course to the same marke. They differ so much in beginnings as Salomon exceeded John in age. They also follow somewhat, a divers manner of handling it. John setteth forth the strifes and battels of the Church more at large, and exactly painteth out her enemies with a greater caution or heed taking. But this Propheticall Paranymph (or marriage maker) toucheth these things more sparingly, desirous only to set forth the joyful events of the Church, he scarcely mentioned at all any accidents, whereby this nuptiall song might be disturbed: or at least so seasoning her troubles, that much pleasure may always appear in them.5

Brightman's 'Propheticall Exposition' of Canticles first appeared in English in 1644, although Brightman himself flourished in the Tudor period (he died in 1607), and the Latin version of his commentary was

5. Brightman's Commentary on the Canticles appeared twice in English in 1644, once in Amsterdam as a separate volume, and once in London as part of the volume of his collected works, along with his commentary on the Apocalypse. The historical school dominated Protestant exegesis of Revelation from the Reformation until the early nineteenth century (R.J. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse [Abingdon: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1978]). The idea that Canticles is the Old Testament counterpart of the New Testament Apocalypse is found already in patristic and mediaeval commentators; see Ann Matter's observations on this point: 'Besides his virtually complete elaboration of the Song of Songs as an allegory of the immediate tribulations of institutional Christianity, Gregory of Elvira also gives a hint of another development in Latin Song of Songs interpretation: the connnection between the Song of Songs and the Apocalypse as related allegories of the Church.. .The Song of Songs and the Apocalypse were.. .increasingly read together, as two accounts of the same divine plan...an apocalyptic theme in Song of Songs exegesis is well developed by Honorius in the twelfth century' (The Voice of My Beloved, p. 89, and passim). Linking the two texts may have been encouraged by the fact that the one more or less plausible quotation from Canticles in the New Testament is found in Rev. 3.20, 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock'; cf. Cant. 5.2, 'It is the voice of my beloved that knocks'.

18

Targumic and Cognate Studies

published (posthumously) in Basel in 1614.6 He is the oldest of the group of seventeenth-century scholars who take this historical line, and his work, whether directly or indirectly, probably influenced the others. The group includes the Englishmen John Cotton,7 Nathanael Homes,8 John Davenport and George Wither,9 and the Germans Johannes Cocceius10 and Caspar Heunisch.11 Cocceius and Heunisch are noteworthy for the way in which they develop Brightman's suggestion of a parallelism between Canticles and the Apocalypse by superimposing a detailed apocalyptic historical schema on the Song of Songs. Thus Cocceius divided the Song into seven periods corresponding to the seven seals and seven trumpets of Revelation. And Heunisch discovered in Canticles seven successive ages reflecting the spiritual states of the Seven Churches of Asia in Revelation, the final age (that of Laodicea) beginning in the year 2060! Reading the Song of Songs as allegorical history went out of fashion at the end of the seventeenth century. Heunisch's Apocalyptic Commentary on the Song of Songs (1688) was one of its last exemplars. I can find no significant traces of the practice in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Bossuet's elegant commentary on Canticles, published in 1693,12 inaugurated a more naturalistic approach which was picked 6. Scholia in Canticum Canticorum (Basel, 1614). Brightman's dates are given in the Dictionary of National Biography (II, 1247) as 1562-1607. 7. John Cotton, A Brief Exposition of the whole Book of Canticles (London, 1642). 8. Nathanael Homes, 'Commentary on Canticles', in The Works of Dr Nathanael Homes (London, 1652). 9. I have gleaned the information about Wither and Davenport from Christopher Hill's interesting discussion of seventeenth-century interpretations of the Song of Songs in The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994), pp. 362-70: 'John Davenport's unpublished sermons on Canticles...apparently shared Brightman's historical interpretation' (p. 367 n. 137; further p. 363). 'George Wither regarded the song as a history of the church, "from Abel to the last judgement", when the "blessed marriage" (of Christ and his church) shall be fully consummated' (pp. 365-66, with a reference to the Song of Songs in Wither's Hymns and Songs of the Church, p. 39). 10. Johannes Cocceius, Cogitationes de Cantico Canticorum (Leiden, 1665). 11. Caspar Heunisch, In Canticum Canticorum commentarius apocalypticus (Leipzig, 1688). The work is rare, but there is a copy in the British Library. See Ginsburg, Song of Songs, pp. 78-79, for a summary (though note that Ginsburg misspells the name as 'Hennischius'). 12. Libri Salomonis, Canticum Canticorum (Paris, 1693). Littledale rightly notes

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

19

up by Lowth, Percy and other leading biblical scholars in the following century. Bossuet, developing an earlier, minor strand of tradition, suggested that the Song was nothing more than a celebration of the sevenday nuptials of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. Allegory by no means disappeared, but the allegory proposed was no longer a cryptic history of the Church. However, the twentieth century witnessed a curious late revival of historical allegory—and from an unexpected quarter—in the work of the distinguished French Catholic scholars Paul Joiion and Andre Robert.13 But there was an important difference: though Joiion and (especially) Robert detected messianic elements in Canticles, both took the Song essentially as a backward look over the history of Israel from the post-exilic standpoint of the author, rather than as a detailed prophecy of the future. The author of the 'Epistle to the Reader' which prefaces the English edition of Brightman's commentary expresses concern lest Brightman's views may be rejected as too strange and novel: 'I confesse,' he writes, 'he that forsakes the ancient opinions of learned and godly men, and propounds to himself a new way, in which he walketh all alone, may (in good manners) be thought to erre.' In fact Brightman's interpretation was not as innovative as might at first sight be supposed.14 The that Bossuet marks a turning point in the history of Canticles exegesis: 'With this author [Cocceius] closes the period formally embraced in the following commentary, which does not profess to deal with the exegesis of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, properly beginning with Bossuet's commentary in 1690' (Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. xl). 13. P. Joiion,- Le Cantique des Cantiques: commentaire philologique et exegetique (Paris: Beauchesne, 1909); A. Robert, R. Tournay and A. Feuillet, Le Cantique des Cantiques: traduction et commentaire (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1963). Tournay and Feuillet were pupils of Robert who adopted their teacher's approach and completed his work. See the discussion by Pope, Song of Songs, pp. 179-83. Unfortunately I have been unable to consult R.T. Loring's dissertation, The Christian Historical Exegesis of the Song of Songs and its Possible Jewish Antecedents' (General Theological Seminary, New York, 1967), mentioned by Pope (p. 182), who says that it examines 'thirty-six Christian works which follow more or less the line of the Targum'. 14. As the author of the Epistle himself realized: 'He [Brightman] is not singular in his manner of interpreting: for amongst the Hebrewes, Aben Ezra conceives the mysterie from Abraham to the Messias, to be here set forth; And some amongst us from the Messias to the Churches freedome under Constantine.' I know of no interpretation which correlates Canticles with the period from the coming of Christ to the time of Constantine. It is possible that 'from the Messias' is a slip for 'from

20

Targumic and Cognate Studies

excessive detail of his historical allegory may have been new but his general principles and approach had clear antecedents, and a scholar of Brightman's erudition cannot have been wholly ignorant of this fact. Thus the Song is treated as allegorical history in the scholia of Isidoro da Chiari (1542),15 in the first commentary of Sebastian Miinster (1525),16 and in the commentary of Jaime (Jacob) Perez de Valencia (ca. 14081490), first published in I486,17 and reprinted at least fifteen times in the next hundred years.18 More significantly still, Canticles is read as allegorical history by the great Franciscan scholar Nicolas de Lyra (ca. 1270-1349), whose Postilla litteralis, printed alongside the Glossa ordinaria, was the most widely disseminated Bible commentary of the late mediaeval and early modern periods. Lyra's exposition of the Song first appeared in print in 1471 and was reissued some forty times in the following one hundred and twenty years. There were several editions of it within Brightman's lifetime.19 It is reasonable, therefore, to postulate for Lyra a central role in popularizing the exegesis of Canticles as historical allegory among biblical scholars in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. True, Lyra is rarely mentioned by name, but this does not imply that he was unknown. Scholars then (as now) did not always acknowledge their debts, and the very ubiquity of Lyra's work may have meant that acquaintance with it was taken for granted. In the introduction to the Postilla to Canticles Lyra notes the existence of three different schools of interpreters of the book. First, there were those who saw it merely as an epithalamium celebrating the marriage of King Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. This, though he does not say so, was the opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Though Theodore's view of Canticles had been pronounced heretical it is frequently mentioned in the David', induced by the preceding words 'to the Messias'. If this is the case, then the reference would be to Nicolas de Lyra. 15. Isidoro da Chiari, Vulgata aditio Veteris ac Novi Tesiamenti (Venice, 1542). See Engammare, Le Cantiques des Cantiques, pp. 282-92 for discussion of Da Chiari and other historical allegorists of his period. 16. Sebastian Miinster, Canticum Canticorum Salomonis (Basel, 1525). 17. Jaime Perez de Valencia, Expositio in Cantica Canticorum Salomonis (Valencia, 1486). 18. This can be deduced from Engammare's bibliography:, see the Index of authors, p. *164, under Perez de Valencia, Jaime. 19. Nicolas de Lyra, Postilla litteralis et moralis in vetus et novum testamentum (Rome, 1471). For the reprints see Engammare, Le Cantiques des Cantiques, Inde of authors, p. *163, under Nicolas de Lyre. I have used the 1588 Venice edition.

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

21

middle ages. It proved a convenient bench-mark for an absolutely literal reading of the Song.20 Secondly, there were the Jewish interpreters who took the Song as a parabolic account of the love of God for Israel. Thirdly, there were the Catholic expositors who treated the Song as an allegory of the union of Christ and the Church, and who sometimes presented this interpretation polemically to stress God's rejection of the Synagogue and of the old Israel. Lyra takes a mediating line. The Song is, indeed, an allegory of the relationship between Christ and the Church, but it embraces that relationship under the dispensations of both the old and the new covenants. Lyra thus asserts the continuity of the Church with Israel.21 He takes the rhythm of communion, estrangement, repentance and reconciliation between the bride and the bridegroom as mirroring the actual historical vicissitudes of the Church's relationship to Christ from the beginning of time. The Church has in fact, he avers, existed since the creation, but because it only became a bride with the giving of the Law at Sinai, whereby God espoused Israel to himself, Solomon's account of God and Israel under the images of bridegroom and bride begins with the exodus from Egypt which led up to the solemnizing of the Sinai covenant. Canticles 1-6 relate to the period of the Old Testament: they cover the exodus, the giving of the Law, the desert wanderings, the entry into the land under Joshua, the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, the exile, the return and post-exilic era down to the time of the Maccabees. Chs. 7-8 allude to the period of the new covenant from the advent of Christ to the triumph of Christianity under Constantine, when the Church was finally freed from all persecution and the pax Christiana established throughout the whole world. 20. The view is apparently expressed as an obiter dictum in one of his letters. No commentary by Theodore is extant, and Johannes Quasten questions whether there ever was one: 'The Acts of the Fifth Council (553) quote a passage from one of Theodore's letters...which indicates that he regards the Canticle of Canticles as Solomon's reply to the opponents of his marriage with the Egyptian princess and refuses to grant it any allegorical significance. However, the inference is not thereby warranted that he composed a commentary to the Canticle. Neither of the catalogues of his titles mention such a book nor are there any fragments extant' (Patrology, III [Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960], p. 406). Theodore's view of Canticles fits in, of course, with his rejection of Alexandrian allegorizing. 21. Nicolas's positive attitude towards Israel and Judaism should not be overestimated. See J. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 170-98.

22

Targumic and Cognate Studies

A small sample, from Cant. 1.3-4, will suffice to illustrate how painstakingly Lyra works out this schema in detail. The bride is addressing the bridegroom: (v, 3) Your name is as ointment poured forth. By ointment here is to be understood an aromatic fluid flowing from aromatic trees in Arabia and in the Promised Land, which is collected and kept in jars. And when it is poured over someone for cooling or for medication it gives off a pleasing odour, by which is understood in Scripture a good report, in accordance with the words of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 2.15, 'For we are the good odour of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing'. So when it says, Your name is an ointment poured forth, the sense is that through the wonders which God did for the children of Israel in Egypt and at the Red Sea the report of his name and his goodness was spread abroad to the other nations, on account of which many were converted to Judaism. Hence it adds: therefore do the maidens love you, that is to say, all the nations are converted to love of you. For many of the Egyptians in this manner were converted, and departed with the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, as is stated in Exod. 12.38. So too Jethro along with his house, when he heard of the wonders which God had done for Israel (Exod. 18). (v. 4) Draw me after you, by leading me mightily out of Egypt. We will run after the odour of your ointments. However, it should be noted that after the odour of your ointments is not part of the text, because it is not in the Hebrew. Rather it was placed by some scholar as an interlinear gloss, which later was inserted into the text through the ignorance of the copyists. The king has brought me, that is, the heavenly king, into his chambers, revealing to me through Moses his secrets, according as it is said in Exod. 3.2, 'When he [Moses] led his flock to the farthest end of the wilderness, he came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb'. And it goes on: 'And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush'. We will rejoice and be glad in you, which was fulfilled when, having crossed the Red Sea, they rejoiced, saying, 'Let us sing to the Lord, for he has been gloriously exalted' (Exod. 15.1).

What are the sources of Lyra's reading of the Song of Songs? The answer is that he appears to have derived it directly from Jewish tradition. Lyra's knowledge of Hebrew is well documented, as is his use of the commentaries of Rashi—the Rabbi Salomon quoted so frequently by name in the Postilla. Lyra's debt to Rashi specifically in the Song of Songs has been studied by H. Hailperin and others.22 The point, 22. H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963), pp. 137-246, esp. 240ff.

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

23

however, that has not been brought out with sufficient clarity is that his dependency in the Song of Songs is uniquely deep. It is not simply a matter of discrete citations of Rashi to help elucidate the hebraica veritas, or establish the sensus litteralis. The total hermeneutical schema of Lyra's reading of Canticles is based on Rashi. Rashi is one of the classic Jewish historicizing exegetes of the book, which he takes as recounting the history of God's relationship with Israel from the exodus from Egypt until the coming of the messiah. Needless to say Rashi does not correlate any part of Canticles with the history of the Church in New Testament times, so Lyra's coverage of chs. 7-8 perforce diverges from his (a point which he explicitly acknowledges), but elsewhere he follows Rashi's historical correlations very closely. Rashi's exegesis, though done with characteristic clarity and economy of expression, is in its turn not original. He is almost totally dependent on the eighth-century Aramaic Targum of Song of Songs. This particular targum is unusually paraphrastic, and, as I have argued elsewhere, its author appears to have invented, at least within Jewish tradition, the reading of the Song as historical allegory. There were partial antecedents to the targum. Certain earlier rabbinic commentators had contextualized some parts of Canticles to specific events in the Heilsgeschichte— notably the giving of the Law at Sinai. But the targum is the first text systematically and chronologically to correlate Canticles with a long period of the history of Israel.23 The targum inaugurated the historicizing reading within Jewish biblical scholarship. The idea was taken up by others: it is found in the commentary on Canticles attributed (probably wrongly) to the ninth-century philosopher and Bible exegete Saadya Gaon, 24 and in the commentary of Rashi's younger contemporary Abraham Ibn Ezra, though both Pseudo-Saadya and Ibn Ezra put forward rather different historical schemas. The Targum of Canticles was one of the most popular texts of the Jewish middle ages. Rashi seems to have known it and approved of it. He took over its historical schema so 23. See my essay, 'Tradition and Originality in the Targum of the Song of Songs', in D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 31839. 24. For the Judaeo-Arabic text with Hebrew translation, see J. Kafih, Hamesh Megillot (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 17-129. The portion of Hebrew text given by Ginsburg (Song of Songs, pp. 36-37) from a copy of the original Constantinople edition in the British Museum differs considerably from that in Kafih. Kafih discusses the authorship of the work on pp. 9-11 of his introduction.

24

Targumic and Cognate Studies

exactly that his commentary can be seen not only as a commentary on the Hebrew text of Canticles itself, but on the Targum of Canticles as well.25 Curiously, Lyra also knew the Targum of Canticles. This is evident from his gloss to Cant. 8.1 where he introduces a quotation from the translatio chaldaica, which we can still easily identify from our extant manuscripts of the targum. Since the targum and Rashi coincide so closely it is strictly speaking impossible, where Lyra himself does not inform us explicitly, to say which he is following. Rashi and the targum's exegesis of the Song of Songs is undeniably allegorical: the bridegroom is not a bridegroom but a figure of God, and the bride is not a bride but a figure of Israel. How, then, can Lyra take over the targum/Rashi reading and claim that it represents the sensus litteralis, especially since, as we have seen, he was aware of Theodore of Mopsuestia's more obviously literal interpretation? Lyra addresses this problem in his introduction. He argues that the Song of Songs was intended by its author from the start to be taken metaphorically and parabolically. He compares the parable of Jotham in Judg. 9.7-20, in which Jotham tells of how the other trees appointed the bramble to be king over them. That this was intended figuratively is clear from the context: the trees are the men of Shechem, the bramble is Abimelech, whom they appointed as their king. In this case the meaning of the words (voces} 'tree' and 'bramble' is not confined to the things (res) which they normally denote, since those things stand symbolically for other entities. The interpretation of 'bramble' as Abimelech is clearly correct: it represents in this case the sensus litteralis, which must be determined by authorial intention. So too, the bride and the bridegroom 25. That Rashi actually knew the targum has always seemed to me indisputable, and I am happy to note that Ivan Marcus agrees: see his article 'The Song of Songs in German Hasidism and the School of Rashi: A Preliminary Comparison', in B. Walfish (ed.), The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1994), I, pp. 181-89, esp. 182: The Targum is central to Rashi's commentary on the Song of Songs and to that of Rashbam his grandson.. .When Rashi decided to adopt the more univalent and linear Targum, rather than the multivalent midrash, as the structural basis of his commentary on the Song of Songs, he also chose the Targum's two emphases as his own. Like the Targum, Rashi focuses on the Song of Songs as being a chronological collective allegory. Like the Targum, Rashi's commentary on the Song of Songs is at the same time an implicitly anti-Christian, Judeo-centric reading of God's romance with Israel, understood as Jews, not Christians. It is interesting how easily Christian exegetes turned this Judeo-centric reading round and christianized it.'

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

25

in Song of Songs must not be taken simply in their primary lexical meaning, and in that alone: they are intended as figures for Israel and for God, and so what looks like an allegorical, non-literal reading can be argued to represent the literal sense. Admittedly the parallel with Jotham's parable is not exact: that is explicitly decoded within the biblical text, whereas the decoding of Canticles has to be inferred. But Lyra can claim to have long-standing tradition both Jewish and Christian behind him in identifying the bride as Israel/the Church and the bridegroom as God/Christ, and in the final analysis his claims may be said to stand or fall on the general plausibility of the case which he presents. He certainly does present a cogent, coherent and eminently plausible case. Lyra was not the first to stretch the meaning of the sensus litteralis. In the thirteenth century there was a general redefinition of the sensus litteralis, and a tendency to extend its reference beyond the Ssuperficies litterae, that is to say the simple meaning of the biblical text. Some were prepared to argue that in certain circumstances the metaphoric, parabolic and symbolic meaning could fall within the province of the sensus litteralis.26 The exegesis of Canticles as historical allegory is very rare in Christian circles before the time of Lyra. I can find only three significant examples of it. The first is in the Compendium totius Biblie of Lyra's slightly older contemporary, the Franciscan Petrus Aureoli (c.1280-1322).27 This, astonishingly, gives a totally 'Jewish' reading, without a single mention of Christ or the Church! It correlates Canticles with the history of God's relationship to Israel in the period running from the departure of Abraham from Ur to the establishment of the Temple cult on Mount Zion. In other words, in a curious anticipation of Joiion and Robert, Petrus Aureoli gives a historicizing interpretation which, from the standpoint of the putative author, Solomon, relates totally to the past. There is no evidence that Lyra knew the Compendium. Petrus Aureoli was doubtless inspired by Jewish sources, the same sources that influenced Lyra.

26. G.R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 51-59 and 67-71, provides some useful observations on the subject. 27. The editio princeps appeared at Strasbourg in 1476 under the title, Compendium literalis sensus totius Biblie seu divine Scripture. There were reprints in 1508, 1514 and 1585. See Engammare, Le Cantique des Cantiques, pp. 42-43.

26

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Somewhat earlier is the Expositio hystorica Cantici Canticorum secundum Salomonem, which survives in the unique Vatican manuscript, Latin 1053. This correlates Canticles with the period from the exodus to the end of Hasmonaean independence and the conquest of Judaea by the Romans, one hundred years before the beginning of Jesus' ministry. As Sarah Kamin and Avrom Saltman have demonstrated, the Expositio hystorica is, in fact, an adaptation and christianization of Rashi's commentary on Canticles.28 Once again the Jewish origin of a Christian historicizing reading of Canticles appears to be beyond reasonable doubt. Again, however, there is no evidence that Lyra knew or used the Expositio hystorica. He consulted Rashi directly. The third example is Apponius's In Canticum Canticorum expositio.29 This states that the Song of Songs speaks of quidquid ab initio mundi usque in finem in mysteriis egit acturusve erit Dei Sermo erga Ecclesiam. This enigmatic commentary, in its full form, is large, and as a result its historical schema does not, perhaps, emerge all that clearly from the mass of detail. But that Apponius offers a historical schema cannot be denied. Thus Cant. 1.1-2.6 covers Israel under the old dispensation; 2.7-15 refers to the incarnation; and 2.16-3.11 to the crucifixion, the resurrection, the conversion of the Church of Jerusalem and the bringing in of the Gentiles by Paul. Chs. 4-6 rather lose the chronological thread but they do speak of a time of persecution and martyrdom, and of a fall into heresy by the Church. The thread is picked up again strongly in 7.1-9, which is seen as referring to the conversion of Rome to Christianity. 7.10-8.4 deals with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire which are looked upon in a rather positive light, since they allowed the barbarians to be converted to Christ. This leaves only the conversion of the Jews outstanding, and Apponius anticipates this event in the exposition of Cant. 8.5-14. Apponius is a very shadowy figure. De Vregille and Neyrand are inclined to accept Johannes Witte's view that he wrote his commentary on Canticles (his sole known work) in Rome between 405 and 415 CE.30 28. S. Kamin and A. Saltman, Secundum Salomonem: A Thirteenth Century Latin Commentary on the Song of Solomon (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1989). 29. B. de Vregille and L. Neyrand (eds.), Apponii in Canticum Canticorum expositionem (CCSL, 19; Turnhout: Brepols, 1986). 30. See De Vregille and Neyrand, Apponii in Canticum Canticorum expositionem, p. cvii. J. Witte, 'Der Kommentar des Aponius zum Hohenliede' (Erlangen,

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

27

They are less certain that he was a converted Jew, and with good reason: there is little in his commentary to suggest a Jewish origin. His occasional sympathetic references to the Jews and his interest in Israel's place in the divine scheme of things prove little. The persistent suggestions that he drew on Jewish Bible exegesis and perhaps even directly on the Targum of Canticles are unsubstantiated.31 Anne Matter notes that 'his commentary on the Song of Songs seems to show knowledge of Jewish biblical interpretation', though she cautiously adds that 'this may be secondary, as he is heavily dependent on Jerome'. She suggests that like Jerome, Apponius may be most accurately described as a Christian who lived and studied in Italy and/or Palestine, and perhaps had some connection with an intellectual centre such as Caesarea, where many worlds—East and West, Christian and Jewish, Semitic, Greek and Latin—came together.32

All this is highly speculative. One thing can, however, be stated with considerable confidence: Apponius and Targum Canticles are totally unrelated. If Apponius's dates are correct, then he flourished around three hundred years before the targum was composed. There is not a shred of evidence that the targum's historical reading, or, for that matter, any other systematic historical allegorizing of Canticles was current in Jewish circles as early as the time of Apponius. Conversely it is highly unlikely that Apponius could have influenced the targum. In fact the detailed historical schemas of Apponius and the targum do not inaugural dissertation, 1903), remains the most important discussion of Apponius. 31. So convinced was Ginsburg of the dependence of Apponius on the targum that he dated him to the seventh century (he dated the targum c. 550): 'The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Apponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century... takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church' (Song of Songs, p. 67). See also Littledale, Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. xxxiv (cf. his remarks on p. xxxii on the targum as first in order, though perhaps not in actual date of present condition). The alternative would be to hold on to Witte's early fifth-century date for Apponius and argue that, despite appearances, some form of the targum, or of the exegesis therein, must have been current in Jewish circles then. But the detailed convergence of the targum and Apponius would have to be a lot stronger to make that suggestion plausible. 32. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, pp. 89-90. See pp. 90-91 for a summary of the evidence that Apponius used Jewish/rabbinic tradition.

28

Targumic and Cognate Studies

coincide at any point. The conclusion seems unavoidable: both Apponius and the targumist of Canticles hit quite independently on the device of reading the Song of Songs as an allegorical history. The influence of Apponius within Christian exegesis seems to have been limited. His Expositio was better known in an abbreviated version, called from its incipit the Veri amoris, which was arranged in twelve homilies and attributed to Jerome. The Veri amoris is extant in a number of manuscripts dating between the eighth and early sixteenth centuries and originating in monasteries in northern France, the Rhineland and the Low Countries. Apponius's impact, such as it was, appears to have been felt most strongly in northern Europe. Bede quotes him by name in his In Cantica Canticorum, as does Angelomus of Luxeuil in his Enarrationes in Cantica Canticorum (Angelomus had access to the first six books of Apponius in their original, full version). There is abundant evidence that he was known in Ireland. Indeed, Martin McNamara states categorically that 'the early Irish sources available to us know of only one commentary on the Canticle of Canticles—that of Apponius'.33 The first printed edition (containing only the first six books) was issued by Joannes Faber Emmeus at Freiburg im Breisgau in 1538. The Faber text was reprinted in Paris in 1589 in the second edition of Margarin de la Bigne's Sacra bibliotheca sanctorum patrum (vol. I, cols. 763-840), and again in the third edition (Paris 1609, vol. I, cols. 631-716) and the fourth (Paris 1624, vol. I, cols. 263-348). The Faber text was also the basis for the Apponius in the Magna bibliotheca sanctorum patrum (Cologne 1618, vol. IX, pp. 25-64), in the Magna bibliotheca veterum patrum (Paris 1644, vol. I, cols. 263-348) and in the Maxima bibliotheca sanctorum patrum (Lyons 1677, vol. XIV, pp. 98-139). Unquestionably Apponius was available to the Christian historical allegorists of the late middle ages and early modern times, and he could, in principle, have inspired their interpretations of Canticles. However, it seems that he did not. In every case the evidence suggests that the Christian historical 33. M. McNamara, 'Early Irish Exegesis. Some Facts and Tendencies', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984), pp. 57-96; his discussion of Apponius is on pp. 71-73. See further De Vregille and Neyrand, Apponii in Canticum Canticorum expositionem,pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, and xxxviii-xl, who claim that Gregory of Elvira's commentary on Canticles may also have been known in Ireland (p. xxxv). They note: 'La presence de ce dernier [Gregory of Elvira], auteur du IVe siecle dont Yin Cantica semble par ailleurs inconnu hors d'Espagne, est tres notable.'

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

29

allegorists drew, directly or indirectly, on Jewish sources, particularly Rashi. Apponius appears to have been cherished more for his theological ideas than for his historical schema, which, as I have already remarked, does not stand out all that clearly from the mass of his detailed exegetical observations. So, then, we can trace with some confidence the trajectory of the reading of Canticles as historical allegory and place all of our texts but one on it. The exception is Apponius. Though he was the first to think of this approach his invention seems to have had no direct influence on later exegetes. It was effectively buried in the intricacies of his theological observations. The trajectory proper begins in the eighth century with the Aramaic targum. This established for the first time in Jewish tradition the historical-allegorical interpretation. This approach was followed by a number of later Jewish commentators, notably PseudoSaadya (?10th century), Rashi (llth century) and Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th century). Rashi was particularly important on two counts. First, he took over intact the targum's schema; and secondly, he influenced Christian exegesis. The targum/Rashi reading was probably known to Petrus Aureoli, and certainly to the author of the Expositio hystorica, to Nicolas de Lyra, to Jaime Perez de Valencia and to Sebastian Miinster. Lyra's adoption of it was decisive for Christian exegesis and paved the way for the extreme historical allegorists of the seventeenth century. These were to a man Protestant scholars: it served well their polemical, anti-Roman purposes and fitted in with their views of the book of Revelation. Significantly it was the appearance of the more naturalistic reading of the great French Catholic scholar Bossuet (who may have been reacting to Protestant polemical use of the Canticles) which marked the fall from favour of this interpretation, but in a splendid irony two French Catholic scholars, Joiion and Robert, both learned Hebraists well acquainted with the targum, reintroduced historical allegory in the twentieth century, albeit in modified form. Marvin Pope closes his discussion of their work with the remark: 'It seems unlikely that this line will be followed further'. I am not so sure. A tradition which has proved so vital and seductive for over a thousand years may yet be revived. If it is, I would predict that the eighth-century Aramaic targum, whether directly or indirectly, will play a part in this revival.

ONOMASTICA Y TOPONIMIA: TARGUM, MIDRAS Y ANTIGUO TESTAMENTO

Luis Diez Merino

Introduction La toponimia y la onomastica son parcelas del lenguaje que revisten caracteristicas especiales: si por una parte son las mas usadas en el lenguaje coloquial, son tambien las mas elementales y primitivas, a la vez que las mas conservadoras y mas antiguas. Como estan continuamente en boca popular uno se pudiera imaginar que son las mas sujetas a cambios, sin embargo suelen ser modelos de persistencia tenaz de la memoria de los pueblos. Existen casos en que van evolucionando a medida que nuevas lenguas se van sucediendo en un mismo marco topografico, y en este caso se suelen dar los equivalentes a las nuevas oleadas lingiiisticas, pero aun en esos casos suelen gozar de sus caracteristicas de pervivencia e identidad. La Biblia es un testigo de casi dos milenios de literatura topografica y onomastica, por eso es un documento de excepcion para valorar la smtesis historica de un pueblo que conserva en su memoria no solamente los propios hechos, sino leyendas y narraciones de otros pueblos que le precedieron en el mismo espacio geografico: monies, rios, ciudades, accidentes orograficos, etc., testimonian el paso de pueblos, cultures y lenguas. A veces esta sucesion aparece en los documentos literarios: lugares designados por los cultos que alii se realizaron como 3El fOlam, 3El l<Elyon, >El Sadday, >El Berit, >El Roi, Bet-El, etc., son denominaciones que los hebreos recibieron, adoptaron y transmitieron como patrimonio propio, si bien tuvieron origen en el pueblo cananeo que les precedio en el mismo entorno geografico. Las ciudades a veces seran nominadas con nuevos apellidos, pero se hara constar su anterior denominacion: Salem-Jerusalen, Qiryat >ArbacHebron, Betel-Luz, etc.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

31

La historia no se detiene: los documentos literarios posteriores heredan tales tradiciones, las comentan, las explican, buscan nuevas etiologias para las que carecian de ellas, nuevas circunstancias, victorias o reveses politicos, influyen para que en ese acervo cultural se enriquezcan los antiguos datos. La filologfa popular es creativa, y busca siempre nuevas explicaciones, nuevos motives, que se anaden a las tradiciones ancestrales de todos conocidas, repetidas, pero de nuevo enriquecidas. Los libros biblicos que abarcan mayor espectro temporal son el primero: el Genesis nos transmite los origenes del mundo y de la humanidad hasta una epoca relativamente cercana, la epoca patriarcal, y el ultimo: el Apocalipsis une la aparicion primera de Jesus, a comienzos de nuestra era, con la segunda aparicion de Jesus, a finales de nuestra era; en ambos se encuentran gran cantidad de toponimia y onomastica que nos revelan la riqueza de tradiciones inherentes a esas dos parcelas del saber humano. Para nuestro estudio hemos restringido el campo de investigation a los primeros veinte capitulos del libro del Genesis. En cada dato de toponimia u onomastica hemos seleccionado tres parcelas de la literatura hebraica: el dato del Texto Hebreo, lo que aporta el Targum, y lo que amplia el Midras. Hemos tornado como base los datos del Genesis en el TH, de manera que si en el Tg. o en el Midras hay nuevos nombres o nuevos toponimos, o se identifican lugares que no se hizo en el TH los hemos dejado, puesto que solamente el Tg., o solamente el Midras, ofrecerian materiales mas que suficientes para otros tantos articulos; hemos seleccionado aquellos lugares del TH que ya son puestos de relieve en el actual TM, y dejamos para otras ocasiones las identificaciones o explicaciones propias del Tg. o del Midras, pero que no tienen contrapartida en el TH.1

1. Las abreviaturas mas habituales son: TH (Texto Hebreo), Tg. (Targum), TO (Targum Onqelos), TN (Targum Neofiti 1), TJI (Targum Pseudojonatan), TP (Targum Palestine), TOB (Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible), CEI (Traduzione de la Bibbia Conferenza Episcopate Italiana). Traduccion castellana de la Biblia, texto de Bover Cantera (BAG), Traduccion del Neofiti (A. Diez Macho), Traduccion del Pseudojonatan (T. de J. Martinez Saiz).

32

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Genesis 1.2: TH: tohu-tehom: vacio-oceano: 'Ahora bien, la tierra era nada y vacio, y las tinieblas cubrian la superficie del oceano'. Antes de que Dios iniciase la obra creadora habia ausencia de vida (tohu, bohu, cf. Jer. 4.23; Is. 34.11), y habia tinieblas y abismo (tehom, termino cercano a Tiamaf), e.d. la masa caotica de las aguas primordiales (Gen. 7.11; 8.2; Sal. 107.26). Tg: 'La tierra estaba desierta y caotica, privada de hombres y bestias (TJI: de todo animal), vacia de todo cultivo de plantas y arboles. La obscuridad se extendia sobre la faz del abismo' (TN). El Tg intenta aclarar el binomio tohu-bohu y f horn recurriendo a la definition interna de ambos terminos. Midras: R. Juda ben R. Simon interpretaba el vacio refiriendolo a las generaciones. Pero que la tierra estuviese informe se puede referir a Adan, el cual fue reducido a la nada completa por su pecado; y que estuviese vacia se puede referir a Cain, quien deseaba volver a la nada.2 Que la tierra estuviese tohu se refiere tambien a la devastation del Templo (Jer. 4.23), y cuando dijo Dios que hubiese luz se referia a la era mesianica (Is. 60.1).3 1.2: TH: ruah. espiritu-aliento: 'Mientras el espiritu de Dios se cernia sobre la haz de las aguas'. Unos autores traducen ruah por 'espiritu' (TOB) y otros por aliento (CEI). El 'aliento' (o atmosfera) de Dios era lo que permitia la vida del hombre (Gen. 6.3) y de todos los otros seres (Sal. 104.30). Algunos ban comparado el 'soplo de Dios' como 'viento violento' o como 'Espiritu de Dios'. Tg: 'Y un espiritu de amor de delante de Yahweh (TJI: de delante de Elohim) soplaba sobre la faz de las aguas' (TN). Espiritu de amor o de misericordia tambien se usa en el Tg. Gen. 8.1 (TN-TJI). Midras; Que la creation del mundo hay a sido hecha por amor se encuentra en el Midras a Sal. 71.1.4 Segun la tradition rabinica el atributo de la misericordia se aplica a Yahweh, en cambio el de la justicia a Elohim;5 aqui TJI aplica a Elohim el espiritu de amor. El espiritu 2. Gen. R. 2.3. 3. Gen. R. 2.5. 4. W.G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), I, p. 559. 5. E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem Magnes, 1975), p. 451.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

33

(ruah) que cubria la faz de las aguas corresponde a: 'Y Dios mando un viento (ruah) que paso sobre la tierra' (Gen. 8.1).6 2.2-3: TH: Sabbat: Sabado-descanso: 'En ese dia septimo descanso (wayyiSbot) de toda labor realizada, y bendijo Dios el dia septimo y declarolo santo, por haber reposado (Mbat)en el de toda la obra que Dios, al operar, habia creado'. Entre los semitas era un dia en el cual el trabajo resultaba nefasto, y por lo mismo prohibido. En la Biblia se da un significado teologico: a) Ex. 23.12 y Dt. 5.12-15 garantizan al hombre el reposo semanal; b) Ex. 20.8-11 el septimo dia es sabado (etimologicamente 'cesacion de trabajo') recuerda la creacion completada por Dios; c) Ex. 31.12-17 es el signo de la alianza entre Dios y su pueblo, d) Heb. 4.1-11 se refiere a la participacion del hombre en el descanso de Dios, una vez que concluyo la creacion. Tg: 'Y el Verbo de Yahweh (TJI: Elohim, Paris 110: el Verbo de Yahweh deseo) complete, el dia septimo, la obra que el habia creado, y hubo, el dia septimo, sabado (Sbh) y reposo en su presencia de toda la obra que el habia creado' (TN). 'Y termino Dios el dia septimo la obra que habia hecho y las diez cosas que creo al crepusculo. Y descanso en el dia septimo de toda la obra que habia hecho. Y bendijo Dios el dia septimo mas que todos los dias de la semana y lo santifico, porque en el descanso de toda la obra que Dios habia creado y que habia de hacer' (TJ). El Tg. mantiene y amplia el ambito de la derivacion popular del sabado, aunque la raiz homofona solamente aparece en TN. 2.7: TH: 'ddam-^damd-*adorn: hombre-tierra-rojo. 'Entonces formo Yahweh Dios al hombre ('addm) del polvo de la tierra (>addmdh), e insuflando en sus narices aliento vital, quedo constituido el hombre como ser vivo'. El hombre (>dddm con articulo, este se pone en hebreo delante de los nombres comunes) fue extraido de la tierra (3addmdh) de la cual depende su vida (cf. Jer. 18.11). Tg: 'Entonces Yahweh Elohim creo a Adam (3dm) (o: al hombre) del polvo de la tierra (cpr mn >dmf}\ soplo en sus narices un aliento de vida y Adam (3dm) (o: el hombre) se convirti6 en ser viviente dotado de palabra' (TN). 'Y creo Yahweh Dios a Adan (>dm) con dos inclinaciones. Tomo polvo del lugar del templo y de los cuatro vientos del mundo y una mezcla de todas las aguas del mundo, y lo creo rojo, negro y bianco. Y soplo en sus narices el aliento de vida, y el aliento se convirtio en el cuerpo de Adan (3dm) en espiritu capaz de hablar, para iluminar los ojos 6.

Gen. R. 2.3.

34

Targumic and Cognate Studies

y hacer oir a los oidos' (TJI). Las dos inclinaciones provienen de las dos yod que se encuentran en el verbo wayyiserj las dos inclinaciones ya eran conocidas por el autor del Eclesiastico.8 El polvo de la tierra se toma expresamente del lugar del santuario en Jerusalen (TJI). Midras: El verbo wayyiser en el midras se interpreta de muchos modos; dos formaciones: una de Adan y otra de Eva. Dos nacimientos: uno a los nueve meses y otro a los siete. Dos formaciones: la de los seres celestiales, y la de las creaturas terrenales. Dos formaciones: la del bien y la del mal. Dos formaciones: una en este mundo y otra en el mundo futuro.9 La tierra de que fue formado era el lugar de la expiacion, e.d. del lugar del Templo, segiin R. Berekiah y R. Helbo a nombre de Samuel el Viejo.10 El aliento (niSmai) de vida tiene cinco nombres: nepeS, ne$ama, hayyd, ruah, yehidd.n 2.8: TH: 'eden: Eden-gozo: 'Luego Yahweh planto un vergel en Eden'. Eden es la estepa, pero evoca otro termino hebreo que significa 'gozo'. Tg: 'Y Yahweh (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh) Elohim habia plantado el jardin en Eden, desde el comienzo, y alii coloco al primer hombre que el habia creado' (TN). 'Un jardfn habia sido plantado en Eden para los justos por el Verbo de Yahweh Elohim antes de la creacion del mundo y alii hizo habitar a Adan cuando el le creo' (TJI). Midras: 'La escuela de Yannai dijo: ^por que se dice el nombre divino completo en conexion con esta plantacion? Porque desde el comienzo de su creacion se requeria una cuidadosa seleccion: antes que un arbol se desarrolle de su simiente se debe determinar su extension.'12 2.23: TH: 3i$-3i$$d: varon-varona: 'jEsta vez (si que es) esta hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne! A esta se la llamara varona (3i$$d) porque de varon (3i$) ha sido tomada.' Este sistema de acercamiento semantico (W-^iMd) ) se encuentra tambien en otras lenguas y en otros pueblos, p.e. entre los egipcios.

7. J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 116; Urbach, The Sages, p. 472. 8. J. Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (Bruselas: Universite de Bruxelles, 1970). 9. Gen. R. 14. 2, 3, 4, 5. 10. Gen. R. 14.8. 11. Gen. R. 14.9; Deut. R. 2.37. 12. Gen. R. 15.1.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

35

Tg: 'Adan dijo entonces: Esta vez—y ya nunca mas—la mujer ha sido creada del hijo del hombre, como ella ha sido creada de mi, hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne. A ella le conviene ser llamada mujer porque del hombre ella ha sido creada' (TN). 'Adam dijo entonces: Esta vez—y nunca mas la mujer no sera creada del hombre, como ella ha sido creada de mi—(ella es) hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne: Ella—el dijo—es hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne. A ella—el dijo—es oportuno llamarla mujer, porque es del hombre del que ella ha sido tomada' (TJI). En este caso el juego de nombres hombre-mujer del TH desaparece en el Tg., que prefiere filosofar sobre el origen de la primera pareja humana, pero a la vez reconoce que el modo de creacion de la primera pareja humana no se volvera a repetir: los primeros fueron creados, los restantes se reproduciran segun el precepto divino: 'Creced y multiplicaos y llenad la tierra' (TH 1.28). Midras: Aprovecha para indicar que del juego de palabras 3iSSd-3iS se colige que la Torah fue dada en la lengua santa, e.d. en hebreo: 'R. Pinhas y R. Helkiah en nombre de R. Simon dijeron: Asi como fue dada en la lengua santa, asi el mundo fue creado en la lengua santa: ^has oido alguna vez decir gini, ginia; fitha, cittha; antropi, antropia; gabra, gabrethal Pero si se usa ^iS-^iSM. ^Por que? Porque una forma corresponde a la otra.'13 Es decir, que ni en griego, ni en arameo, sino solamente en hebreo se corresponden la forma masculina con la femenina, por lo cual esa es la forma empleada por Dios. 3.1: TH: carum~3arur. astuto-maldito: 'la serpiente era el mas astuto 3 ( arur} de todos los animales salvajes'; 3.14: Tor cuanto hiciste tal, maldita (>drur) seras entre todos los ganados'. Es una asonancia popular que se adjudica a la serpiente, en el binomio: serpiente-astuta. 'Desnudos' (caarummim Gen. 2.25) y 'astuto' (cartim Gen. 3.1); la serpiente era el mas astuto de los animales (cdrum Gen. 3.1), llega a ser el mas miserable (3arAr Gen. 3.14). Tg: 'La serpiente era el mas astuto (hkyni) de todos los animales de la superficie de los campos' (TN). 'La serpiente era el mas astuto para el mal (hkym lby$) de todas las bestias salvajes' (TJI). 3.14: Torque has hecho esto, maldita seras, serpiente, entre todos los animales domesticos y entre todas las bestias que hay sobre la faz del campo' (TN). Torque hiciste esto, maldita (lyf) seras entre todos los ganados y entre todos los animales del campo' (TJI). El Tg. mantiene el mismo sentido, y lo traduce asi, pero no puede conservar el mismo juego semantico. 13. Gen. R. 18.4.

36

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Midras: Esta relacion de Gen. 3.1 con Gen. 3.14 se establece en el midras a nombre de R. Meir: 'Segun la grandeza de la serpiente asi fue su caida: porque ella era mds astuta que todos (Gen. 3.1) fue mas maldita que todos' (Gen. 3.14).14 3.20: TH: hawwd-hay: Eva-vida: 'El hombre puso a su mujer nombre de Eva (Hawwd), por haber sido ella madre de todos los vivientes (hay)'. El TH une el nombre de Eva (hawwd) con vida (hayyd)', la TOB traduce: 'Eva, e.d. la Viviente'. Tg: 'El hombre llamo a su mujer con el nombre de Eva (Hawwd), porque ella fue la madre de todos los vivientes (hyy3)'(TN). 'Y Adan llamo a su mujer con el nombre de Eva (Hwh\porque ella fue la madre de todos los hombres (bny nP)'(TJI, TO). El juego de rafces se continua en parte en el Tg. (TN), pero TJI-TO especifican mas, hablando de 'todos los hombres'. Midras: 'Y el hombre llamo a su mujer Eva-Hawwah e.d. vida (Gen. 3.2). Le fue dada como un consejero, pero hizo de espia como la serpiente. R. Aha interpreto: "La serpiente fue tu (de Eva) serpiente (e.d. seductora), y tu eres la serpiente de Adan";15 es un juego de palabras entre hawwd que se pone en relacion con hawweh (de dafat,una opinion), e.d. para emitir una opinion, y con hiwya, la serpiente. Como la serpiente habia tenido un espia cuando Dios mando a Adan que se apartase del arbol prohibido, asi ella se dirigio a la serpiente para escuchar cuando el la incite a la desobediencia, y al final persuadio a Adan. Madre (>em) de todos los vivientes: R. Simeon ben Eleazar dijo: Eso significa que ella esta asociada con (cim) todos los vivientes. R. Simon dijo: Madre de todos los vivientes significa la madre de toda la vida,16 incluso de la de los demonios.'17 4.1: TH: qayin-qamti: Cain-compre: 'Conocio el hombre a Eva, su mujer, la cual concibio y pario a Cain (Qayiri),diciendo: "He adquirido (qaniti) un varon con ayuda de Yahweh"'. Eva une el nombre de su primer hijo (Cain) con un antiguo verbo semftico (qdna) que significa 'procrear' (TOB) o 'adquirir' y subraya el papel que Dios desempena en su nacimiento (cf. tambien Gen. 29.31; 30.2, 22; 1 Sam. 1.6, 11). Tg: 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, ella concibio y engendro a Cain, y ella dijo: "He aqui que un hijo me ha sido dado de delante de 14. 15. 16. 17.

Gen. R. 19.1. Gen.R. 20.11. Gen.R. 20.11. Gen. R. 24.6.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

37

Yahweh'" (TN). 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, que estaba encinta de Sammael, el angel de Yahweh (y concibio y dio a luz a Cam, y dijo ella: he adquirido por hombre al angel de Yahweh)' (TJI). TJI en el ms. de Londres omite lo que hemos anadido entre parentesis, tornado de la Editio Princeps del TJI. En ambos casos el Tg. repite la etimologia fonica del nombre de Cain que se encuentra en el TH. Sammael ya habia aparecido anteriormente ante la mujer: 'y la mujer vio a Sammael, el angel de la muerte, y tuvo temor' (TJI a Gen. 3.6). En la Editio Princeps del TJI se encuentra una parafrasis diferente: 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, que deseaba al angel. Ella concibio y dio a luz a Cam. Y ella dijo: "Yo he adquirido un hombre, el angel de Yahweh"' (TJI Edit. Pr.). Sammael es un angel caido, que tiene gran importancia en las leyendas judias, 18 y aparece como tentador y enemigo del hombre, en estrecha relacion con la serpiente.19 Dicho nombre significaria, segun E.E. Urbach: 'aquel que se hizo a si mismo dios'.20 Tal angel se encuentra tambien en la literatura apocrifa.21 Este midras nacio de la diferencia entre Gen. 5.3 (que menciona la semajanza entre Set y su padre) y Gen. 4.1 (que nada dice de la semejanza de Cam). Que Cain sea hijo de Sammael es una tradicion muy repetida en la literatura judia,22 y en Jn 8.44 leemos que Jesus acusa a los fariseos de ser hijos del diablo.23 Midras: 'R. Isaac dijo: Cuando una mujer ve que ella ha concebido hijos exclama: "He aqui que mi marido esta ahora en mi posesion".'24 e.d. que un hijo une al marido a su mujer; por eso traduce: Yo ahora tengo un hombre (e.d. Adan) en mi posesion, habiendo dado a luz a Cain.

18. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Filadelfia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1946), VII, p. 141. 19. G. Friedlander, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (Londres: Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1916), p. 21. 20. Urbach, The Sages, p. 761. 21. Ascension de Isaias 1.8. 22. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, p. 136; Urbach, The Sages, p. 169; A. M. Goldberg, 'Kain: Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?', Judaica 25 (1969), pp. 203-21. 23. N.A. Dahl, 'Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk 7, 1 und Joh 8, 44)', Aphophoreta Festschrift E. Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 70-84; R. Le Deaut, Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1965), pp. 59-61. 24. Gen. R. 22.2.

38

Targumic and Cognate Studies

4.2,8: TH: hebel-Abel: aliento: 'Mas tarde volvio a parir, pariendo a su hermano Abel...Y cuando estaban en el campo, acometio Cain a su hermano Abel y le mato': En el texto subyace el sentido etimologico del nombre Abel, que se interpreta como vida corta, efimera, y por consiguiente se extinguio como un soplo o un aliento. Tg: 'Ella dio a luz seguidamente a su hermano, Abel. Abel fue pastor de ganado menor y Cam cultivaba la tierra...Sobre el tema estaban los dos disputando en campo abierto, cuando se levanto Cain contra su hermano Abel y lo mato' (TN). 'Ella dio a luz seguidamente de Adam, su marido, Abel y su (hermana) gemela. Abel fue pastor de ganado menor y Cain era un hombre que cultivaba la tierra... Y con motive de estas palabras estuvieron disputando en el campo. Y se levanto Cam contra su hermano Abel y hundio una piedra en su frente y lo mato' (TJI). En las principales recensiones targumicas (TN, TgFragm 440, 110, Moscu 264, Geniza B y Tosefta a Genesis 4.8) encontramos implicita la derivation popular, pero no se especifica. Midras: 'Esto corrobora lo que R. Yosua ben Qarha dijo: Ascendieron a la cama dos y descendieron siete';25 se refiere a la tradition judia que mantiene que nacieron con Cam una hermana gemela, y con Abel dos hermanas gemelas.26 Diferentes motives de disputa se exponen en la literatura midrasica: dividir la tierra (tierra—bienes muebles), edificacion del Templo en terreno propio, la primera Eva.27 El instrumento con que Cain mato a Abel fue un baston (R. Simeon, cf. Gen 4.23), una piedra (los rabinos, TJI).28 4.17: TH: hanok-hdnak: Hanok-edifico: 'Y pario a Hanok, y, edificando (hdnak) el por entonces una ciudad, llamo a tal ciudad con el nombre de su hijo Hanok'. Este nombre, y otros similares, evocan la dedication de una ciudad o de un monumento. Tg: 'Y Cain conocio a su mujer, ella concibio y dio a luz a Enoch (Hanok).El construyo (hwh bny) una ciudad (NM: ciudades) y llamo a la ciudad segun el nombre de su hijo Enoch (HanokY(TN, TJI). El Tg continua la figura etiologica del TH, si bien la semantica no le permite una imitation literal del TH.

25. 26. 27. 28.

Gen. R. 22.2-3. b. Sanh. 38b, 58b. Gen. R. 22.7. Gen. R. 22.8.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

39

Midras: Estas ciudades quedan como un memorial perenne para deshonra del nombre a quien ban sido dedicadas.29 4.21: TH: yubal-yobel: 'El nombre de su hermano era Yubal, que fue el padre de todos los tanedores de citara y caramillo'. En el TH probablemente subyace una etimologia popular de Yubal, como si procediese de Yobel (toque del cuerno). Tg: 'El nombre de su hermano fue Yubal: fue el el padre de todos los que tocan la citara y la flauta (NM: todos los que tocan la citara y el caramillo)' (TN). 'Y el nombre de su hermano era Yubal; el fue sefior de todos los que tienen por oflcio el canto con la citara y la flauta' (TJI). El Tg. sigue directamente al TH, y refleja una misma interpretacion, sin hacer especial hincapie en su aspecto etimologico. Midras: 'Y el nombre de su hermano fue Yubal; el fue el padre de todos los que emplean el harpa y el caramillo', e.d. los que tocan el organo y los flautistas.30 4.22: TH: Tubal-qayin-forjador: 'Tambien Silla engendro a Tubalqayin, forjador (IdteS)de toda herramienta de cobre y hierro'. El termino hebreo (cf. 1 Sam. 13.20) significa 'herrero, forjador', tambien 'reja'. Tg: 'Y Silla tambien ella engendro a Tubal Qayin (twbl qyri), artesano de toda tecnica del bronce y del hierro' (TN). 'Tambien Silla dio a luz a Tubal Qayin, sefior de todos los artifices entendidos en el trabajo del bronce y del hierro' (TJI). El Tg. se limita a traducir con pequenas variantes el TH, pero tampoco se hace consciente de la etimologia popular que subyace al TH, si bien entiende que se trata de artifices en bronce y en hierro. Midras: 'R. Yosua dijo en nombre de R. Levi: este hombre perfecciono (tibbel) el pecado de Cain: Cain asesino, aunque le faltaban armas para asesinar, puesto que el era forjador de todo instrumento cortante';31 asi interpreta Tubal-qayin como que perfecciono (tibbel) la obra de Cain. 5.28-29: TH: noa/z-Noe: 'Lamek llevaba de vida ciento ochenta y dos anos cuando engendro un hijo, a quien llamo con el nombre de Noe (noah), diciendo: "Este nos consolara (yenahaamenu)en nuestro trabajo y en la fatiga de nuestras manos"'. En esta narracion el nombre de Noe (noah) se pone en relacion con el termino hebreo que significa

29. Gen, R. 23.1. 30. Gen. R. 23.3. 31. Gen. R. 23.3.

40

Targumic and Cognate Studies

'reconfortar, restaurar' (nhm, cf. Is. 40.1) y sugiere que Dios salvara a la humanidad por medio de el (cf. Gen. 6.8). Tg: 'Y habia vivido Lamek ciento ochenta y dos anos y engendro un hijo. El le llamo por nombre Noe, diciendo: "El nos consolara (ynhm) de nuestras obras malas y de los robos de nuestras manos y de la maldicion de la tierra por el Verbo de delante de Yahweh"' (TN). 'Habia vivido Lamek ciento ochenta y dos anos cuando engendro" un hijo. El le llamo por nombre Noe, diciendo: "El nos consolara (ynhmynn3) de nuestro trabajo que queda sin exito y de la fatiga de nuestras manos (provocada) por la tierra que Yahweh ha maldecido a causa de las falias de los hijos de los hombres"' (TJI). En el Tg. se conserva la misma derivacion etimologica popular que en el TH, aunque las razones del consuelo scan un tanto ampliadas. Midras: Segun R. Yohanan el nombre no corresponde a la interpretation que se le da, ni la interpretation corresponde al nombre. 'El texto tendria que haber dicho o: "Este mismo nos dara descanso (yanihennu)" o: "el le Ilam6 por nombre Nahman, diciendo: Este ye-nahamenu", sin embargo Noe no corresponde a ye-nahamenu'; lo mismo afirmaba el Resh Laqis. R. Leazar dice que recibio el nombre de Noe por su sacrificio que fue aceptado como suave olor (riihoah) (Gen. 8.21), y R. Yose ben R. Hanina dijo que se le llamo Noe porque el area descanso (wattanah) (Gen. 8.4).'32 El midras aprovecha la misma derivacion del TH, pero la razon del consuelo varia, e incluso introduce una nueva derivacion, refiriendose al sacrificio que realiza Noe despues del diluvio. 9.27: TH: yapt-yepet, Yafet-Belleza: 'Dilate (yapt) Dios a Jafet y more en las tiendas de Sem'. La TOB traduce: 'Que Dios seduzca a Yafety more'. Tg: 'jQue Yahweh dilate (ypf) las fronteras de Jafet! jQue la Gloria de su Shekinah more en medio de las tiendas de Sem! jQue Canaan sea para ellos esclavo reducido a servidumbre!' (TN). 'jQue Yahweh embellezca (y$pr) las fronteras de Jafet! jQue sus hijos se conviertan en proselitos y moren en la escuela de Sem! jQue Canaan sea su esclavo!' (TJI). El Tg emplea dos raices: ypt (dilatar, TN) y y$pr (embellezca, TJI), que tambien aprovecha la version de Aquila;33 TN transcribe y traduce directamente el TH, TJI interpreta una raiz diferente. El TJI aprovecha el

32. Gen. R. 25.2. 33. D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963), p. 152.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

41

significado de 'tienda' como 'casa de estudio', que tambien se encuentra en TN y TJI a Gen. 2S.27.34 Midras: Que Dios dilate a Jafet, lo refiere a Giro que ordeno que se reconstruyese el Templo. Y que el habile en las tiendas de Sem: Bar Kappara lo aplicaba a las palabras de la Torah que tienen que ser pronunciadas en la lengua de Jafet (e.d. en griego) en las tiendas de Sem. Esto se referiria a la Septuaginta.35 R. Judan decia: De esto aprendemos que la traduccion de la Biblia esta permitida, e.d. el Targum (Neh. 8.8). Aqui explica Neh. 8.8 (Escritura, traduccion, acentos, comienzo de los versiculos).36 10.25: TH: peleg—division: 'A Eber nacieronle dos hijos: el nombre del uno fue Peleg, porque en sus dias se dividio (niplegd)la tierra'. El termino hebreo significa 'dividir', pero puede referirse a la reparticion de tierras de pasto, o de las tierras cultivables. De el habria descendido Abraham (Gen. 11.18-26). Tg: 'A Eber le nacieron dos hijos: el nombre de uno de ellos es Peleg, porque en su tiempo, los habitantes de la tierra se separaron(}tplgwY (TN). 'A Eber le nacieron dos hijos: el nombre de uno es Peleg, porque en su tiempo, la tierra fue dividida (3ytplygty(TJI). En ambos Targumim se continua la etimologia popular expresada en el TH. Midras: supone que Peleg significa 'division' porque en sus dias la tierra se dividio. Dijo R. Jose: los antiguos le llamaron conforme a los sucesos de sus dias, puesto que ellos conocieron su genealogia. Pero nosotros no conocemos nuestra genealogia, para llamarnos segun nuestros padres. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel dijo: Los antiguos, porque ellos podian confiar en el Espiritu Santo, se llamaban a si mismos en referencia a los sucesos que podian venir; pero nosotros no podemos darnos a nosotros mismos el aval del Espiritu Santo para ser nombrados segun nuestros padres.37 Fundamentalmente se sigue la derivacion del TH, pero despues da una interpretation general de toda la onomastica, y es que se trata de una inspiration del Espiritu Santo para imponerse nombres en la epoca antigua.

34. G.B. Sarfatti, 'The Tent = The House of Study', Tarbiz 38 (1968), pp. 8789; Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, p. 274; Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, p. 178. 35. b. Meg. 9b. 36. Todo el pasaje en b. Meg. 3a; b. Ned. 37b. 37. Gen. R. 37.7.

42

Targumic and Cognate Studies

10.25: TH: Yoqtan-qatan: 'Y su hermano se llamo Yoqtan'. El TH no hace ninguna derivation de esta raiz. Tg: 'Y el nombre de su hermano fue Yoqtan' (TN, TJI). Tampoco el Tg se detiene en su etimologia popular. Midras: 'Y ^por que fue llamado Yoqtan? Porque el minimize (maqtiri) la importancia de sus negocios.'38 R. Aha dijo: '^Por que fue llamado Yoqtan? Porque el se humillo (qatan).'' R. Hunia dijo: 'jSabemos que en su nacimiento el fue el mas joven! Pero el joven (sdcir)significa que el se redujo (mesa'ir) a si mismo. ^Que aprendemos de eso? Que el obtuvo el derecho de primogenitura. Pues si un hombre grande se contenta con una position humilde, tanto mas el es recompensado.'39 Dos derivaciones se ofrecen, una dirigida directamente al nombre entendiendo que es qatan la base (pequeno), pero resulta que es el mas joven, y entonces se aprovecha tambien la raiz zfr(joven) para una nueva signification, que reafirma el sentido anterior. 11.9: TH: babel (puerta de los dioses, Bab-i\am)-balal: 'Por ello se la denomino Babel, porque alii confundio (balal) Yahweh el habla de toda la tierra'. Balal se traduce por confundir, y la contrapartida de la division de los pueblos por sus lenguas se reunificara en Pentecostes (Act. 2). Tg: 'Por esto llamo su nombre Babel, porque asi confundio (frbb) Yahweh las lenguas de todos los habitantes de la tierra (NM: El Verbo de Yahweh la lengua de toda la tierra) y desde alii Yahweh (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh) los esparcio sobre la superficie de toda la tierra' (TN). 'Por esto llamo su nombre Babel, porque alii confundio (crbb) Yahweh el lenguaje de todos los habitantes de la tierra y de alii los disperse Yahweh sobre la faz de toda la tierra' (TJI). El Tg. mantiene el sentido del TH, pero no su tenor verbal, sin embargo TJI Gen 11.8 explica como se realize la division de lenguas: 'Y se revelo el Verbo de Yahweh sobre la ciudad, y con El los setenta angeles que se correspondfan con las setenta naciones, llevando cada uno la lengua de su nation y los signos de su escritura en la mano. Y los disperso desde alii sobre la superficie de toda la tierra en setenta lenguas y uno no entendia lo que hablaba otro y se mataban entre si; y cesaron de construir la ciudad.' Midras: Un discipulo de R. Yohanan estaba sentado delante de el y no pudo entender su ensenanza: '^Cual es la razon de esto?', pregunto. 'Es 38. Gen. R. 37.7. 39. Gen. R. 6.4.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

43

porque yo soy un exiliado de mi casa', replico el. '^De donde vienes tu?', 'De Borsif, replico. 'Ese no es su nombre', anadio, 'sino Balsif, de acuerdo con el texto. Porque alii el Sefior confundio (balal) la lengua (sepai)de toda la tierra.' Borsif era una ciudad cercana a Babilonia, y R. Yohanan identified con Babel, poniendo de relieve al mismo tiempo que tendria que llamarse Balsif, nombre que esta compuesto por balal y sdpd, y asi demostraria su origen. 11.28: TH: ^wr-fuego: 'Y murio Haran en vida de Terah, su padre, en su pais natal, Ur de los caldeos'. El TH no aprovecha la posibilidad de dualidad que le ofrece el significado, popularmente interpretado como toponimo y como nombre comun: Ur-fuego. Tg: 'Haran murio en vida de Terah, su padre, en su pais natal, en el homo de fuego de los caldeos' (TN). 'Y sucedio cuando Nemrod hubo arrojado a Abram en el horno de fuego, porque no queria rendir un culto a sus idolos, pues el fuego no habian podido quemarle; entonces el corazon de Haran se dividio, diciendo: "Si vence Nemrod, estare de su parte, y si vence Abram estare de su parte. Cuando todo el pueblo que estaba alii vio que el fuego no habia tenido poder sobre Abram, dijo en su corazon. ^No esta Haran, hermano de Abram, lleno de adivinaciones y encantamientos? El, pues, ha usado un ensalmo sobre el fuego para que no quemara a su hermano. En el acto cay6 fuego de lo alto del cielo y lo consumio, y murio Haran a la vista de su padre Terah cuando fue quemado en el pais de su nacimiento, en el horno de fuego que hicieron los caldeos para su hermano Abram"' (TJI). El TN reconoce la duplicidad de sentido del toponimo Ur: lugar de Mesopotamia-fuego (horno de fuego), en cambio el TJI explica ampliamente la razon de la haggada: no solamente es el fuego el que entra en la explicacion, sino que se da la razon de dicho fuego: Abram se nego a adorar a los idolos mesopotamicos, se le quiso quemar, pero no hubo exito, en cambio fue Haran, hermano de Abrahan el que murio, debido a que estaba lleno de sortilegios. Midras: Segun R. Hiyya Terah fue fabricante de idolos, y Abram los vendia. Despues de convertirse Abram fue puesto a prueba. Haran estaba indeciso: 'Si Abram sale victorioso (de la prueba), yo dire— pensaba Haran—que yo tengo la creencia de Abram, mientras que si Nemrod sale victorioso, dire que yo estoy de parte de Nemrod. Cuando Abram descendio al horno de fuego y se salvo, el (Nemrod) le pregunto: "^De que creencia eres tu?", "de la de Abram", respondio. Despues le agarro y le arrojo al horno; sus entretelas se chamuscaron y murio en

44

Targumic and Cognate Studies

presencia de su padre. De ahi que esta escrito, "y Haran murio en presencia (calpene) de su padre Terah".'40 Tambien el midras aprovecha la duplicidad de sentido de >ur como toponimo y como nombre comun. 14.18: TH: Melkisedeq-rey de justicia: 'Entonces Melkisedeq, rey de Salem, saco pan y vino, pues era sacerdote del Dios Altisimo'. Otro rey cananeo de Jerusalem llevo un nombre afin, Adoni-sedeq (Jos. 10.1). Melkisedeq, con su nombre evoca las ideas de soberania y de justicia (o prosperidad), esta citado en el Sal. 110 y considerado por el NT como una de las figuras del Mesias (cf. Heb. 7). Tg: 'Melkisedeq, rey de Salem—que es el gran Sem—ofrecio pan y vino, porque era sacerdote y ejercia el sacerdocio soberano delante del Dios Altisimo' (TN). 'El juez justo—que es Sem, hijo de Noe—, rey de Jerusalen, salio al encuentro de Abram y el ofrecio pan y vino; en ese tiempo, el oficiaba delante del Dios Altisimo' (TJI). Segun el Tg. Salem se interpreta como Jerusalen. Algunos piensan que Salem seria Salim, al noreste de Nablus.41 F. Josefo tambien conocia la identificacion de Salem con Jerusalen,42 y es lo que sucede en el apocrifo del Genesis de Qumran: 'El vino a Salem, que es Jerusalen, mientras que Abram estaba acampado en el valle Shaven'.43 Midras: 'Y Melki Sedeq': este lugar hace a sus habitantes justos (leido como dos palabras como en el TH). 'Y el rey de Sedeq': El Senor de Sedeq (Jos. 10.1), como 'Adoni-Sedeq'. Jerusalen es llamada 'Sedeq' (justo), como esta escrito, 'Sedeq' (justo) se alojo en ella' (Is. 1.21). 'Rey de Salem' (Shalem): R. Isaac el babilonio dijo: Esto implica que nacio circuncidado (traduce 'shalem' completo, e.d. el rey 'complete', cf. Gen. 17.1-10).44 16.11: TH: Mmac ^/-escucho Dios: 'He aqui que estas encinta y pariras un hijo, al que pondras de nombre Ismael, porque Yahweh ha escuchado ($amac) tu afliccion'. Al nombre de Ismael se le da la traduccion de 'Dios escucha' (Mmac J£7), como otros nombres, esta formado como el resto de teoforos, igual que Israel, Ezequiel, etc. Tg: 'He aqui que estas encinta y tu vas a dar a luz un hijo. Tu le llamaras por nombre Ismael porque tu afliccion ha sido escuchada 40. Gen.R. 38.13. 41. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. A Commentary (BibOr 19; Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), p. 172. 42. F. Josefo, Antiq. 7.3, 2 §67; Bel. Jud. 6.10,1 §438; Contra Ap. 1.22 §174. 43. GenApoc 22,13; cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, pp. 72s. y 173. 44. Gen. R. 43.6.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

45

delante de Yahweh (crwm $myc qdm yyy)'. En este caso TN conserva la misma raiz que el TH, en cambio desaparece en TJI: 'He aqui que tu estas encinta y que vas a dar a luz un hijo. Tu le llamaras por nombre Ismael, porque tu afliccion esta patente delante de Yahweh (>rwm gly qdm yyy)\ Midras: A proposito de este verso, el midras habla simplemente de que tres individuos fueron llamados por sus nombres antes de nacer: Isaac, Salomon y Josias; y algunos anaden que fue tambien Ismael, entre los paganos, e.d. entre los no judios.45 Pero a proposito de 'el habitara en presencia de todos sus hermanos', se nota que dice 'el habitara': mientras que en otras partes se lee: 'el cayo' (Gen. 25.17). En tanto que Abraham vivio 'el habitara', inmediatamente que murio 'el cayo'. Antes de que el hubiese extendido su mano contra el Templo, 'el habitara', tan pronto como extendio su mano contra el Templo, 'el cayo' en este mundo 'el habitara', en el mundo futuro 'el cayo'. Bacher penso que con esto se aludia a que Ismael (no se debe aqui identificar con Roma) ataco el Templo, alude o bien al Aretas, rey de Nabatea, que ataco a Aristobulo y sitio a Jerusalen,46 o al Principe de Arabia que se unio al ejercito de Vespasiano. 16.14: TH: b"er lahay ro^f-pozo del viviente que me ve: 'Por eso se denomino "Pozo del Viviente que me ve" (beyer lahay ro3i)\ Quiza el nombre designaba una divinidad antigua local, que ahora se pone en relation con la aparicion del Dios de Israel, que se especifica en un juego de palabras basado en el verbo 'ver'. Tg: 'Por eso se llamo: "Pozo junto al cual se ha aparecido aquel que subsiste por todos los siglos'" (TN). 'Por eso se llamo al pozo "Pozo sobre el que se aparecio quien vive y permanece"' (TJI). El Tg. traduce el sentido, pero evita el antropomorfismo, huyendo de la version literal, y a la vez da una definition teologica de Dios. Midras: 'R. Aibu lo explico: "Tu eres quien ve los sufrimientos de los perseguidos"' ,47 16.15: TH: Ismael-$awace/: 'Mas tarde, Agar pariole un hijo a Abram, el cual al hijo que Agar le habia parido pusole por nombre Ismael'. 21.17: 'Entonces, Dios oyo la voz del muchacho (wayyi$mac 3 Eldhini), y el angel de Dios llamo a Agar desde el cielo y dijole: ^ Qué

45. Gen. R. 45.8. 46. F. Josefo, Antiq. XIV, 2, §1.

47. Gen. R. 45.10.

46

Targumic and Cognate Studies

tienes, Agar? No temas, porque Dios ha oido (ki $amaf 3Elohim) la voz del chico desde el sitio donde esta.' Tg: 'Y Agar pario a Abram un hijo. Y Abram llamd el nombre del hijo que le pario Agar, Ismael' (TN, TJI). 21.17: 'Y Yahweh oyo la voz (w$myf qdm yyy) (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh ha oido la voz del nifio) del nino, y el angel de Yahweh llamo a Agar desde los cielos y le dijo: ^Que tienes, Agar? No temas, porque Yahweh ha oido la voz de la oracion del nino en el lugar donde esta' (TN). ' Y la voz del nifio fue oida delante de Yahweh (w$myfqdm yyy) por el merito de Abraham y el angel de Yahweh llamo a Agar desde los cielos y le dijo: ^Que tienes, Agar? No tengas miedo, porque la voz del muchacho ha sido oida delante de Yahweh (3rwm Smyc qdm vvv) y no le ha juzgado por las malas acciones que va a ejecutar, sino que por el merito de Abraham se ha compadecido de el en el lugar donde esta' (TJI). Si en TN-TJI Gen 16.15 no indican nada sobre el significado del nombre, porque ya lo habian hecho anteriormente, pero en Gen. 21.17 vuelven a la etimologia popular de Ismael, mas con distintos matices: Yahweh ha oido la oracion del muchacho (TN-TJI), pero por merito de Abraham (TJI). Midras: Si en Gen. 16.15 no repite la derivacion popular, en Gen. 21.17 dice que el angel de Dios llamo a Hagar por causa de Abraham, y si Dios oyo la voz del muchacho fue por causa del mismo muchacho, por cuanto las plegarias de una persona enferma hechas para si misma son mas eficaciones que las de cualquiera otra persona.48 17.5: TH: 3abram-}abrahdm:Padre excelso: 'No se llamara mas tu nombre Abram, sino que sera tu nombre Abraham, pues padre de multitud de naciones (3ab hamori) te he constituido'. 'Padre de multitudes' (>ab hamori) es un nuevo apelativo que Dios da a Abraham, 'el padre de los creyentes'. En realidad las dos formas (AbramAbraham) parecen solamente variantes dialectales de un mismo nombre, que significaria: 'el padre (la divinidad protectora del clan) es elevado', o tambien: 'el padre ama'. Tg: 'Y no se llamara mas tu nombre Abram, y tu nombre sera Abraham, porque te he puesto para congregacion de multitud de pueblos justos (3rwm Iqhl knSt 3wmyn sdyqyn)'(TN). 'Y no se llamara ya tu nombre Abram, pues tu nombre sera Abraham porque te he designado padre de una gran multitud de pueblos (I'b sgy swgcy fmmyny(TJI). El Tg. se hace simplemente eco de la misma derivacion popular del TH. 48. Gen.R. 53.14.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

47

Midras: 'Bar Kappara decia: 'Cada vez que Abraham es llamado "Abram" transgrede un mandamiento positivo. R. Levi dijo: "Un mandamiento positivo y un mandamiento negative". Tu nombre ya no se llamara Abram' (Gen. 17.5), esto es un mandamiento negativo. 'Sino que tu nombre sera Abraham' (Gen. 17.5), esto es un mandamiento positivo. Pero seguramente los hombres de la Gran Asamblea le llamaron Abram, segun esta escrito: "Tu...que escogiste a Abram" (Neh. 9.7). Es diferente porque El le escogio mientras fue Abram. Por lo mismo, por analogia, ^cuando se llama a Sara "Saray" infringe un mandamiento positivo? No, porque solamente a Abraham le fue impuesto respeto a ella.'49 17.15: TH: sard-saray: Senora: 'Dijo tambien Dios a Abraham: "A Saray, tu mujer, no la llamaras mas Saray, sino que su nombre ha de ser Sara"'. Sara, como Saray, significa 'princesa'. Tg: 'Y dijo Yahweh (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh) a Abraham: "Tu mujer Saray, no llamaras su nombre Saray sino que su nombre sera Sara"' (TN, TJI). Ni el TH, ni el Tg. se hacen cargo de dar una explicacion del cambio de onomastica. Midras: El nombre original era Saray, terminando en yod\ el valor numeral de la yod es de 10; ahora bien si este valor numerico lo dividimos por la mitad, obtenemos que de una yod salen dos he, que tiene el valor de 5; una he se anadio a Sarah y la obra se anadio a Abraham. De ahi que Abraham fuese coronado (su nombre fue cambiado para expresar su grandeza, cf. Gen. 17.5) por Sarah, pero Sarah no fue coronada por el. Tambien se pone en esta misma relacion el cambio que se verifica con el nombre de Oseas: 'Y Moises llamo Oseas (hw&) al hijo de Nun Josue (y/zwF)'50. 17.19: TH: yishdq: Isaac—'Y contesto Dios: "Sara, tu esposa, en verdad, te parira un hijo, a quien pondras por nombre Isaac, y establecere mi alianza con el en alianza eterna y con su descedencia despues de el"'. El nombre de Isaac se relaciona con la risa del padre (17.17): 'Entonces postrose Abraham rostro en tierra y se rio (wayyishdq), diciendo en su interior: "^A un centenario le va a nacer un hijo y Sara la nonagenaria va a dar a luz?"'; y esta risa vuelve a aparecer Gen. 21.6: 'Por lo cual dijo Sara: "Reir (fhoq)me hizo Dios. Todo el que lo oiga se me reira (yishdq/?)'".

49. Gen. R. 46.8. 50. Gen. R. 47.1.

48

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Tg: 'Y dijo Yahweh a Abraham: No obstante, he aqui que tu mujer Sara te va a parir un hijo y llamaras su nombre Isaac y establecere mi Alianza con el como Alianza perpetua y con sus hijos despues de el' (TN). 'Y dijo Yahweh: En verdad Sara tu mujer te dara a luz un hijo y llamaras su nombre Isaac, y confirmare mi pacto con el como pacto eterno par sus hijos detras de el' (TJI). Gen. 17.17: 'Y Abraham se postro (NM: se incline) sobre su rostro y se admiro (wtmh) y dijo en su corazon: ^Acaso a los cien anos me sera posible engendrar hijos? <<,Y acaso a Sara, que tiene noventa anos, le sera posible parir?' (TN). 'Y Abraham cayo sobre su rostro, se maravillo (wtmh) y dijo en su corazon: ^Es que un hombre de cien anos tendra un hijo y Sara, de noventa anos dara a luz?' (TJI). 21.6: 'Y Sara dijo: Una gran alegria me ha sido hecha delante de Yahweh (hdw rbh 3fbdd mn qdm yyy) (NM: Para mi alegria ha hecho Yahweh); todo el que lo oiga se alegrara conmigo (NM: Grande alegria me ha hecho el Verbo de Yahweh. Todo el que oiga mi voz se alegrara conmigo' (whdy ly yty wyhdycmy)(TN). 'Y dijo Sara: Yahweh me ha hecho una cosa maravillosa (tymh3 cbd ly yyy), todo el que lo oiga se maravillara de mi' (ytmh ly) (TJI). En el primer caso, el Tg. no se fija en la derivation popular de Isaac del TH, sino mas bien busca una explication teologica; pero en los dos casos siguientes el Tg. refleja, hasta por duplicados (TJI) la alegria (reir) que le produjo el embarazo a Sara. Midras: Aqui el Genesis Rabbah, en ambas ocasiones (Gen. 17.17, 19) pasa por alto la risa de Sara, llevado del principio de sublimation de los antepasados de Israel (en concreto de la matriarca Sara), la cual pudiera aparecer como irreverente en su incredulidad. En cambio si que se recuerda su alegria comentando Gen. 21.6: 'Cuando a la matriarca Sara se le concedio el dar a luz, muchas otras mujeres esteriles recibieron el mismo beneficio que ella; muchos sordos obtuvieron la audition; muchos ciegos obtuvieron la apertura de sus ojos, muchos enfermos obtuvieron la salud'.51 19.22: TH: s^Kar-pequena: 'Corre a evadirte alia, pues no puedo hacer nada hasta que tu alia llegues. Por eso puco por nombre a la ciudad Soar (= pequena)' (Sofar).19.20: 'Mira, proxima esta esa ciudad, adonde quiero huir, y que es pequena (mifdry'. Tg: 'Apresurate a ponerte a salvo alii, porque no podre hacer nada hasta que entre alii. Por eso la llamo Soar' (Sofar)(TN, TJI). Ni el TH, ni el Tg. aprovechan la etimologia popular de este toponimo. 19.20: 'Por 51. Gen. R. 53.8.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

49

favor, he aqui esta ciudad cercana para huir a ella; esta proxima (NM: es pequena, z c r). For favor, voy a ponerme a salvo en ella. <<,No es pequena? (hi3 zcyr>). Y perdure mi vida' (TN). 'Mira, por favor, esa ciudad, sus habitaciones estan cerca y conveniente para huir alia, y es pequena (sybhr) y sus pecados son ligeros, dejame ponerme a salvo alii. ^No es pequena? (sybhr) Y perdurara mi vida' (TJI). Midras: R. Levi referia esto a una gran ciudad que tenia dos patronos, uno de una gran ciudad, y otro de una pequena ciudad.52 19.37: TH: Moab-mm Jab-del padre: 'Y pario la mayor un hijo, a quien puso por nombre Moab. Es el padre de los moabitas (yabi md3db), que perduran hasta hoy.' Tg: 'Y la mayor pario un hijo y le llamo Moab: es el padre, el padre } ( by ^bwhwn) de los moabitas hasta el dia de hoy' (TN). 'Y la mayor dio a luz un hijo y llamo su nombre Moab, porque de su padre (br ^bwh3) habia concebido, es el padre de los moabitas hasta el dia de hoy' (TJI). El TH no deriva el nombre de Moab de ninguna rafz, el TN la conoce, y el TJI lee la etimologia popular min-^db, e.d. 'de su padre'. Midras: 'R. Yudan, en nombre de R. Aibu, dijo: "Porque el primogenito metio en desgracia a su padre y le llamo Moab, que significa 'por mi padre' (me3db), la Biblia mando 'No te enemistes con Moab, ni entres en batalla con el' (Dt. 2.9): tu no tienes que entrar en batalla con ellos, aunque tu puedas desviar sus rios y quemar sus cosechas con el fuego. Pero porque el mas joven salvo el honor de su padre, porque 'ella le llamo por nombre Ben-Ammi' (Gen. 19.37), diciendo: 'El es un hijo (ben) que estuvo conmigo (cimmi\ la Biblia dijo, 'No los has de hostilizar ni atacar' (Dt. 2.19) de ningun modo." R. Juda y R. Hanan en nombre de R. Yohanan dijo: "Las hijas de Lot estuvieron dispuestas a hacer un disparate, y fsin embargo quedaron encinta! Por merito ^de quien fue eso? Por merito de Moab, e.d. de uno que fue padre (mi 3db), e.d. Abraham, del cual se dice: 'porque padre de multitud de naciones te he hecho' (Gen. 17.5).'"53 19.38: TH: Ben Ammi-Ben c<2wra?-hijo de mi pueblo: 'Y tambien la menor pario un hijo y llamole Bar Ammi (= hijo de mi pueblo): el es el padre de los ammonitas hasta el tiempo de hoy' (TN). 'Tambien la pequena dio a luz un hijo y llamo su nombre Bar Ammi (= hijo de mi pueblo), porque era hijo de su padre; es el padre del pueblo de los ammonitas hasta el dia de hoy'. De hecho en el ms. de Londres del TJI 52. Gen.R. 50.12. 53. Gen. R. 61.11.

50

Targumic and Cognate Studies

esta cymyh (= hijo con el), pero en la Editio Princeps esta 'hijo de mi pueblo'. Tambien hay otra variante disparatada que en vez de escribir 'ammonitas', tanto el ms. de Londres como la Editio Princeps transcriben 'moabitas'. Midras: 'Pero porque la mas pequefia quiso excusar el honor de su padre, por eso 'ella le llamo por su nombre Ben-Ammf, diciendo: 'El es un hijo (ben) de uno que ha estado conmigo (cimmi), la Escritura ordeno'. R. Juda y R. Hanan en el nombre de R. Yohanan dijo: Las hermanas de Lot iban a cometer un disparate, sin embargo jquedaron encinta! ^Por merito de quien fue esto? Por el merito de Moab, e.d. de uno que fue el padre (mi 3ab) (e.d. braham, de quien se dice): Torque padre de multitud de naciones yo te he hecho' (Gen. 17.5).54 s

Conclusiones 1) El libro del Genesis demuestra una particular predileccion por la derivacion popular de la toponimia y onomastica, dandonos a conocer tradiciones preisraelitas en ambos dominios. 2) Dentro de las cuatro tradiciones admitidas generalmente en el Genesis (Yahwista, Elohista, Priesterkodex-Sacerdotal y Deuterononica), la que mas se senala en los detalles de etimologias y etiologias es la Yahwista, que a su vez, es considerada como la mas antigua. 3) En el mismo libro del Genesis se nos ofrecen datos de una evolucion interna, siendo esto expresado con diversas formulas: 'antiguamente se llamaba', o bien: 'que es', para garantizar la fiable identidad especialmente de los toponimos. 4) El TH ofrece en Gen gran cantidad de datos en que se explican nombres de personas o lugares por una asonancia fonica popular, que no necesariamente ha de coincidir con la derivacion cientifica hoy conocida, pero en general no se suele oponer a tal interpretation cientifica. 5) El TH ofrece muchas explicaciones de topdnimos y de onomastica, pero en muchas otras ocasiones no aplica la vena popular a esas derivaciones, y nombres que pudieran haber tenido una facil derivacion popular, tal derivacion no se constata, aunque no quiere decir que no se empleara, pues la sabiduria popular es muy amante de tales explicaciones. 6) Si el TH ya ofrecio muchas identificaciones, o narraciones haggadicas a proposito de toponimos y onomastica, el Tg. amplia 54. Gen. fl. 51.11.

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

51

notablemente tal campo, ofreciendo nuevas identificaciones, o nuevas explicaciones a datos ya explicados en el TH. 7) El Midras amplia notablemente tales derivaciones, anadiendo nuevos datos no solamente al TH, sino incluso al Tg.; pero en ciertas ocasiones es decididamente amplificador, p.e. en las enumeraciones, si se trata de Qiryat-'Arba', interpretada como la 'ciudad de los cuatro', el enumerado de cuatro sera ampliado con una lista de cuatro repetida hasta la saciedad.

in ]n KSB—'FINDING FAVOR IN SOMEONE'S EYES': THE TREATMENT OF THIS BIBLICAL HEBREW IDIOM IN THE ANCIENT ARAMAIC VERSIONS*

Bernard Grossfeld

The idiomatic expression 'finding favor in someone's eyes' occurs some 50 times in the Bible.1 The ancient Aramaic Bible versions2 render ]n by either KJI, K"lon or ^orn, and in some cases by a combination of these equivalents (see Appendix A). Aramaic ^om for Hebrew ]n is used more or less consistently by the targumim and Peshitta as follows: Targum Onqelos: In all the 27 Pentateuch occurrences. Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel: In all of the cases in the Prophets. Targum Rishon: In the six Esther verses. Targum Ruth: In all of the three verses there. Samaritan Targum: In all the 27 Pentateuch occurrences. Peshitta: In virtually all of the 50 cases. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: In virtually all of the 27 Pentateuch occurrences. Targum Sheni in only three out of six cases.3

Aramaic twn is employed less frequently by some versions but almost exclusively by others, as follows: Targum Neofiti: In 85% of the cases but always in conjunction with tnon, only in four instances is WH just by itself.4

* This thesis was read in its original form at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Kansas City, November 1991, but has been considerably revised for the present volume. 1. Including the variations Tin ]n ]PD in Gen. 39.21; Exod. 3.21, 11.3, 12.36; Tin ]0 WD] in Est. 2.15, 17; 5.2; and just Tin ]FT in Prov. 17.8. 2. Beside the targumim, this includes the Peshitta and the Samaritan Targum. 3. In 5.8, 7.3, and 8.5 but always as ]'nmi tnon. 4. In Exod. 3.21, 11.3, 12.36 and Gen. 39.21.

GROSSFELD TIQ ]n NKQ—'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'

53

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: three times only—twice by itself5 and once6 with ion. Fragment Targum Yerushalmi: Once only—Gen. 6.8—with N~TOn. Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi: four times7 with K~!0n and o once by itself. Targum Sheni: In three of six Esther verses, always with tnon.9

Kion is the least used term as follows: Targum Proverbs: In all three verses—3.4, 17.8 and 28.23. Targum Neofiti: In 85% of the 27 Pentateuch verses,10 always with wn. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Once,11 withKTI. Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi: four times, in each case with

wn. Targum Sheni: Three times with porn12 and three times with NTI. Peshitta: In only three of the 50 biblical cases.13

In those 18 instances where ]PI occurs in a context other than Tin ]n K^Q, it is rendered Kion by Targum Proverbs in 9 out of the 10 occurrences;14 pom in 2 instances,15 once as pQrm Kion,16 and once as tf]n.17 The Peshitta employs some form of KOm in 10 of these cases, either by itself18 or in combination with another term.19 In one case— Nan. 3 A—the Peshitta uses ]n. In the ancient classical versions the situation is much more consistent than in the ancient Aramaic versions. In the 50 Tin ]FI KXQ cases, the LXX renders ]n by xocpiq, 'grace' 48 times.20 In the 18 non-Tin ]FT K^ft 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

In Gen. 6.18, and 18.3. Exod. 12.36. Gen. 30.27, 34.11, 39.4, and 47.29 Exod. 12.36. Est. 2.15, 17, and 5.2. See Appendix A. Exod. 12.36. 5.8, 7.3, and 8.5. Est. 2.15, 17, and 5.2.

14. In 11.16 it has the form W1TOO. See Appendix B. 15. Tg. Jer. 31.1; Tg. Eccl. 10.12. See Appendix B 16. Tg. Zech. 12.10. See Appendix B. 17. Tg. Prov. 31.30. See Appendix B. 18. Cf. Jer. 31.1; Prov. 5.19; 11.16; 13.15; 22.1, 11; Pss. 45.3; 84.12. See Appendix B. 19. Cf. Zech. 4.7; 12.10. See Appendix B. 20. Gen. 19.19 and Num. 11.15 are rendered eXeoq, 'mercy', the expression in

54

Targumic and Cognate Studies

cases, x<*pi<; occurs 13 times. The Vulgate is even more consistent, rendering ]n in 48 of 50 cases21 in the idiomatic expression by gratia, 'favor', and in all 18 non-Tin |il N^Q cases by that very same term. The above data indicate the predominance of Aramaic "fErn as the equivalent for Hebrew ]n in the idiomatic expression Tin ]n KKE, with Nion and the literal »3n less commonly used. However, the latter are employed almost exclusively, and mostly in combination with each other, by some targumim, especially the non-standard ones such as Neofiti, the Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi, and the Targum Sheni. In the non-idiomatic expressions, Hebrew ]FI is mostly rendered Kion by the targumim, while the Peshitta still mostly uses KQITI. A series of interrelated questions concerning this situation may now be put forward as follows: 1. 2. 3.

Why do most standard targumim and the Peshitta prefer KQm/pnm rather than the literal KJ1? On the other hand, why do the non-standard targumim prefer Kion either by itself or in combination with KJI? What do the combinations NJI, pmi tnon, pmi Kiom «]n fcnom indicate concerning the semantic relationship between these three terms?

In dealing with the first question, it is hereby suggested that the translation Kftm/f'Dm is an interpretive one, meaning 'mercy'/'compassion', the very same Aramaic equivalent which is used for the Hebrew noun D^am by the targumim and the Peshitta in 38 of its 39 occurrences.22 Furthermore, the statistics of the 79 occurrences of the Hebrew verb ]]n point to an ever increasing use of the Aramaic verb Dm both in the targumim (19 cases) and in the Peshitta (46 cases) as the interpretive verbal equivalent. It then logically follows that the noun "porn would likewise be the interpretive equivalent for the Hebrew noun ]l~f. The difference in the consistency displayed by the Aramaic Bible versions in rendering the 50 occurrences of ]n in the Tin ]n tf^Q situations in contrast to the variety of equivalents offered by them in the 18 occurrences of ]n in the non-Tin ]n «^Q cases is a logical one. In the former case, only one type of contextual situation exists—'finding )n in someone's eyes', an idiomatic expression. In contrast, in the latter case, the LXX for Hebrew ion in 168 of its 201 occurrences throughout the biblical text. 21. Gen. 47.25 and Est. 5.2 are paraphrased. 22. The exception being Ps. 79.8, where the targum renders "]'Drn by "[mao.

GROSSFELD Tin ]n K^Q—'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'

55

]FI appears in a variety of contexts and consequently it is rendered by the respective targumim by a variety of equivalents, some literal (where twn is used twice23), and others giving an interpretive meaning. Thus we have 'mercy' (where "pam is employed twice24) or 'understanding' (here rim is the equivalent once25) or 'appearance' (where the rendering is TT~l once26). Some equivalents are paraphrastic (twice27), and once the doublet pariTl KIOFI28 is used. Each usage is according to the context of the verse; even tnon (nine times29) is used. Concerning the second question—why do the non-standard Targumim use Kion for Hebrew ]H, especially in the TJO ]F1 KSa situation? Chief among these is Targum Neofiti in 23 of 27 cases—though always with KJI.30 This question has a second part—why not use parn? In addressing the latter, we must first ask do Targum Neofiti and the Geniza Fragment Targum Yerushalmi have parri in their vocabulary at all? The answer is yes—as the equivalent for Hebrew D^am, 'mercy'/'compassion' in each of its three Pentateuchal appearances.31 A contrast is offered by the Hebrew noun rnriK, 'love' where Neofiti uses nnam/Knam rather than pam for the two Pentateuchal appearances—Gen. 29.20 (infinitive with verbal force) and Deut. 7.8. The term Kfiarn also occurs in Tg. 2 Sam. 13.15; as Kniym in Tg. 2 Sam. 1.26; in Tg. Eccl. 9.6 as Knnm, and in the Tg. Prov. 5.19 as NDaim—all for Hebrew rQ!"IN. Thus, in answer to part two of this question, we may say that Targum Neofiti did not use pam for ]n because it is used exclusively for Hebrew D^am. This situation does not, however, hold true for numerous other targumim which used "pan"! for Hebrew D'Dm as well as for ]n in the Tin ]n N^ft expression.32 Perhaps Neofiti's reluctance to employ pan") is due to the fact that the targumist did not understand ]n here to denote the interpretive meaning 'mercy'/'compassion' but rather the literal meaning 23. Tg.Prov.31.30;Tg.Ps. 84.12. 24. Tg. Jer. 31.1; Tg. Eccl. 10.12. 25. Tg. Eccl. 9.11. 26. Tg. Nah. 3.4. 27. Tg. Zech. 4.7; Tg. Ps. 45.3. 28. Tg.Zech. 12.10. 29. Eight of which are in Tg. Prov. 30. In four cases KJI is used alone. 31. Gen. 43.14, 30; Deut. 13.18 with pronominal suffixes. 32. Cf. Tgs. Onq. and Ps.-J. to Gen. 43.14, 30; Deut. 13.14; Tg. for all 12 instances in the Prophets, e.g. 1 Kgs 8.50; Isa. 47.6; Zech. 1.16; Tg. Ps. in all 11 instances there, e.g. 106.46; Tg. 2 Chron. 30.9.

56

Targumic and Cognate Studies

'grace'. However, if that were the case, why use ion in conjunction with ]n in 23 out of 27 cases? This now leads into the first part of this question— why use "ion here at all? Three explanations are hereby offered.

1 . Hebrew ]PI = Aramaic K~!0n 'grace ' Targum Neofiti understood ]!"[ in these 27 passages literally as 'grace', using the literal Aramaic twn four times by itself and in 23 additional passages in combination with Kion as that term eventually developed into the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew ]n. The doublet fcnom K]H outside of Neofiti exists only once in Targum Pseudo- Jonathan, three times in Targum Sheni, four times in the Geniza Fragments Targum Yerushalmi, and once in the Fragment Targum.33 Eventually, tfion began to function by itself as the equivalent for ]PI, as can be seen in the 9 out of 10 cases where Targum Proverbs employs it to mean 'grace' in the non-Tin ]n K^Q cases.34 2. Hebrew ]FI = Aramaic KlCfi 'compassion '/'mercy' The term ion appears 201 times in the biblical text. The LXX translates it eXeo<; 'mercy' 168 times.35 Likewise, misericordia in the Vulgate follows the LXX pattern of e'A,eo<;. In fact, H.J. Stoebe, in his analysis of the meaning of "ion in the biblical text,36 points out that in Hebrew, D1CD replaced ion only after the latter term took on the meaning of D^nn consequent to its association with that word in doublet form or in synonymous parallelism.37 This development took place in Aramaic as well, when KTOn, which originally meant 'kindness'/'favor', took on the meaning of 'mercy'.38 It was then replaced in Aramaic by one of the terms of the DIED triadfcQICD/KrQQfiirttas the literal equivalent for Hebrew 33. Gen. 6.8. 34. For which see Appendix B. 35. In Psalms alone, the LXX renders Hebrew ion by etaoq 74 out of 100 times. 36. In 'Die Bedeutung des Wortes hesed im Alten Testament', VT 2 (1951), p. 248. 37. For which cf. Jer. 16.5; Hos. 2.21; Zech. 7.9; Ps. 103.4; as well as Pss. 25.6, 51.3, 69.17; Isa. 63.7; Lam. 3.32; and especially Dan. 1.9. Further evidence is in the common formulaic doublet G1ITTI pn (Joel 2.13; Jon. 4.2; Pss. 111.4; 112.4; 145.8; 2 Chron. 30.9) and its reverse Jim Dim (Exod. 34.6; Pss. 86.15; 103.8). 38. Whereas the term ]'Qm was reserved by Tg. Neof. exclusively for Hebrew D'Qfn and is used in all three verses where it appears —Gen. 43.14, 30, and Deut. 13.18.

GROSSFELD Tin |n rc*n—'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'

57

ion meaning 'kindness'/'favor'. The doublet ITtDl ion indicates that •Q-'tD eventually became the preferred form for Hebrew "ion rather than inon. The statistics confirm this development. For the 201 times ion occurs in the biblical text, one of the three terms of the 31CD triad appears in the targumim as the equivalent 141 times as opposed to KTOn which occurs 61 times. In the Peshitta the ratio is even higher in favor of the JIB triad—135 : 12. Thus tnon in the 23 cases in Targum Neofiti means 'mercy'/'compassion', an interpretive translation paralleling that of the standard targumim which use "pom. How then does one explain the four occasions on which Targum Neofiti uses tf]n by itself? The explanation lies in the contextual situation of the verses themselves. The verses in question are Gen. 39.21; Exod. 3.12, 11.3, and 12.36; their common denominator is that it is God who places the ]FI of someone into someone else's eyes. In Gen. 39.21, Joseph's ]FI is placed in the eyes of the keeper of the prison, and in the three Exodus verses the Israelite's |n is placed in the eyes of the Egyptians (these four verses have ]n |H] instead of ]n N2SQ). Here we have a digression from the standard formula of our idiomatic expression Tin ]n K^Q, which is a spontaneous reaction on the part of one person towards another. The spontaneity easily involves the emotion of 'compassion'/'mercy'. Thus Targum Neofiti renders ]FI here by K3FI exclusively, a term which the targumist felt did not involve the emotion of 'compassion'/'mercy' as Nion did, but rather simply 'grace'. k 3. Hebrew ]n = Aramaic KIDF! 'kindness'/'favor' As pointed out above, Hebrew ~!0n /Aramaic tnon originally meant 'kindness'/'favor' prior to taking on the meaning 'compassion'/'mercy', and before being replaced by one of the TIB triad terms which took on this original meaning of Aramaic Kion. Targum Neofiti's tnon in the 23 Pentateuchal passages in translation of Hebrew ]n may in essence then reflect this original meaning of 'kindness'/'favor'. We would thus have three distinct translations for Hebrew ]FI in our idiomatic expression—Targum Neofiti's interpretive Kion, 'kindness'/ 'favor'; the interpretive "pQm/Nnm 'mercy'/'compassion' found in Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets; and the literal translation of the classical versions x<*Pl? and gratia of the LXX and Vulgate, respectively, meaning 'grace'. The third question concerns the semantic relationship between the three terms ]!"!, ion, D^om in their Hebrew and Aramaic forms. Turning

58

Targumic and Cognate Studies

first to the combinatory doublets, in the Hebrew, one of ]n with "ion is limited to a single case—Est. 2.17 TB^ IDm ]n ^m.39 In contrast, ion with D'Qrn occurs eight times.40 As for ]FI with D^Qm, they do not occur in their nominal form, only in their adjectival/substantival forms of ]1]n and Dim, respectively. In Aramaic, the situation is different. The doublet NiomfcWFIoccurs 31 times—23 in Targum Neofiti, once in Fragment Targums, once in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, four times in the Geniza Fragment Targum Yerushalmi, and twice in Targum Esther II. The combination ^QmiNlon occurs four times, once in Targum of the Prophets and three times in Targum Sheni.41 As in Hebrew, the combination ]FI with Q^Qm is nonexistent. A very revealing passage points to the relationship of the three terms: Ps. 77.9-10 *]K3 f*B") DN *7K HUH nDe?n...TTOn n^OS«n n^D Tam. Here we see ion, |n and D^Qm in synonymous parallelism. Everything revolves around the term ion which originally meant 'kindness'/'favor'. It was used both by targumim and the Peshitta in this sense.42 Moreover, there existed a semantic connection between ]n and ion to the degree that some ancient versions occasionally used a common term for both.43 Furthermore, J. Montgomery44 has correctly 39. There are no attested cases where these specific terms appear in synonymous parallelism to each other, unless you count Pss. 86.15, 103.8, and 145.8, where "ion is paralleled by ]1TI. 40. Isa. 63.7; Jer. 16.5; Hos. 2.21; Zech. 7.9; Pss. 25.6, 103.4; Lam. 3.32; Dan. 1.9, in addition to two instances where these terms are in synonymous parallelism to each other, for which cf. Ps. 51.3; 69.17. 41. For which cf. Zech. 12.10 and Est. 5.8, 7.3, and 8.5, respectively. In one Tg. Est. II manuscript—Parma 3235 (Rossi 42/1), this doublet occurs in reverse form, •pom f om. 42. The statistics really tell the whole story. These clearly show the overwhelming ratio in which the Aramaic 31CD-triad 'favor/kindness' is used over against Aramaic tfion in translation for Hebrew lOPI by the various targumim and the Peshitta: Pentateuch—Tg. Onq. 14 : 3; Ps.-J. 1 3 : 2 ; Peshitta 17 : 0 Prophets—Tg. Neb. 27 : 11; Peshitta 3 1 : 1 Hagiographa—Targumim 87 : 45; Peshitta 86 : 11.

43. In his study, 'Some Implications of Hen for Old Testament Religion', JBL 73 (1954), pp. 36-41, W.L. Reed points out that a study of the versions makes it clear that the authors of the targums, the Peshitta and the LXX did not find a sharp difference between hen and hesed. Ordinarily different Aramaic, Syriac and Greek words were employed to render the two Hebrew words, but in some cases the same word was used, a practice which would indicate that the translators did not sharply

GROSSFELD TJO |n N:SQ—'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'

59

pointed out that Greek xdpiq of the New Testament renders the idea of the Hebrew IDFI. Now, as pointed out above, ^apic, is the standard LXX equivalent for Hebrew ]n in 48 of the 50 cases. So there may have existed a period, probably before it was replaced in Aramaic by various forms of the TIED triad, when ion was semantically linked with ]n.45 In the Aramaic Bible versions this phenomenon shows itself in those targumim where the doublet tnom K2n is found as a translation for Hebrew ]f[. Targum Neofiti is the best representative of this tradition, using it in 23 of 21 cases. By contrast, the few times that N2n is used by itself as a translation for Hebrew ]n reflect a period prior to the evolution of the brief ]n-"lon semantic link. The final state of that development which shows K~lon totally representing Hebrew ]FI is indicated in Targum Proverbs where Kion in this context occurs in 11 out of 12 cases and twice in the Peshitta (Est. 2.15; 3.2). The next stage in the semantic development of Kion after the UltQ triad replaced it as the equivalent for Hebrew 1DPI in the targumim and the Peshitta is the semantic linkage of Hebrew 1DFI with Hebrew D^Qm. In the biblical text this phenomenon can be seen by the five cases where ion and D^om appear together in a hendiadys type structure in addition to the numerous cases of synonymous parallelism in which the two appear. In the targumim, the three occurrences of the doublet Nion/ion "porni in Targum Sheni signal the demise of the term "pom which was eventually replaced by ion as the equivalent for Hebrew ]n. Thus, ion had the versatility to replace t«n and 'pom for Hebrew |H since it had similar connotational value, meaning 'grace'/'favor' as well as 'mercy'. This is supported by the terms some of the ancient versions use to render Hebrew ion. differentiate between the two. In Gen. 19.19 and Ps. 84.11 the LXX has e^eoc; for hen and hannun, but the same Greek word is often used to render hesed. In most passages the LXX translates hen with the word X^P1?-1° a footnote (23), Reed cites Pss. 84.11; 111.4, Exod. 22.27, and 34.6, where the LXX renders Hebrew ]1]n with the Greek eA,eT)u«v. I disagree with K. Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs, 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), p. 235, who considers the meaning of 'favor' for "Ol, where it seems to have fallen together with ]!"!, a late meaning. 44. Cf. 'Hebrew Hesed and Greek Chads', HTR 32 (1939), pp. 97-102. 45. In fact in the modern Bible translations such as the American Revised Version and the Authorized Version, a multitude of English terms were used in the translation of "ton. Three of the most common ones were 'grace', 'kindness' and 'mercy'.

60

Targumic and Cognate Studies

The LXX translates 168 of the 201 TOFT cases by the stock translation e^eo<;, 'mercy', the very same term it sometimes employs for Hebrew D^Qm,46 but the LXX also, at times, employs %dpi<;, 'grace'/'favor' (Est. 2.9).47 The situation in the Peshitta is even more revealing. Of 101 cases of ion in Psalms, it uses NQm a total of 28 times, and NQm is used an additional 10 times out of a total of 98 cases outside the Psalms.48 Furthermore, of 32 cases of the noun TOPI (mostly in Psalms), the Peshitta renders this word twice by pmo (Ps. 43.1; 145.17). Targum Proverbs has ^nmn once (20.6). Finally, there is Est. 7.3 ^n«^Q DK f^QH TIO ]n. In eight different manuscripts of Tg. Est. II, four different renderings for jFI are given: Sassoon 282 has "form "ion; Budapest National Museum 24, and London Or. 9924-9925 (Caster 299) have pnT) tnon; Parma 2867 (Rossi 345) has Kiom KJTT; Berlin 1 OR. Fol. 1-4 (Kennicott 150) has pm; and British Museum Or. 2375, 2377, and 2374 have all three—]
46. Cf. Deut. 13.18; Isa. 54.7, 63.7; Ps. 103.4. 47. Cf. G. Farr, The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea', ZAW 70 (1958), pp. 98-107. Farr points out that although %apiq ('grace') is not the usual translation of "TOn in the LXX, where it is generally represented by eXeog, in the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus and Esther, as well as Symmachus, %apic, becomes more and more the equivalent for ion. 48. In the Prophets and the Hagiographa, for which cf. 2 Sam. 9.3; 16.7; Isa. 54.8; Jon. 2.9; Prov. 14.22; 20.6; 31.26; Ezra 9.9; Neh. 13.22; and Lam. 3.22.

Appendix A Who in Whose Eyes 1. Noah in the Lord's 2. Noah in the Lord's 3. Noah in the Lord's 4. Noah in the Lord's 5. Noah in the Lord's 6. Noah in the Lord's 7. Abraham in the Angel's 8. Abraham in the Angel's 9. Abraham in the Angel's 10. Abraham in the Angel's 11. Abraham in the Angel's 12. Lot in the Angel's 13. Lot in the Angel's 14. Lot in the Angel's 15. Lot in the Angel's 16. Lot in the Angel's 17. Laban in Jacob's 18. Laban in Jacob's 19. Laban in Jacob's 20. Laban in Jacob's 21. Laban in Jacob's 22. Laban in Jacob's 23. Jacob in Esau's 24. Jacob in Esau's 25. Jacob in Esau's 26. Jacob in Esau's 27. Jacob in Esau's 28. Jacob in Esau's 29. Jacob in Esau's 30. Jacob in Esau's 31. Jacob in Esau's 32. Jacob in Esau's 33. Jacob in Esau's 34. Jacob in Esau's 35. Jacob in Esau's 36. Jacob in Esau's 37. Jacob in Esau's 38. Jacob in Esau's 39. Jacob in Esau's 40. Jacob in Esau's 41. Jacob in Esau's 42. Jacob in Esau's 43. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons'

Referencee Gen. 6.8 Gen. 6.8 Gen. 6.8 Gen. 6.8 Gen. 6.8 Gen. 6.8 Gen. 183 Gen. 18.3 Gen. 18.3 Gen. 18.3 Gen. 18.3 Gen. 19.19 Gen. 19.19 Gen. 19.19 Gen. 19.19 Gen. 19.19 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 30.27 Gen. 32.6 Gen. 32.6 Gen. 32.6 Gen. 32.6 Gen. 32.6 Gen. 33.8 Gen. 33.8 Gen. 33.8 Gen. 33.8 Gen. 33.8 Gen. 33.10 Gen. 33.10 Gen. 33.10 Gen. 33.10 Gen. 33.10 Gen. 33.15 Gen. 33.15 Gen. 33.15 Gen. 33.15 Gen. 33.15 Gen. 34.11

Hebrew Text

'- Tin in Kin ra •- Tin in K>n n"n Tin in «a2 nn ~n Tin in K>n ra •- Tin in Kin nr. *- Tin ]n Kin nn -TIC ]n -nK»n 77^2 -n -nKin -rin ]n -nRsn -Tin -n -riKin 1TB3 ]n 'racaa 7rm ]n 7121? Kin 7"in ]n yas Kin 7rm ]n 7T3T Kin 771:3 ]n 701: Kin 7710 ]n 7121; tea •prra ]n Tusn 7710 ]n -riKa 7710 ]n TiKin 7rm ]n TJCin 7rm ]n -raca 7710 ]n -nKin 7710 ]n #&£> 7rm ]n KX& 7rm ]n icin^ 7rm ]n «^n^ 7710 ]n Kin1? TTH "H3 JI Kin"7

TTK Tin -n Kin'? TTH Tin ]n KiDb

TTH Tin ]n Kin1? TTH Tin in Kinb 7rm ]n -riH^n 7rin in -nnsn 7rm in -nea 7rin in TTHSQ 7rm in -nKa TTH Tin in KiOH TTH Tin ]n KiQH

TTH Tin in Kinn TTH Tin in KiQH TTH Tin in KiOR

CTin in Kinn

Aramaic Bible Version

Aramaic Text

Conversion

Fragment Targum Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms E Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Onqelos Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms C

•- n-p R-cm R7n n;oR nr, Tin worn FCOR nn rtiira/rsa crin/em apn» nr. "n cip -cm ]n rccR nr "n Dip "am FCDR nr, "n c~p Rrn noot< nn frra »«Qm nncas prca ci-irapoKi -jQ-prpSR2 -cm ]n r,n^3R -Q-ipr]rjn]-an-, rrnroR •p'f >cn rrrCTK 77H3 warn Tas n3o«

]n to tricrr, ten |n to torn ]- to crin/Cm ]n to -nm ;n ;n tofarn ]- to ten ,n to sarn ]n to c-iri ]n to -cm ]n ]- tor-am ;n toRrn ,n to«om ]n tocrcn •n to -ram ]n ]n tofani ]n to]*anp to Tom ;n ]n to«am ]n totrrn ]n to Tom ]n •n to fan ]n to pom }n to"om ]n to «am ]n to crn ]- to tom ]n •n topani in to«am ]n to mm ]n to Tom ]n ]n to "Dm ]n tofam ]n to tcm ]n to m ]n to ism ]n ;n tofam ;n to "am ]n toRDm p to mm ]n to -cm ]n ]n tofom ]n topm ;n to -cm ;n

~"'I72 US~t -["as BpCJR

-irB=Aia-ip T=m -n -TOH n^« -p"3O/-pTp "QTPi ~"CiJ PCC7K

-p-p yarn TOB nco« jaTp -cm -n rroox -p-sn «ani rraon -[Thtra/Trffia cm rapros jDTp/jsaG -cm, -n rrrCTK T^iOAp-p "Dm rrrcoM -;rm 7am nrcc» 7/B2 fam RrooR1? 7"^2 «am, nroR7^0/7701 crm/tin riDpna^ ~aT,p/72R3 -cm ]n nrcoab -rm fom «rza6 •-Q TS3 warn rcoRi '2i rntra/TKj cmArn nspnab •~2~i cnpr;D«2 "cm ]n Rnsoa^ •j-3-1 TBS fom Rnrot6 'nrn TK5 "am, RTCOR^ 77^2 warn nrcoR 7Tnra/7ra3 mArB-i ncpTOR 70f/7SR3 -cm ]n rrnrcTR yea f am nrooR 7/H2 ]-am rrrcoR -a Tin Ram naoR rrtrn/Tsa Dirn/trri raprnn •ran mprara -err, ]n FDOR •ran Tra ]-om FDOR •rn—, cnp ••am, rcoR ^sa~!p "cm, ;n rcoR

44. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons' 45. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons' 46. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons' 47. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons' 48. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons' 49. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 50. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 51. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 52. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 53. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 54. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's 55. Joseph in the Prison Warden's 56. Joseph in the Prison Warden's 57. Joseph in the Prison Warden's 58. Joseph in the Prison Warden's 59. Joseph in the Prison Warden's 60. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's 61. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's 62. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's 63. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's 64. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's 65. Jacob in Joseph's 66. Jacob in Joseph's 67. Jacob in Joseph's 68. Jacob in Joseph's 69. Jacob in Joseph's 70. Jacob in Joseph's 71. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household 72. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household 73. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household 74. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household 75. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household 76. The Israelites in the Egyptians'

Gen. 34.11 Gen. 34.11 Gen. 34.11 Gen. 34.11 Gen. 34.11 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.4 Gen. 39.21 Gen. 39.21 Gen. 39.21 Gen. 39.21 Gen. 39.21 Gen. 47.25 Gen. 47.25 Gen. 47.25 Gen. 47.25 Gen. 47.25 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 47.29 Gen. 50.4 Gen. 50.4 Gen. 50.4 Gen. 50.4 Gen. 50.4 Exod. 3.21

CDTin ]n K2» DDTSQ ]n R1S3« CSTS2 pKiDR CDTH3 prciDN CCTffl p KfflR rrin p «pr K^D"! TTB3 ]n «]CT SHOT rrjn ]n «pr Itaa*! rrm ]n ^CT Ran rrffl ]n «pr (Can TTJO p »pr Kan TDTT m TO Tin 130 ]IT1 lion n-3 ~a Tin Tjn ]rn TTOn 173 ^0 Tra tn ]m TTOH IT3 "ID Tin in ]tn -non TO ~a Tin m ]m T» TM ]n 10333 '318 *TSQ ]n SlKfl '3TR '7^3 ]n K^o: T» TB3 ]n RH33 TW TB3 ]n ICB33 7720 ]P! -™i:G frm ]n TIKSD "Tra ]n 'nicas -prffl fi TKcas jrin ]n 'r«H3 jrjn ]n THC33 CSTra ]n TTWaa nyrsn ]n TMS3 DSTK1 |n T«S3 G2TB3 ]n TTK33 orrm Tfi TKSD CTTSn Taa np DOT |n r» *nn3

Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms E Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms D Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta

fOTJn «om rcc» pDmtTD/pyrin m/tr:nrapOR p'S«3 Tom ]n fDDS pD'Dlp/pTJn f Dm PDDK form f Dm PCOK '1SK3 TOm ]n «pr room vnrjn KQrn rpr rcOKl rmrn/Tin CTJn "pr Bpotfl "EKa Tom p «]07 matt TTirJO yarn ^OT PDOSI 'Tin fnrn epr room RTDR TO m TJJ3 KDrrt> mm aiTON TO mim/Tin nrnOBI 3T1 rrmnn !T3 IT) 'E»Q 1]n 'TO 'TOR 173 31 Tin fornbran 'TOR TO 31 Tffl rrmarn rT3Tl pa Tea «Qm rcO3 mtm/Tfla crn rpnm 'jn-,TTEJ«3 Tom ]n PDO] 'ID'l Tfl3 f on rom 'TO"I Tin fDTn rco: ~mp Tom p rrroiw 7710 Horn nrODK 77U3 urn ru)pon« ^DTprpsra Tom ]n r,ro3K ^rra fan rrrDDR "JOTp fan rTTDDR [Drm NOn PTDOR fomtrn/fcrrin urn nrporw jID'SKJ TOm ]n rrrDDR JOTB3 "Dm rrrDDK fOTIO fnrn WTDDR .D-l^DI fTPTBa «Dmb t«U/7 Trr'nttl

]n to t«m ]n to m ]n to Tom ]n ]n to f DTP ]n to f Qm ]n to Tom ]n |n to twrn ]n totTJn ptoiomp ]n tofnrn f! tofDm ]n toKDm ]n to Fin ]n to ]n ]n tofDm jn to yarn ]n toJWrn ]n to nrn ]ntotorn]n ]n tofnrn |n tofnm ptoTorr, ]n jn toKQm ]ntocrrn ]ntoTDiTl]n ]n to 'Qm ]n to fan ]n toSOrn ]n to crrn ]ntoicm]n ]n to f Dm ]n tofon ]n toWm

77. The Israelites in the Egyptians'

Exod. 3.21

DHS3 %3'r3 ntn can ;n rw Tnn

Samaritan Targum

r»"ca3 rmin ]m nnr nrn rr 3TW

jntocrm

78. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 79. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 80. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 81. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 82. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 83. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 84. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 85. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 86. The Israelites in the Egyptians'

Exod. 3.21 Exod. 3.21 Exod. 3.21 Exod. 11.3 Exod. 1 1 . 3 Exod. 1 1 . Exod. 1 1 . 3 Exod. 1 1 . 3 Exod. 12.36

D"233 TJO nm DBT! ]n r» 'nnjl D~aD Tin ~n DOT p IK Tftn D"an T S3 rm Dm p f» Tim CTTSD Tin DOT p n« 'n ]m D-anT:O DW p r»'n jJTl C"EfflTin COT p r»'n ]m n"anTin COT p rw ~n ]rn D-anTJJ3 COT p r» ~n pn C-fiaaTM DOT p n« ;n'

Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms AA

-am jTrEMQ fVwn «DT1 ]TT3n rr JTO1 'KI^D T1O f am1? f TT KQfl rr ]PR1 'tnsn Tin f Dm1? f Tn «DB rr ]rrw «-am ffrrra KDrn^ «O!^ R'TD f« 3m 'KTS33 mtrn ]TI rm» m tT 3n«l ""am fTTStQ »D!n f«T3n "n'W tram Tin forrt" «DD IT 'n 3m Tram Dip fnrr6 KDJ) IT'" 3T1 nosn f«i3n rr IT "m mnoi

p p p p p p p p p

87. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 88. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 89. The Israelites in the Egyptians'

Exod. 12.36 Exod. 12.36 Exod. 12.36

D"lHD TB3 DOT p r« ]TD "u D-an TH3 DOT p n« jra "r C-anTS2 COT p r» ]T13'm

Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Onqelos

K"am ]7rrjn («mb RD^P »"in fOR 3m iran mtn2 HDU ]m rr 3«' "m "HTSn Tr3 fnrrfr N3» rr 3T ^m

to p tofnm tofDm to «Dm torn top tofnm tofDm top

nram JITSIQ f V«n p to«Dm p to m p tofnm

90. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 91. The Israelites in the Egyptians' 92. Moses in the Lord's 93. Moses in the Lord's 94. Moses in the Lord's 95. Moses in the Lord's 96. Moses in the Lord's 97. Moses in the Lord's 98. Moses in the Lord's 99. Moses in the Lord's 100. Moses in the Lord's 101. Moses in the Lord's 102. Moses in the Lord's 103. Moses in the Lord's 104. Moses in the Lord's 105. Moses in the Lord's 106. Moses in the Lord's 107. Moses in the Lord's 108. Moses in the Lord's 109. Moses in the Lord's 1 1 0 . Moses in the Lord's 1 1 1 . Moses in the Lord's 112. Moses in the Lord's 1 1 3 . Moses in the Lord's 114. Moses in the Lord's 1 1 5 . Moses in the Lord's 116. Moses in the Lord's 1 1 7 . Moses in the Lord's 1 1 8 . Moses in the Lord's 1 1 9 . Moses in the Lord's 120. Moses in the Lord's 121. Moses in the Lord's 122. Moses in the Lord's 123. Moses in the Lord's 124. Moses in the Lord's 125. Moses in the Lord's 126. Moses in the Lord's 127. Moses in the Lord's 128. Moses in the Lord's 129. Moses in the Lord's 130. Moses in the Lord's 1 3 1 . Moses in the Lord's 132. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses' 133. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses' 134. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses' 135. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses' 136. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses'

Exod. 12.36 Exod. 12.36 Exod. 33.12 Exod. 33.12 Exod. 33.12 Exod. 33.12 Exod. 33.12 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.13 Exod. 33.16 Exod. 33.16 Exod. 33.16 Exod. 33.16 Exod. 33.16 Exod. 33.17 Exod. 33.17 Exod. 33.17 Exod. 33.17 Exod. 33.17 Exod. 34.9 Exod. 34.9 Exod. 34.9 Exod. 34.9 Exod. 34.9 Num. 1 1 . 1 1 Num. 1 1 . 1 1 Num. 1 1 . 1 1 Num. 1 1 . 1 1 Num. 1 1 . 1 1 Num. 1 1 . 1 5 Num. 11.15 Num. 1 1 . 1 5 Num. 1 1 . 1 5 Num. 1 1 . 1 5 Num. 32.5 Num. 32.5 Num. 32.5 Num. 32.5 Num. 32.5

CTTSO Tin csn ~n nn ira "m iTisa Tin cm ~n ™ ira "rn Tin ,n neaa cr, Tin ]n nrcia en 7m in ntem m Tin ]n neaa en

Tin ]n r»a: en 7?ra ]n -nKin jrm ]n K»D« ]sd7

7rm ]n -nK;a jrm fi «y» iBa1? 7rm ]n -n«sa 771:3 ]n R23K ]rab jrra ]n 'n«sn jrm ]n KJDK ]ud7 TTsn ]n -rucia jrm fi K^Q« ]Bob yrra 71 -n«a3 -D 77in ]H 7TH223 '2 77m in TMin 'D 7rra ]n -nea o Tm in riNia -D •rm ]n mcia -2 TB3 ]n nKJQ '3 T^3 in nRna -3 Tin in rwiio '3 Tin in rwsn '3 7710 in -nreia 77in in TMSQ 77in in TWSQ 77^ in TKSD 7710 in -raeia 77in in TWSD «b nafr, 77in in -nKso vb no1?! 77ra in Ticffl vb no'pi 77ra in TireaD sb noVi 7710 in 'oca vb na^i 77ra in 'rwsn 77in in THSD 77in in 'raeia 77ra in 'racia 7710 in -reeia 77U3 in 13«22 77ra in i»sn 77:13 in i»a2 7rraim»SD 77in in lacia

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Neofiti Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Peshitta Samaritan Targum Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Onqelos Targum Neofiti Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

•Rino cop Tom irr? ROD IT 3rr ~rn •—iisai yrrsta RODI ymn rr -ID "rr, Tin warn nrccR ^RI "oip/rntm/Tin nrn nDpnns 'aip Tom p nn3CR TTTTI •aip yarn RnrooR ^RI •oip yam nrcon TIRI 771)3 warn ITCORI 771)3 warn ITCORI 'TOO "jmtrn crm TinpoR ~]mtrn crm nporiR 70ip lorn p rrrooR 7aTprysR3 lorn p rrcoR ni ^ta p 70ip yam rrn3O« ] -jQip yam n3o«i "7-n IDTp yam rrraw 7a~ip yorn rcoRT "T^JS p 771)3 warn nrDBtn •purn/77in o-m rapn™ vbn 70ip Tom p nn30K DI-» •pip yarn rrrDDR "« ^oip yam rrrDDH cniR Tin Rorn JTDE»I Tin crn /trin nDpons R^n "OTpAsta Tom p ITCOK DTM -DTp yam nrcoK. --« -alp yarn «nn3D« raiR 771)3 Rarn nrooR 7Tn3 o-m nnpDR 7mp Tom p nrDox -joip yam rrn3D« 7a~ip yam rrn3ox 771)3 warn nn3o« vb joa^i 771)3 crm nrpn* vb no^i -p«3 Ton/Tnn p nrooR vb ]so na'71 70ip yarn rrrDO« vb RO'TI 7aip yarn rrrDOK vb HO'TI 771)3 warn nroot* 771)3 trrn ni)pra« 70Tip/7sR3 Tom p rrrcxaK •pip /77D3 yam n-n3o» •joip yarn HTDOR 77in warn in3DR 77in cm i3i)pD« 7/in yarn wn3o« 7a-npriE»3 iom p prcs» TJip yarn «jn3o«

p to -cm p P top p to warn

p to crm P to icm p p to yarn

p to yam, p tosam, p to warn

p P p p

to crm to crm to icm p to iom p

p to yarn

p to yam p to yarn

p to yam p to warn p to DTP,

p to Tom p P to yam P to yam p toRom

p to am p to lorn p

p to yam p to yam p to warn

p p p p p p

to DTP, to Tom p to yam to yam to Ram to crm

p p p p p p

to icm p/ion to yarn to yarn to warn to crrn to lorn p

p to yam p to yarn p to warn

p to crm p to yarn p to torn p p to yarn

137. A Woman in her Husband's 138. A Woman in her Husband's 139. A Woman in her Husband's 140. A Woman in her Husband's 141. A Woman in her Husband's 142. Gideon in the Angel of the Lord's 143. Gideon in the Angel of the Lord's 144. Hanna in Eli's 145. Hanna in Eli's

Deut. 24.1 Deut. 24.1 Deut. 24.1 Deut. 24.1 Deut. 24.1 Judg. 6.17 Judg. 6.17 I Sam. 1 . 1 8 1 Sam. 1.18

'Tin f; RfflTi R1? CR T7in ]n RS3T! vb OH T7in in Ran vb OH T7in ]n RSDTi R1? » T7in ]n RSDTi »6 CN 77S3 ft T«fla ~T!12 ft THSO 7723 ft fiTED RSan 77in f! -jnnSD HSBTl

Peshitta Samaritan Targum Targum Neofiti Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Onqelos Peshitta Targum Jonathan Peshitta Targum Jonathan

146. David in Saul's

1 Sam. 16.22

Tin ]n ne»D T

Peshitta

147. David in Saul's 148. David in Jonathan's 149. David in Jonathan's 150. David in Jonathan's 151. David in Jonathan's 152. David's Young Men in Nabal's 153. David's Young Men in Nabal's 154. David in Akhish's 155. David in Akhish's 156. Joab in David's 157. Joab in David's 158. David in the Lord's 159. David in the Lord's 160. Ciba in David's !61.Cibain David's 162. Hadad in Pharaoh's 163. Hadad in Pharaoh's 164. Man in God's and Man's

I Sam. 16.22 1 Sam. 20.3 1 Sam. 20.3 1 Sam. 20.29 1 Sam. 20.29 1 Sam. 25.8 1 Sam. 25.8 1 Sam. 27.5 1 Sam. 27.5 2 Sam. 14.22 2 Sam. 14.22 2 Sam. 15.25 2 Sam. 15.25 2 Sam. 16.4 2 Sam. 16.4 1 Kgs 1 1 . 1 9 1 Kgs 1 1 . 1 9 Prov. 3.4

TS3 fi nWffl "3 7nn ft THS3'3 7nn ]n TKffl '3 7TH3 ]n TlKffl 7710 |n TJCa 7753 ]n cnon usa^ 7^0 ]n ffTCTt TRSO1! 77K3 ]n T*C»n 7710 p TKSQ 77:0 ft TRSJ '3 ~fTSn ]n TTRffl *3 7! TB3 p KSBR T7 "7E2 jn KSC* "TR Tin ;n R1JDR TTR Tin ]H RSOR runs '7K1 ]n Tn R^Q'l rare TB3 ]T7 Tin RSffl CT!R1 CTft» TJ2 310 1OTl ft KiDT

Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta

165. Man in God's and Man's

Prov. 3.4

CTKl DTf*'7»3 3» "?3ffi ]n «SO1

Targum

Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan

vnmp ROm ITCOR R1? ]R T7in cm nspDR R1? at 'TBRSAZTip TOT) ft J773OR R1? ]'R 'Tin parn nHTOTi R1?'-8 TITin pam rcon R1? CR 77in Rnm rrroOR ~D~pr;rjn pam rrrcoR 77in HOTTl TT» rcon 70Tp/7/D3 pam "TOR roon

ft to torn ]ntocvri fltoTOmfl ft tofom ]n to parn fitoRom ]n to parn 71 toROTI fitopam

Tin Rom nrcoRi "Toa

fitoRarn

-nnp/TJn f am FTDDR ••» 77OT «Dm nrCDKI "7TQD 7/10 ]"Drn rrrDD« "T« 7710 «om nri3D« 7710 porn irrco« 77K2 Ram VCa^V ]inro] 7753 parn WQ^TIS pT3I3*i 7-^3 ROrn nrDDR 7723 parn mac* 77^2 Rom matr. -psa pan rrrCDR 'TR R"Q Tin RQm rcOR ~n Dip parn n3D« R™a 7710 ROTH ITCDR ™D3 f am rDOR JUTE '7C3 RQm inrcOTRl TUTS 'T!n porn TTJ rraat! R^TCI Rri-3'Dl RQm rDORl RD» '3 dpi RTfrR Dip R!T3'D1 R'TSJl R"Dn rcom

]n tofOTn ft to ROTH ]n toforn ]n to«orn ]n toparn ]n toRDrn ]n toparn ]n toROrn ]n toparn ]n toRDm ]n to]'am ]ntoRQrn ]n toforn ]ntoRDm ]n toparn ]n toRQTn p tofQrn ]n to ROTH ft toRTOn

HEnK 'E D"!p1 RTi^R Dip

166. Bribery in User's 167. Bribery in User's 168. One who admonishes Another 169. One who admonishes Another 170. Ruth in Boaz's 171. Ruth in Boaz's

Prov. 17.8 Prov. 17.8 Prov. 28.23 Prov. 28.23 Ruth 2.2 Ruth 2.2

172. Ruth in Boaz's 173. Ruth in Boaz's 174. Ruth in Boaz's

Ruth 2.10 Ruth 2.10 Ruth 2.13

175. Ruth in Boaz's 176. Esther in Hegai's 177. Esther in Hegai's 178. Esther in Hegai's 179. Esther in All Who Saw her 180. Esther in All Who Saw her 181. Esther in All Who Saw her

Ruth 2.13 Est. 2.9 Est. 2.9 Est. 2.9 Est. 2.15 Est. 2.15 Est. 2.15

rbm TB3 "ran ft pR "rtun '7JO tnon ft pR RSD' ]n 'TTW DTRIT21D RST ft 'TTIR GTH r?3TD T7S2 ft RSOR TOR nCR THO fl RH» TOR T»

77^0 ]n -nein crra 77M fi Tnaa ana '7TK Tin ft RS3R

Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum Peshitta Targum

'" rfTTl ]RQ TiO 'H RTEO twrm RSRD rfr bpm ]«Q 'SR3 Rnn RTon »im31 RS'D nrtm RDrn RDTTZ1? C3Qrcra Rion 'TBTp RD3 TS1? C301 TTDTin RDm PCDRT R^ffl TT2 TT17B3 parn mama

ft toROrn intoRtcn fi toROTFi ]n to Rton fi to ROrn ft tofDrn

Peshitta Targum Peshitta

77^ Rnm rcoRT 'TBB 7/jn pam rrrtx» f Ta ~o jnn warn nrcoRt "TOO

fi to Ron ft to parn |n to Rnrn

TTR Tin ft RSDR rsb ion RDm TBb Tin RDTT1 rxh ion RDTT, rrRT "73 TB3 p PRO: rrRT ta '7S3 ft HRcn mn to Tin fifiKBJ

Targum Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni

TOT -jQTp fOTH rrrCOR -niQ-p RTOHrtpoi -imp RTC'n raiO'Rl TTOTp ionrfJOJl rr'Tm "73 Tin Rionrtpo RHOn to T» f am nrDDD RTT'Tn to OTp RTOm R7n R^O3

fi to parn ft to RICH fi to Rion frtoRTOn jntoR-TDn ]n to f arn ft to RTOTTl R7H

182. Esther in the King's 183. Esther in the King's

Est. 2.17 Est. 2.17

rz£> icn ]n KDn •xh ion in HOT;

Peshitta Targum Rishon

•mmp p KICK rfppoi

184. Esther in the King's 185. Esther in the King's 186. Esther in the King's 187. Esther in the King's 188. Esther in the King's 189. Esther in the King's 190. Esther in the King's 191 Esther in the King's 192. Esther in the King's 193. Esther in the King's 194. Esther in the King's 195. Esther in the King's 196. Esther in the King's 197 Daniel in the Chief Officer's

Est. 2.17 Est. 5.2 Est. 5.2 Est. 5.2 Est. 5.8 Est. 5.8 Est. 5.8 Est. 7.3 Est. 7.3 Est. 7.3 Est. 8.5 Est. 8.5 Est. 8.5 Dan. 1.9

TE'P icn ~n won* ma 71 nun rrsa TT HMB: TTiapr»D; Y»i Tin ;n -r*m •jboi Tin ]n T»S: -f?on Tm in TWSD -fTon Tin 71 TKSD •J^DTT TIG ;n -ntc;D •fTtli Tin ]n -niein rs^TTnea rs1? ;n -niea •rafrinTKB 'arn r» c-n^wn ;rr co'ion TD -zfe cnrrfri icrf?

Targum Sheni Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni Peshitta Targum Rishon Targum Sheni Peshitta

•imp RIOT, mm rtorrKi •monp Rion rt>po

•iDf -atn vom rsaxiK

TB3 rnm rSECm

imp K-icm srn rtorwi tcte -p-:o KDTD rvEss Kho Tra fnrr, rrnDOi -pip ;-nrm iron HTCOR IC'TQ 7rjn unm rrcra« ic'n ~o~ "Dm DTCOK ~mp "ami -sn rrrsoH •I-TBMQ Hnm rroos •rrmp ^orn rrrDC« ~mp ]T^m TDH rncDH 'TKTft RDrn-. WT3-D »rf» 2TT1

Rirna 2n try

-cn;nto«ion ion ;n to •croi tram •Dn]ntoKi3mic-i ]n to Kicn ;n to;-nm 1~ to KICTTi ICn

;ntoKDrn ]n to ;-arn jn to form »io-n •n tosorn ;n to f om ;n to^omi icr ;n to son ;n to far, ]n tofomi ion c-nrni ion to KamiRnin'D

Appendix B ]H IN CONTEXTS OTHER THAN TIO ]0 K^Q

Ref.

MT

Targum

Peshitta

LXX

Vulgate

toon

SHIN'

x«P l £

gra/w

3.34 4.9 5.19 n.16

-pvrb en ]n rn1? '3 -ps±> c"n vm •jT.j-u'p ]m |n p c-jjj'n ]n rr^ -[osi1? ]nn ]n n^'T D3n« n^-N 1133 ionn |n no«

toon «ion Kion Kion «ni'on

Kami ^n~i; «sm-n Knorrn «n-;Qn-)Q

xocpiq X«pi<; x«pi<; x«Pl<; evxapiatcx;

graria ^rar/am gmtiarum gmtissimus gmtiosa

13.15 22.11

]n |rr 3H3 ^30 310 ]n 3HTQ1 ^030

NIOn SlDn

SOni «ni:QniQ

X«P l< ; %dpig

gratiam grar/a

22.11 31.30

]n 3^> lino 3n« "svn "P3m ]nn ipo

«ion s;n

sanio Km«-

ancop,oi dpeaKeta

gratiam gratia

•pmnsEn ]n p^in 'n ]rr 11331 ]n

nsu; mi «;n

soni «oni

x«Pl(i x«Pl<;

grar/a gratiam

n1? ]n]n m»E?n

paraphrase «nviiD

X"Pl(5

Prov.

1.9 3.22

Pss.

45.3 84.12 Zech.

4.7

KOnm

12.10

gratiam gratiae

c';i;nni ]n mi

|'onn Nion ^smii Nonin

x«P^

grariae

131Q3 |n NKQ

]'nni

«Qni

6ep|a6v

gratiam

rso3 rbia ]n raita

iri

]n

E7t{xapi<;

grariae

]n rirr1? »•? ai ]n C3n -s -131

nra ]'Dni

sn3i2; «nni3Dn

x«pi? x«P l< 5

^rariam srar/a

y«r. 31.1

Nah.

3.4 £cc/.

9.11 10.12

SHEM, MELCHIZEDEK, AND CONCERN WITH CHRISTIANITY IN THE PENTATEUCHALTARGUMIM*

Robert Hay ward

Although Melchizedek appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 14.18-24; Ps. 110.4), the earliest Christians regarded him as a figure of great significance. The epistle to the Hebrews is the earliest Christian document to speak of him as a type of Christ the eternal high priest. There we read: For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham divided a tithe of everything, is by interpretation first 'King of Righteousness', and then 'King of Salem', which is 'King of Peace'; without father, without mother, without a genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but being like to the Son of God, for ever remains a priest (Heb. 7.1-3).

The epistle says nothing explicitly of the bread and wine which Melchizedek the priest brought out (Gen. 14.18); but the Church Fathers held these things to be types of the eucharistic sacrifice (e.g., Cyprian, Ep. 63.4, PL 4 cols. 387-88; Ambrose, De Sacramentis IV. 10; V.I; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.25). They also continued to speak of Melchizedek as a type of Christ and as a righteous Gentile who prefigured the rise of the universal Church and its non-Aaronic priesthood (e.g., Justin, Dialogue 19.4; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 2; Origen, Comm. in Joh.3). Melchizedek is identified with Shem, son of Noah, by most of the extant targumim of the Pentateuch (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 14.18), and in these same targumim Shem is head of a Beth Ha-Midrash which bears his name (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. * This essay is presented with all good wishes to Martin McNamara on his sixty-fifth birthday, in grateful acknowledgment of his distinguished scholarship and outstanding service in the study of the Aramaic targumim.

68

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Tg. P and V of Gen. 24.62; same targumim and Tg. Neof. glosses of Gen. 25.22). Melchizedek is thus given a genealogy which makes him a Semite par excellence and ancestor of the Jews, a great Torah scholar, and head of an academy. That these texts offer a Jewish counterblast to Christian claims about Melchizedek seems prima facie a probability, and the case for so understanding them claims the support of some influential students of the targumim.1 A careful analysis of verses in pentateuchal targumim which allude to Shem and Melchizedek, however, reveals a complex interpretation of the two men which cannot simply be explained as anti-Christian polemic, and which may be wrongly understood if such polemic is invoked.2 Indeed, not only were there groups apart from Christians who held distinctive opinions about Melchizedek: the biblical data about him and Shem are brief, obscure, and ambiguous, requiring careful exegesis by the Jewish authorities themselves.3 This essay will seek to show that the targumic traditions about the two figures may reasonably be explained without reference to anti-Christian sentiments, especially when Shem is fully integrated into the picture. 1. See especially M. Simon, 'Melchisedech dans la polemique entre juifs et Chretiens et dans la Legende', RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93-113, esp. pp. 60-62; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 196-99; R. le Deaut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genese (SC, 245; Paris: Cerf, 1978), pp. 163-64 and literature there cited; M. Maher, Targum PseudoJonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, IB; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 58. For the identification of Shem with Melchizedek as providing the latter with Israelite identity, see J.A. Fitzmyer, '"Now this Melchizedek..." (Heb 7.1)', in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), p. 230. 2. A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) [in Hebrew], I, p. 98, 117, shows how difficult it can be to pinpoint objects of supposed targumic polemic. This essay tends to confirm his observations. 3. See Hippolyus, Refut. Omn. Haer. 20 for the Melchizedekians who acknowledged Melchizedek as the highest supernatural power; they appear also in Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. ILL haer. 55. Jerome, Ep. 73 adEvagrium (Evangelum) Presbyterum 2 lists the views of Christian writers, beginning with Origen's belief that Melchizedek was an angel. This last recalls 11Q Melch, where Melchizedek appears as a heavenly figure, probably identical with the archangel Michael: see G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 3rd edn, 1987), p. 300, and M.J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran (JSPSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 255-64.

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity

69

1. Shem as Noah's Eldest Son The Hebrew text of Gen 10.21 is ambiguous. It may be translated: 'And to Shem also, the father of all the sons of Eber, the brother of Japtheth the elder (3ahiyepet haggadol), to him also children were born.' Japheth, ancestor of Gentiles, is thus Noah's first-born, with all the rights and privileges of inheritance belonging to that position. The Hebrew text is understood in this way by Symmachus, Gen. R. 37.9, and Rashi, who follow a mode of translation represented already in pre-Christian times by the LXX. As a reading of the Hebrew it was palatable to Christians, since it gives some Gentiles a definite prominence as eldest sons of Noah. It is evident, however, that some Jews of Second Temple times took the Hebrew to mean: 'And to Shem the elder also, the father of all the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth, to him also children were born'. Here the adjective haggadol, 'the elder' (literally: 'the great'), which stands last in the Hebrew sentence, is regarded as qualifying Shem, rather than Japheth. Jerome took the Hebrew in this sense in his Vulgate of Gen. 10.21, as apparently did b. Sank. 69b; but centuries earlier Jub. 4.33 and 10.14 had insisted that Shem was the eldest son, who by right received the middle part of the earth where the Garden of Eden, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion were situated (Jub. 8.15-21). Israel's superiority to Gentiles is thus indicated: they inhabit land where God's earthly presence is manifested, granted to the ancestor of the Semites from primaeval times. Tg. Neof., Tg. Onq., and Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 10.21 survive. The first two of these render the Hebrew literally, preserving its ambiguity. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, like Jerome and Jubilees, refers the adjective haggadol to Shem, understanding it as 'great' rather than 'elder': And to Shem also was born a son. He is the father of all the sons of the Hebrews, the brother of Japheth: he was great in the fear of the Lord.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan here indicates Shem's outstanding reputation as a Torah scholar. His Beth Ha-Midrash receives more attention in this targum than in any other (see Gen. 22.19; 24.62; 25.22), so it is natural that his 'greatness' be understood in this way, and not with reference to his age. None of these targumim, however, feels it necessary to emphasize Shem's seniority. The concerns that motivated Jubilees appear to be

70

Targumic and Cognate Studies

absent, and they feel no need to engage with any case which Christians might have put forward in the name of Japheth's privilege as the firstborn son of Noah. 2. Noah's Blessing ofShem and Japheth Along with their apparent lack of concern about Shem's seniority, the targumim seem to have no particular anxieties about Gen. 9.26-27. In these verses, Noah blesses his sons Shem and Japheth because they 'covered his shame' when he lay in a drunken stupor (9.21-24). The story is obscure; but it appears that Canaan, the son of Ham, had done some disgraceful thing to Noah (9.24), for which Noah cursed him (9.25). Then he blessed Shem and Japheth: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.26) May God enlarge Japheth; and may he dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.27)

Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous. In v. 27, the one who shall dwell in the tents of Shem may be either God, or Japheth himself; the same ambiguity persisted in the LXX, and was thus ripe for use by Christian exegetes. As early as Justin Martyr's time (c.lOO-c.165) this verse was taken to mean that the Gentiles, represented by Japheth, would take over the position of Shem and 'dwell in his tents'; the Gentile Church would thus oust the Jews from their place as God's people (Dial, with Trypho 139.2-3). Other interpreters, notably Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.5.3; Dem. 21), followed suit. This Christian use of the verse, however, is not reflected in the targumim. For v. 26, Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. are extant. The first of these offers a straightforward translation of the Hebrew; the second specifies only the wish that Canaan be a servant subjected in slavery to them, and is otherwise literal. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem whose action was righteous; therefore Canaan shall be servant to him.

Shem's righteous deed is given as the reason for Canaan's loss of status; but this is readily explicable as a reasonable deduction from the Hebrew text itself. The idea that Canaan shall be Shem's rather than 'their' servant is already expressed in Jub. 7.11. Shem's concern with righteousness will feature again in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 14.19, where in the

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity 11 figure of Melchizedek he will bless Abraham by God who created the universe 'for the sake of the righteous'. The same targumim and marginal glosses in Targum Neofiti are extant for Gen. 9.27. Targum Onqelos makes Noah pray: May the Lord enlarge Japheth, and make His Shekhina dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to them.

Here the ambiguity is resolved: it is God who should dwell in Shem's tents, not Japheth. This is the solution also of Targum Neofiti: May the Lord enlarge the boundaries of Japheth, and make the Glory of His Shekhina dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be a servant subjected in slavery to them.

Targum Neofiti says that the boundaries of Japheth should be enlarged, displaying a positive attitude to these Gentiles. Only Canaan, cursed by the Bible itself, is censured. Targum Neofiti's marginal glosses are fragmentary, but clearly represent a tradition found fully in Targum PseudoJonathan: May God beautify the boundaries of Japheth; and may his sons become converts, and dwell in the Study-house of Shem. And may Canaan be servant to them.4

Here it is Japheth, not God, who shall dwell in the tents of Shem (cf. b. Meg. 9b). Furthermore, his sons become converts to Judaism, to the worship of the one true God, a tradition found exclusively in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the margin of Targum Neofiti.5 Consonant with this remarkable interpretation is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's translation of Hebrew yapt, 'may He (God) enlarge' as 'may he beautify': this is not found in the glosses of Targum Neofiti. The Hebrew is taken as deriving from yph, 'be beautiful', and concentrates the exegesis on the spiritual nature of what shall happen to Japheth's sons. In none of these interpretations is anti-Christian sentiment at work. Astonishingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum 4. The glosses of Tg. Neof. read: '...and when his sons become converts, may they dwell in the Study-houses of Shem, and may Canaan be subjected [in slavery]...'; and '... in the Study-houses of Shem the Great may they be...' For the text and further exegetical details, see B.B. Levy, Tar gum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), I, p. 120. 5. See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 343; and Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 46.

72

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Neofiti point in quite another direction. They predict a conversion of Gentiles to Judaism, and provide a ready tool for opportunistic Christian propaganda, in so far as they indicate an adoption of monotheism by Japheth's descendants. At least one Christian exegete who was familiar with Jewish tradition seems to have been aware of the potential of this verse. Jerome's interpretation of Gen. 9.27 in his Quaest. Heb. in Gen. sounds remarkably like a 'Christianized' version of Targum PseudoJonathan: And as for what Scripture says, May he dwell in the tents of Sem: this is prophesied about us (i.e., Christians), who are engaged (versamur) in the learning and knowledge of the Scriptures after Israel had been cast forth.6

Jerome here understands the tents of Shem as learning and knowledge of the scriptures, practices which engage those who dwell in the tents. He probably knew what the tents of Shem signified in the Judaism of his day, a place of scriptural study and learning, a Beth Ha-Midrash. The verb versamur may also be translated 'turned, converted'; for the Christians are converted to knowledge of scripture in place of Israel, according to Jerome's thinking. Far from counteracting Christian exegesis of Gen. 9.27, there is a sense in which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum Neofiti might be held to invite it. 3. Melchizedek Identified with Shem The first biblical reference to Melchizedek occurs in Gen. 14.18, where we read: And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God Most High.

The five extant targumim of this verse, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti and glosses, Fragment Targum V and P, all define Salem as Jerusalem,7 agreeing with Ps. 76.3; Josephus Ant. 1.180; War 6.437; and Gen. R. 43.6. No anti-Christian tendency is 6. According to Gen. R. 36.8, bar Qappara interpreted the verse to mean that Torah would one day be spoken in the language of Japheth, that is, in Greek; and according to m. Meg. 1.8 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel allowed the scriptures to be written in Greek, a matter discussed more fully in b. Meg. 9b;y. Meg. 1.9.10; b. Yarn. 9b. 7. See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 6; Wilmgton, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 69.

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity

73

implied in this interpretation, which is attested in the pre-Christian Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.8 The Palestinian targumim identify Melchizedek with Shem, and differ from one another only in detail. Frag. Tg., P

And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, who is Shem the Great, he was priest of God Most High. He brought forth food and wine, and he was standing and ministering in the High Priesthood before God Most High.

Frag. Tg., V

And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the Great: he was priest to God Most High.

Tg. Neof.

And the king Zedek,9 the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the Great, brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest ministering in the High Priesthood before God Most High.

Tg. Ps.-J.

And the righteous king (mlk3 sdyq3}, he is Shem son of Noah, the king of Jerusalem, went out to meet Abram, and brought forth to him bread and wine; and at that time he was ministering before God Most High.

Melchizedek is a priest: although Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does not use the word khn here, Shem is so styled in Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 38.6, 24. Furthermore, the expression 'at that time he was ministering' makes best sense if 'ministering', m$m$, is taken to mean 'acting as priest', since an ordered temporal succession of priests is attested elsewhere in rabbinic tradition.10 The title Shem the Great suggests a well-known worthy with a history to his credit: what this might be, we shall discover presently. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan uniquely calls him the righteous king, an interpretation of the name Melchizedek found also in Philo (Leg. All. 3.79) and Josephus(Ant. 1.180; War 6.438). This meaning of the name was known also to the writer of Heb. 7.2, as is Targum 8. IQapGen 22.13. For full discussion of this passage, see F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 62-64. 9. This could be a mistake for Melchizedek, or an attempt to compromise between the version of Tg. Ps.-J. mlk3 sdyq} and the Hebrew mlky sdq: see the views of Fitzmyer and le Deaut respectively, summarized by A. Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targumica', EstBib 37 (1978), p. 84. 10. Pace Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58. The most natural sense ofmSmShere and in Tg. Onq. of this verse is 'acting as priest': see Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos, p. 69 and literature there cited; and Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura', p. 92. For a temporal succession of priests in pre-Aaronic times, see Num. R. 4.8;;. Meg. l.ll',Ag. Ber. 42; andcf. b. Ned. 32b

74

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Pseudo-Jonathan's note that he 'went out to meet Abram'. None of these unique details in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems directed against Christianity. Rather, the Epistle to the Hebrews may here be dependent on Jewish tradition.11 The constituent elements of targumim of this verse so far examined appear quite unaffected by Christianity. It is only the equation of Shem and Melchizedek which arouses suspicion in some scholars' minds that anti-Christian bias is at work. But not all belong to this persuasion. In a careful analysis of b. Ned. 32b, whose argument assumes the equation, JJ. Petuchowski dismissed such suspicion, suggesting that the equation originated in the sort of familiar 'midrashic conceit' which can, for example, identify Putiel with Jethro, or Phinehas with Elijah.12 His argument makes sense, and can be supported with evidence which has largely been neglected. This evidence indicates that Shem was regarded as a priestly figure in pre-rabbinic sources. The tendency of Jubilees to exalt Shem as firstborn son of Noah has already been noted. This book also describes Noah's blessing of Shem as prophecy (Jub. 8.18), that God would dwell in the dwelling of Shem (7.12; 8.18), that is, in Shem's allotted territory; for Noah knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the Lord, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zion—the centre of the navel of the earth: these three were created as holy places facing each other.13

God dwells in land for which Shem is responsible: we may therefore assume that Shem has the proper qualifications, which will necessarily be priestly, to deal with this. Priestly service had already been offered before Shem's days, by Adam (Jub. 3.26-27), Enoch (4.25-26) who knew the rules of sacrifice (21.7-10), and Noah (6.1-3). Further, Noah gave all that he had written to Shem his eldest son (Jub. 10.14). Charles quite properly compares this with the statement of Jub. 45.16, that 11. See further Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura', pp. 84-85, 94; and Horton, Melchizedek, pp. 56, 82-83. 12. See J.J. Petuchowski, 'The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek', HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 127-36. The whole article supports the point; but see especially pp. 12830. 13. Jub. 8.19, translated by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp. 71-72. Charles notes (Jubilees, p. 71) that the three holy places on earth belong to Shem.

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity

75

Jacob gave all his books to Levi, who was priest, to preserve them and renew them for his children.14 It will be recalled that Josephus was at pains to point out to his pagan readers that the official records of the Jewish people were written and preserved by the priests (Apion 1.2936). Jubilees also records that Shem built a city and named it after his wife Sedeqetelebab (7.16), a word meaning 'righteousness of the heart'.15 The implication may be that Shem particularly among Noah's sons followed his father's repeated injunctions to observe 'righteousness' (7.20, 34, 37). This may have influenced his later identification with Melchizedek, dubbed by Philo (Leg. All. 3.79) and Josephus (Ant. 1.180; War 6.438) 'the righteous king'. Finally, Jubilees makes Shem the particular recipient of divine blessings which are carried forward in Jacob, who is Israel. Abraham blesses Jacob, praying that God grant him all the blessings with which He blessed Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Shem (19.27). As noted earlier, Jubilees makes the first three of these men perform priestly service; Shem is thereby placed in distinguished priestly company.16 Jubilees offers sufficient evidence to show that, already in the midsecond century BCE, the necessary elements of the tradition that Shem was a righteous priest were known, and available for further development. Indeed, the characterization of Shem which we find in Philo's work represents a great advance on Jubilees. For Philo, Shem is the type of a good and wise man, who is described in most noble terms (Quaest. et Sol. in Gen. 2.75-76). He thus devotes a large part of De Sobrietate (51-67) to Shem, whose name means 'good', and whom Moses counts worthy of the prayer recorded in Gen. 9.26-27. This last speaks of the Lord and God of the universe as peculiarly, by special favour, the God of Shem: therefore Shem and the universe are of equal value, and a man granted such privileges is God's friend, like Abraham.17 14. See Charles, Jubilees, p. 81. 15. See Charles, Jubilees, p. 61. 16. In Hebrew Sir. 49.16 Shem, with Seth and Enoch, is said to have been 'visited' (i.e., by God), and is linked to Adam as the 'beauty' (Hebrew tip'erei) of the created order: the priestly connotations of the word are seen in the following verse 50.1, which speaks of the Zadokite high priest Simon as the tip^eret of his people. See also P.W. Skehan and A. A. di Leila, The Wisdom of ben Sira (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 545. 17. Sobr. 51-55. In associating Noah's blessing of Shem with Abraham as friend of God, Philo comes close to the sentiments of a Qumran fragment (4Q252) which juxtaposes the prayer 'may he dwell in the tents of Shem' (Gen. 9.27) with

76

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Philo's understanding of Shem is a lofty one. Shem, whose God is God of the universe, has passed the bounds of human happiness. He is nobly born, with God as his father, and himself as only adopted son of God having all riches; he is alone king, deriving universal sovereignty from his God who is God of the world; and he is alone a free man. Because of this, he praises his patron with words, songs, and hymns, which is the only fitting recompense he can pay (Sobr. 56-58). Philo thus glorifies the ancestor of the Jewish people, the nation whose high priest he depicts as representing the universe before God (Vit. Mos. 2.133-35; cf.Wis. 18.24). Turning specifically to Gen. 9.27, 'May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem', Philo follows the LXX reading of 'houses' instead of 'tents', and fully recognizes the ambiguity of the subject of the verb 'dwell'. Taking God as subject of this verb, Philo understands that it is fitting that he should dwell in a soul perfectly purified (Sobr. 62); such is his interpretation of 'the houses of Shem'. Philo points out, however, that God does not dwell in a place; rather, his special providence watches over the place, so every householder has the duty of taking care of the house (Sobr. 63). From this we may conclude that Philo held Shem responsible for the maintainance of those 'houses' in which God dwells, a thought which probably motivated the author of Jubilees in noting that God's dwellings were pre-eminently in Shem's territory (Jub. 8.19). Having given these allegorical interpretations of Noah's blessing of Shem, Philo then (Sobr. 65) argues that the unadorned scriptural narrative itself (TO priTov) supports what he has said. For Shem, he declares, is as it were a root (oxjavei pi^a) underlying what is noble, from which issues the tree 'wise Abraham', whose fruit is the self-taught Isaac. From that fruit Isaac arises the seed Jacob: this Jacob Philo describes as an athlete, trained in wrestling with the passions, using the angels who are reason to anoint himself for the contest (cov oc0Xr|Tr|<; ecmv 6 TTIV npbq 7coc0T| 7cocX,T|v yeyu|ivaa|a.evo<; 'locKco^ ayyeA,oi<; aleircTan; X6yoi<; Xpcbu£vo<;). This is clearly an allegorical interpretation of Jacob's famous the words 'He gave a land to Abraham His friend'. The Hebrew of the fragment reads: wfrhly Sm ySkwn crs ntn Kbrhmchbw;see T.H. Lim, 'Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1, cols, i-ii', JJS 44 (1993), p. 123. For comment on the text and interpretation of this fragment, see H. Jacobson, '4Q252 fr. 1: Further Comments', JJS 44 (1993), p. 292, and M.J. Bernstein, '4Q252: From Re-written Bible to Biblical Commentary', JJS 45 (1994), pp. 11-12, who also comments on the targumim of Gen. 9.27.

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity

77

struggle with the supernatural being described in Gen. 32.24-31 (cf. 35.9-12), after which his name was formally changed to Israel. Significantly, it is precisely at the point when Jacob's name becomes Israel that Jubilees places the ordination of Levi to the everlasting priesthood (32.1-17), a tradition which is probably reflected in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 35.11. Philo crowns his exegesis of the verse by declaring that Jacob forms the beginning (Kaidpxei) of the twelve tribes: the verb mid p%ew has strong cultic significance, and may mean 'to begin sacrificial rites, to consecrate, to slay in sacrifice'. The twelve tribes, Philo reminds his readers, are called by scripture (Exod. 19.6) paoiXeiov Kai iepoVceuiia Geot), 'a royal dwelling place and priesthood of God', in accordance with the sequence of things first (set forth) with reference to Shem, of whose houses prayer was made that God might be the indweller. For 'royal dwelling place' is indeed the house of a king, in 18 reality a temple and alone inviolable.

The word rendered 'sequence of things' is dKoXo\)0(a, which has the sense of 'series, regular succession': it shows clearly how Philo regards Shem as the point of origin of that series of individuals who, in succession and from ancient times, bore the privileges of kingship and priesthood which bear fruit in Jacob, named Israel after his struggle with the angel. Philo concludes his comment with a brief note on the other possible sense of the verse, that Japheth should dwell in the tents of Shem (Sobr. 67-68). Conclusions The evidence examined here leaves no doubt that, by the early first century at the latest, the figure of Shem had assumed an importance in Jewish thought out of all proportion to the meagre information given about him in the Bible. In particular, the priestly characteristics of the man, obliquely conveyed by Jubilees, much more strongly in evidence in Philo's work De Sobrietate, are seen to be ripe for exploitation. Both writings also make it clear that Shem was a wise and learned man. Now according to the Hebrew Bible, Shem lived for 500 years after the birth 18. Sobr. 66. The Greek has: Kocta rf|v upoq TOY neanov Zrm ocKoXccoGmv oi) Toiq OIKOK; r\v e^xri TOY Geov [ev]oiKfjaou. paa(X,eiov yap 6 paaiXecoq 8Ti7i(n)6ev oiKoq iepoq ovtax; xai novoq ao-o^oq.

78

Targumic and Cognate Studies

of Arphachshad (Gen. 11.10), which means that he was still alive thirtyfive years after the death of Abraham.19 Such great age can only mean that Shem was possessed of wisdom, and righteousness also, in the highest degree. Thus it is not difficult to see how the ground was prepared for the eventual identification of Shem with Melchizedek, the righteous king and priest who blesses righteous Abraham. One need only consider the reverence accorded to Abraham in Second Temple and tannaitic times to recognize that a person recorded in the Bible as having blessed Abraham must himself have been of the highest eminence. Neither Jubilees nor Philo, however, were able formally to equate Melchizedek with Shem. The chronological system used by Jubilees put the birth of Shem at 1209 anno mundi (Jub. 4.33); he lived for 600 years (Gen. 11.10-11), and Abraham was not born until 1876 anno mundi (Jub. 11.15). Philo followed the LXX text of Genesis, which gives a period of 1072 years from the flood to the birth of Abraham, during which period Shem would have died.20 What these sources demonstrate, however, is the availability of learned tradition about Shem which could be brought to bear on the question of who is Melchizedek, once the chronology of patriarchal times was investigated from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Both Jubilees and Philo offer a vivid picture of an aged, highly respected sage with priestly characteristics, who might be consulted by his juniors. The targumim of the Pentateuch entirely accord with such a picture. Shem's judgments are God's judgments, which the wicked Nimrod tried to persuade his generation to abandon (Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 10.9). Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 22.19 says that Abraham took Isaac to Shem's study-house (cf. Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 24.62, where Isaac leaves the study-house of Shem): this is not surprising, since Jubilees itself insists that Isaac knew the Torah, and he must presumably have acquired his knowledge from a teacher. Similarly Rebecca, seeking God's mercy when carrying the twins Jacob and Esau, visited the studyhouse of Shem (Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. and glosses, Frag. Tg. V and P of 19. For the numerical calculations of his age based on scripture, see Horton, Melchizedek, pp. 115-16. 20. A comparative chronological table according to the calculations of the Hebrew, LXX, and Josephus listing patriarchs from the flood to the birth of Abraham is found in H.St.J. Thackeray's translation of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), IV, p. 73.

HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity

79

Gen. 25.22); and even Jacob himself had studied there (Tg. Neof. of Gen. 25.27, first marginal gloss). Nothing remaining in the story of Melchizedek as the targumim present it requires anything but a Jewish origin. Thus at Gen. 14.19 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti respectively speak of God Most High 'who for the sake of the righteous' or 'who by His Word' created heaven and earth, thoroughly Jewish sentiments.21 Tg. Onq. and Tg. Neof. of Gen. 14.20 fairly literally translate the final part of Melchizedek's blessing, and follow the Hebrew in retaining at the end of the verse the ambiguous words 'he paid tithes to him'. Targum PseudoJonathan, however, leaves no room for doubt: And blessed be God Most High, who has made your enemies like a shield which takes the blow. And he gave to him one tenth of all that he had brought back.

It was Abraham who had brought back the goods stolen by the four invading kings (Gen. 14.16); so Targum Pseudo-Jonathan makes it clear that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the very interpretation adopted by Jub. 13.25-27; Josephus Ant. 1.181; Philo Cong. 93, 99; and, of course, the epistle to the Hebrews.22 In the light of the material examined in this essay, it seems reasonable to suggest that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in the pentateuchal targumim arose simply and naturally from Jewish study of biblical texts about the two men together with traditions about Shem which were demonstrably current in Second Temple times. At no point has it been necessary to invoke external stimuli to account for the identification, and it seems unlikely that it originated in anti-Christian thinking. In this regard it should be recalled that Jerome certainly knew of the identification and quoted it more than once, apparently discerning in it nothing to conflict with Christian teaching (Ep. 73.2; Quaest. Heb. in Gen. on Gen. 14.18).23 It is true that the identification ensures that Melchizedek is seen as a historical figure; for this reason, it may have 21. See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46. 22. See Heb. 7.4; cf. Gen. R. 43.8, and Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura', pp. 9596. 23. In both of these writings Jerome notes that the identification depends on calculating the years of Shem's life according to the Hebrew text of Genesis, which he regards as authentic. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 2.6, haer. 35) attributes the identification of Melchizedek with Shem to the Samaritans, and rejects it with chronological data culled from LXX, which for him is authoritative.

80

Targumic and Cognate Studies

been developed as a counter to the kind of speculation represented by 1 IQMelch, where Melchizedek is a celestial figure. But of this there is no proof, nor do we know when the identification was first made explicit. It is sufficient merely to note once more that no polemic of any sort is necessary to account for it, and that the Aramaic targumim give no indication that polemic is part of their exegesis.

TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN OF EXODUS 2.21 Michael Maher

Pseudo-Jonathan's rendering of the Hebrew text of Exod. 2.21 is preceded by a rather lengthy 'pre-translation haggadah'! which describes the experiences of Moses in the house of Reuel before the latter gave him his daughter Zipporah as wife. Neofiti, our only surviving Palestinian targum of this verse, is, like Onqelos, satisfied with a literal rendering of the biblical verse. The closest parallel to Pseudo-Jonathan's targumic addition is found in the Chronicle of Moses, a composition which probably dates from the tenth century and which belongs to the literary genre of 'the rewritten Bible'.2 The author of the Chronicle constructs a life of Moses from his infancy to his death, frequently adding descriptive narratives that have no basis whatsoever in the biblical story. The writer makes use of traditional midrashic texts, adding material from sources which have been lost, and contributing his own personal ideas as well. The story is written in pseudo-biblical Hebrew rather than in the language of the Sages. It 1. The term 'pre-translation haggadah' refers to haggadic material which Ps.-J. frequently adds before his translation of the biblical verse. For other examples of long 'pre-translation haggadoth' in Ps.-J. see, e.g., Gen. 11.28; Exod. 1.15. See further A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (in Hebrew) (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), I, pp. 39-83; idem, The Embroidered Targum. The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (in Hebrew) (Publication of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), pp. 52-55. 2. G. Vermes uses the title 'Rewritten Bible' for his study of the life of Abraham in haggadic tradition; see G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies (SPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961; 2nd rev. edn, 1973), pp. 67-126 (in both editions); P.S. Alexander, 'Retelling the Old Testament', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 99-121.

82

Targumic and Cognate Studies

serves no theological or didactic purpose, and it seems to have been intended mainly for the delight of the readers. It portrays Moses not as a prophet or a lawgiver, but as a heroic military leader who performed mighty deeds by his own wisdom and strength. Although some scholars claimed that the Chronicle is an ancient work,3 the more commonly accepted opinion today is that it was probably composed in the tenth or eleventh century.4 The Chronicle was published by A. Jellinek,5 and another version has been edited by A. Shinan from MS Heb. d. 11, 30-50 of the Bodleian Library in Oxford.6 The text published by Shinan differs considerably from that of Jellinek, but is almost identical with the version of the Chronicle that has been incorporated into Sefer ha-Yashar,1 the date 3. See, e.g., M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel; or, The Hebrew Bible Historiale (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1899; repr., with a Prolegomenon by H. Schwarzbaum, New York: Ktav, 1971), pp. Ixxxviii-lxxxix, who believes that it was written 'at a time near that in which Josephus flourished' (p. Ixxxix). 4. Cf. H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), p. 361. D. Flusser maintains that since the Chronicle was influenced by the Josippon which was composed in 953 it cannot have been written before that date; cf. D. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica. An Unknown Source of Biblical Legends', in J. Heinemann and D. Noy (eds.), Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), p. 64, n. 62; idem (ed.), The Josippon. [Josephus Gorionides] (in Hebrew) (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978, 1980), II, p. 151. 5. Cf. A. Jellinek (ed.), Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner Mirdaschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der dltern jiidischen Literatur. Parts 1-4 (Leipzig, 1853-57); Parts 5-6 (Vienna, 1873-87) (reprinted in 2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1967). For the Chronicle of Moses see Part 2, pp. vii-xi, 1-11.1 will refer to this version of the Chronicle as 'Jellinek'. The same text is published in J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim. A Library of Two Hundred Minor Midrashim (2 vols.; New York, 1915; Tel Aviv, 1969), II, pp. 357-61. 6. See A. Shinan, The Chronicle of Moses our Master' (in Hebrew), Ha Sifrut 24(1977), pp. 100-16. 7. Sefer ha-Yashar is another example of the 'rewritten Bible'. Written in pseudo-biblical Hebrew it tells the biblical story from creation to the beginning of the age of the Judges. Besides using classical midrashic works and the Babylonian Talmud the author borrows from such late texts as Macase Abraham, Midrash vaYissa'u, Josippon, and the Chronicle of Moses. The author of Sefer ha-Yashar added to the version of the Chronicle that was available to him. This view seems preferable to the opinion of Ginzberg and others who regarded the Chronicle as an abridged version of Sefer ha-Yashar; cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (7 vols.;

MAKER Targum Pseudo- Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

83

and place of origin of which cannot be determined with certainty,8 and into Yalqut Shinfonii (vol. I, para. 168), which was probably compiled in Germany in the thirteenth century.9 It is probable that the two versions (that of Yalqut Shim'oni, Sefer ha-Yashar and Shinan on the one hand, and that of Jellinek on the other) stem from one source, and that the differences between them are due to copyists and editors who modified the text in the course of its transmission. Pseudo-Jonathan and the Chronicle So that the reader may be able to compare Pseudo-Jonathan's 'pretranslation haggadah' in Exod. 2.21 with the relevant passage in the Chronicle of Moses, I will offer a translation of both texts. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909-46), V, p. 402, n. 65. See further Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 102, with nn. 25-26. 8. Some hold that it may have been written in Spain in the eleventh or twelfth century. This view has often been repeated since it was put forward by Zunz; cf. L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden (Frankfurt, 1832; 2nd enlarged edn, 1892; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), pp. 162-65; idem, 'Das Buch Jaschar', Spenersche Zeitung (29 November 1828); reprinted in L. Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften (3 vols.; Berlin, 1875, 1876; 3 vols. in one, Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1976), III, pp. 98-100. D. Flusser is a modern defender of this view; cf. Flusser, The Josippon, I, pp. 17-24. Others believe that the work was composed in Italy at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Cf., e.g., J. Dan, The Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 137-38. Although it was believed that Sefer ha-Yashar was first published in Naples in 1544 it seems that it was in fact published for the first time in Venice in 1625. M.D. Herr, 'Sefer ha-Yashar', EncJud 16, col. 1517; J. Dan, 'On the Question of the Naples Edition of '"Sefer ha-Yashar'" (in Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 49 (1974), pp. 242-44; idem, The "Uses" of "Sefer ha-Yashar'" (in Hebrew), Sinai 75 (1974), pp. 255-58; idem, 'When was "Sefer ha-Yashar" Written?' (in Hebrew), in S. Werses et al. (eds.), Sefer Dov Sadan (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1977), pp. 105-10; J. Genot, 'Censure ideologique et discours chiffre: Le Sefer Hayasar, oeuvre d'un exile espagnol refugie a Naples', REJ 140 (1981), pp. 433-51; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pp. 359-60. Sefer ha-Yashar became a very popular work and was published many times. An edition frequently referred to is that of L. Goldschmidt, Sepher hajaschar. Das Heldenbuch. Sagen, Berichte und Erzahlungen aus der israelitischen Urzeit (Berlin: Harz, 1923); the text of the Chronicle of Moses is to be found on pp. 238-86 of this edition. English translation: M.M. Noah, The Book of Jasher; referred to in Joshua and Second Samuel (New York: M.M. Gould & A.S. Gould, 1840); the text of the Chronicle of Moses is to be found on pp. 210-56. 9. Cf., e.g., Y. Elbaum, 'Yalkut Shimoni', EncJud 16, cols. 707-709.

84

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Ps.-J. Exod. 2.21 When Reuel learned that Moses had fled from Pharaoh, he threw him into a pit. But Zipporah, his son's daughter, provided for him in secret for ten years. At the end often years he took him out of the pit, and Moses went into Reuel's garden and gave thanks and prayed before the Lord who had performed miracles and mighty deeds for him. He noticed the staff that had been created at twilight on which was clearly engraved the great and glorious name, with which he was to work wonders in Egypt, and with which he was to divide the Sea of Reeds and bring water from the rock. It was fixed in the middle of the garden. And immediately he stretched forth his hand and took it. Behold, Moses then agreed to stay with the man, who gave Zipporah, his son's daughter, to Moses. The Chronicle ofMoses10 (Moses encounters Reuel) Moses then went to Midian because he was afraid to return to Egypt on account of Pharaoh...11 So Reuel had Moses invited to his house and he ate bread with him. Moses told him that he had fled from Egypt, that he had ruled as King over the Ethiopians, and that they had taken the kingship from him and sent him away. When Reuel heard his story he said to himself: 'I will put this man in prison, and in doing so I will please the Ethiopians because he fled [from them]'.12 So he seized him and put him in jail and he was imprisoned

10. My translation is based on the version of Shinan, 'The Chronicle', pp. I l l §13-112, §14. Compare Jellinek, p. 7; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, pp. 258-55 262-63). 11. Here the author summarizes Exod. 2.16-20. 12. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 258) agrees with this version of the story saying that Reuel wanted to ingratiate himself with the Ethiopians. According t< Jellinek's version of the Chronicle (p. 7) Jethro said to himself: This is the ma: who put forth his hand to the crown. Now I will take him and deliver him into th hand of Pharaoh.' This refers to the midrash which says that when Moses was child 'he used to take the crown of Pharaoh and place it upon his own head'; cf., e.g Exod. R. 1,26; Eng. trans, by S.M. Lehrman, in The Midrash Rabbah. II. Exodm Leviticus (new compact edn in 5 vols.; ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon; New York Soncino, 1977), pp. 33-34. The magicians saw this as a bad omen and they advise Pharaoh to have the child killed. The child's life was spared through the interventio of the angel Gabriel. According to the Exod. R. 1,26 version of the story (cf. als< Midrash Wa-joscha [Jellinek, Part 1, pp. 41-42]) it was Jethro, who was one o Pharaoh's counsellors, who devised the plan that saved Moses' life. This traditio about the child Moses and the crown is recorded in the Chronicle of Moses (Shinar 'The Chronicle', pp. 108-109, §6; Jellinek, p. 3; Yalqut 166 [(Jerusalem, I960;

MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

85

there for ten years.13 But while he was imprisoned there Zipporah, Reuel's daughter, had pity on him and provided him with bread and water. After ten years she spoke to her father and said 'No one inquires or asks about the Hebrew whom you have confined in jail these ten years. Now, if it seems good to you, my father, let us send (someone) and see whether he is dead or alive'. Her father did not know that she had provided for him. Reuel answered and said, 'Could it happen that a man would be held in prison for ten14 years without eating and still be alive?' Zipporah answered her father and said, 'Have you not heard, my lord, that the God of the Hebrews is great and awesome and does wonders for them at all times. He delivered Abraham from the fire of the Chaldeans, and Isaac from the sword, and Jacob from the angel when he wrestled with him at the ford of the Jabbok. For this man also the Lord has done great things. He has delivered him from the river of Egypt and from the sword of Pharaoh, and he is also able to rescue him from this place.' This seemed good to Reuel, and he did as his daughter said, and he sent to the pit to see what had become of him. And they looked and saw that the man was alive, standing erect, and supplicating [the God of] his ancestors.15 So they took him out of the pit, shaved him, changed his prison clothes, and he ate bread. The man then went into Reuel's garden at the back of his house, and he prayed to his God who had done great wonders for him. And while he was praying he looked in front of him and saw a staff made of sapphire fixed in the ground, and it was planted in the middle of the garden. When he approached the staff he saw engraved upon it the Name of the Lord of Hosts, clearly written (ktwb wmpwrS) upon the staff. He read it, and pulled it up as a forest tree is pulled up from the thicket. And it became a staff in his hand. It was the staff that was created in the world among the

p. 108]) and in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 245); a similar story is preserved in the Palaea Historica, a Greek Old Testament history from Adam to Daniel which was not written before the ninth century; cf. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica', pp. 48-79, esp. pp. 64-67. The tradition on which these stories is based is very ancient since it was known to Josephus who records that when Pharaoh put his diadem on the head of the child Moses the latter threw it on the ground and trod on it; cf. Ant. 2.233-36. 13. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 262); Yalqut 168 (p. 110). Jellinek (p. 7) reads 'seven years'. 14. The MS translated by Shinan reads 'twelve'. Other MSS and Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 262) have 'ten'; Jellinek (p. 7): 'for so many years'. 15. Jellinek (p. 7): 'praying to his God'. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263): 'praising and supplicating the God of his ancestors'. According to Midrash Wajoscha, which may date from the eleventh century, Zipporah rescued Moses from the pit after seven years; cf. Jellinek, Part I, p. 43.

86

Targumic and Cognate Studies works (of God)16 after he had created the heavens and the earth and all their array.

We shall now examine Pseudo-Jonathan's rendering of Exod. 2.21, paying special attention to the light which the text from the Chronicle of Moses may cast on it. Moses' Story Ps.-J.: When Reuel learned that Moses had fled from Pharaoh...

Reuel could have learned of Moses' flight from no one else but the fugitive himself. Pseudo-Jonathan, however, gives us no idea of what Moses told the father of the young women who had taken him to their home. The Chronicle of Moses in the passage quoted above is more informative, stating that: Moses told him that he had fled from Egypt, that he had ruled as King over the Ethiopians, and that they had taken the kingship from him and sent him away.

This is a summary account of a long series of events that is recounted in considerable detail at an earlier stage in the Chronicle. This account informs us that when Moses left Egypt he came to the camp of the king of the Ethiopians who was at war with external enemies and faced with revolt in his own country. Moses allied himself with the king's forces, distinguished himself in his army, and soon became one of the king's counsellors. He was eventually crowned king of the Ethiopians who gave him the former king's widow in marriage (wgm }t hkwSit hgbyrh ntnw Iw l^h). After some years, however, the Ethiopians decided they wanted to have one of their own people as ruler, and having given rich gifts to Moses they sent him away.17 The story of Moses' warring encounters with the Ethiopians was known long before the author of the Chronicle produced his version of it. The author of the earliest known version was Artapanus, an Egyptian Jew who may have composed his work toward the end of the third 16. The text is obscure here, reading hmth hnbr3 btbl mpclwt. This is also the reading in Yalqut 168 (p. 110). The corresponding text in Sefer ha-Yashar reads as follows: 'This was the staff with which all the works of our God were created (hnbr3 bh kl mpflwt 3lhynw) after he had created the heavens and the earth' (cf. Goldschmidt, p. 163). 17. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', pp. 109-11, §§ 8-12; Jellinek, pp. 5-7. The story is told at greater length in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, pp. 249-58).

MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

87

century BCE. However, the work of Artapanus is known only from fragments that have survived in the writings of Eusebius,18 who, writing about 300 CE, depended on Alexander Polyhistor who summarized the work of Artapanus about the middle of the first century BCE. Josephus preserves a developed account of a campaign by Moses against the Ethiopians.19 An important new element in Josephus's version is the account of Moses' marriage to the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians who fell madly in love with the heroic Moses. Moses' marriage to an Ethiopian woman also features in the account of the Chronicle which I summarized above, and was known to PseudoJonathan (see Ps.-J. Num. 12.1, 8).20 Since Pseudo-Jonathan at Num. 12.1 knew of 'the Cushite woman whom the Cushites had married to Moses during his flight from Pharaoh', it is clear that he knew of Moses' adventures in Ethiopia in a version that was similar to the narrative in the Chronicle. Furthermore, Pseudo-Jonathan seems to have presumed that his readers were familiar with the legend of Moses' adventures in Ethiopia, so that the targumist's reference to Moses' marriage to the Cushite illustrates Pseudo-Jonathan's tendency to make a simple allusion to a well-known haggadah and to avoid entering into details which were presumed to be familiar to his readers.21

18. Praep. Evang. 9. 18, 23, and 27. 19. Ant. 2.238-53. 20. On the complicated question of the relation between the different versions of the story of Moses in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian woman see A. Shinan, 'Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in The Chronicle of Moses', Scripta Hierosolymitana, 27 (Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art throughout the Ages; ed. J. Heinemann and S. Werses; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), pp. 66-78; idem, 'From Artapanus to Sefer ha-Yashar: On the History of the Haggadah of Moses in Ethiopia' (in Hebrew), Eshkolot 2-3 (1977-78), pp. 53-67; T. Rajak, 'Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature', JJS 29 (1978), pp. 111-22. On the text of Artapanus in particular see J.J. Collins, 'Artapanus', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigraphaa(2 vols.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, 1985), II, pp. 889-903. On the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian woman see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to Numbers(The Aramaic Bible, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 103, n. 1. On some Syriac legends concerning Moses in Ethiopia see S. Brock, 'Some Syriac Legends concerning Moses', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 237-55. 21. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, pp. 160-71; idem, 'A Word to the Wise is Sufficient' (in Hebrew), Criticism and Interpretation 18 (1982), pp. 69-77.

88

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Reuel's Reaction Ps.-J.: [Reuel] threw him into a pit

Pseudo-Jonathan gives no reason for Reuel's extraordinary reaction to Moses' story. Like Pseudo-Jonathan, Jellinek's version of the Chronicle fails to mention Moses' experiences in Ethiopia. It simply informs us that Moses told Jethro 'all that had happened him in Egypt'. However, the unexpected visitor's story led Jethro to conclude that Moses was 'the man who had put forth his hand to the crown' of the king of Egypt,22 and he decided to 'take him and deliver him into the hand of Pharaoh'.23 In haggadic terms it would not be unreasonable for Jethro, who was said to have been one of Pharaoh's counsellors,24 to hand over to Pharaoh the man who as a child had so narrowly escaped death at the hands of Pharaoh's servant. By so doing he would, as the Chronicle (Jellinek's version) says, hope to win the favour of Pharaoh. Jethro's eagerness to ingratiate himself with Pharaoh would be even more understandable if, as the Chronicle states, he had been expelled by the Egyptian ruler for counselling him not to destroy the Israelites who were multiplying in Egypt (cf. Exod. 1), but to send them to the land of Canaan.25 If Jethro were now to return the fugitive Moses to Pharaoh he might win back that ruler's favour. According to Shinan's version of the Chronicle, and according to Sefer ha-Yashar, Moses told Reuel about his experiences not only in Egypt but also in Ethiopia. Having heard Moses' account Reuel decided to put him in prison because he thought that this would please the Ethiopians.26 This is not a very logical explanation of Reuel's decision, since these two versions of the story have just informed us that the Ethiopians had sent Moses away only because they wanted to give the 22. This is a reference to an episode which is recounted earlier in the Chronicle, and which describes how the three-year-old Moses 'reached out his hand, took the crown from the king's head and put it on his own'. See above, n. 12. 23. Cf. Jellinek, p. 7. 24. Cf. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (Brown Judaic Studies, 47; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 45-74. 25. Cf. Shinan, 'The Chronicle', pp. 110-11, §11; Jellinek, p. 4. This passage is an addition in the position in which it is placed in the editions of Shinan and Jellinek; cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', pp. 103, and 105, n. 40. In Sefer ha-Yasharit is more correctly placed near the beginning of the Chronicle (cf. Goldschmidt, pp. 239-40). 26. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, § 13; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 258).

MAHER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

89

kingship to a member of their own royal family. Moses had not incurred their ire in any way, and he had not fled from them. He had, in fact, been given many gifts and sent away with great honour.27 The order of things is somewhat different in Midrash Wa-joscha. In this text Moses tells in the first person how he arrived in the house of Reuel and shared a meal there and then asked his host to give him his daughter Zipporah in marriage. Reuel answered that he would do so if Moses could uproot the staff that was fixed in the middle of the garden. To the astonishment of Reuel Moses pulled up the staff effortlessly. Having seen this great feat Reuel concluded that this was the prophet who was destined to destroy Egypt, and he threw Moses into a pit that was in the garden.28 What is noticeable in any case is that, unlike Pseudo-Jonathan, both the Jellinek and Shinan versions of the Chronicle explain why Reuel threw Moses into prison. The Jellinek rendering says that he wished to win favour with Pharaoh, while the Shinan rendering states that he wished to ingratiate himself with the Ethiopians. It is very probable that Pseudo-Jonathan knew of one or other of these traditions and that he presumed that his audience was also familiar with them. He was therefore satisfied to mention the fact that Moses was imprisoned, and he took it for granted that his readers would know why. In other words, Pseudo-Jonathan is once again content to make an allusion to a haggadah with which his readers would have been familiar. In the Pit Ps.-J.: But Zipporah, his son's daughter, provided for him in secret for ten years. At the end of ten years he took him out of the pit, and Moses went into Reuel's garden and gave thanks and prayed before the Lord who had performed miracles and mighty deeds for him.

Already in v. 18 Pseudo-Jonathan had identified Reuel as the grandfather of the young women whom Moses had encountered at the well, and in line with that identification Zipporah is now said to be the daughter of Reuel's son. This identification is based on a midrashic interpretation of Num. 10.29. The biblical verse is rather ambiguous, and it continues to

27. Cf. Shinan, 'The Chronicle', p. I l l , §12; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 258). 28. Cf. Midrash Wa-joscha (Jellinek, Part I, pp. 42-43).

90

Targumic and Cognate Studies

raise problems for biblical scholars.29 It can be taken to mean that Moses' father-in-law was Hobab (which would be in agreement with Judg. 4.11), and not Reuel as is stated in Exod. 2.18; 3.1; 4.18; 18.1. The contradiction between Num 10.29 and the verses in Exodus is resolved in Sifre to Numbers as follows: (If Hobab was his name) what is meant by the scripture verse which says 'And they came to their father Reuel? (Exod. 2.18)'. This teaches that the children called their grandfather 'father' (}b>, abba).30

This interpretation is adopted by Pseudo-Jonathan in his rendering of Exod. 2.18, and again in v. 21 where Zipporah is referred to as the daughter of Reuel's son. Pseudo-Jonathan states in laconic terms that Zipporah provided for Moses while he was in prison and that the prisoner was released at the end of ten years. This is but a prosaic summary of the Chronicle's romantic description of how Zipporah looked after the prisoner and eventually persuaded her father to release him. Like Pharaoh's daughter who rescued the infant Moses by nullifying her father's decree in his regard (cf. Exod. 2.5-10), Zipporah saved the adult Moses from her father's designs against him. Pseudo-Jonathan felt no need to fill in the details which would have been familiar to his audience and which we know from the Chronicle. It is not surprising that both Pseudo-Jonathan and the Chronicle inform us that Moses, having been rescued from the pit where he was imprisoned, and finding himself in Reuel's garden, prayed to the Lord who had performed so many miracles for him. Any pious Jew would be expected to react in the same manner in the circumstances. No specific miracles are mentioned, but that is scarcely necessary since the Chronicle is to a large extent an account not only of the miracles that were worked on behalf of Moses, but also of the mighty deeds which Moses performed and which were a proof that God was on his side. We may note, however, that according to the Chronicle Zipporah, having 29. Cf., e.g., W.F. Albright, 'Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 1-11; B. Mazar, The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 297-303; M. Noth, Numbers (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 77-78. 30. Sifre Num., Beha'alotka 78; H.S. Horowitz (ed.), Siphre D'Be Rab. Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta (Leipzig: Fock, 1917; repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1966), p. 72. See also Rashi in his comment on Num. 10.29.

MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

91

mentioned the miracles that God had done for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, reminded her father that God had delivered Moses 'from the river of Egypt and from the sword of Pharaoh'.31 The Staff Ps.-J.: He noticed the staff that had been created at twilight on which was clearly engraved the great and glorious name, with which he was to work wonders in Egypt, and with which he was to divide the Sea of Reeds and bring water from the rock.

Many Jewish texts list a number (six, seven, ten or more) of things that were created at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.33 'The staff which is the most thinly attested member of the list is mentioned in Pirke Abot 5, 6[9]; Mekilta to Exod. 16.32;34 ARN A 41;35 ARN B 37;36 PRE 19(18);37 cf. also PRE 40,38 and in Ps.-J. Num. 22.2S.39 Some 31. On the deliverance from the sword of Pharaoh see above, n. 12. See also Exod. R. 1,31 (Lehrman, p. 39); and cf. Midrash Psalms 4, 3; see S. Buber (ed.), Midrash Tehillim (Vilna, 1891; repr. Jerusalem, 1977), p. xl; W.G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols.; Yale Judaica Series, 13; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), I, pp. 61-63. 32. Both the editio princeps and the only surviving MS (British Library Aramaic Additional MS 27031) read whqyyn wmprS. The formula hqyq wmp(w)rSoccurs 28 times in Ps.-J. (cf. E.G. Clarke, with collaboration by W.E. Aufrecht et. al., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance [Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1984], pp. 238-39), and we should read whqyq wmprS in our present text also. 33. W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic 'Enumeration of Scriptural Examples' (Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 66-71, studies nine sources of these lists. See also A.J. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Aboth de Rabbi Nathan), Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 306-10; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, I, p. 83; V, p. 109, n. 99. 34. Cf. J. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933), II, pp. 124-25. 35. S. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan. The two versions edited with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices (in Hebrew) (Vienna, 1887; corrected repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1979), p. 67a; J. Goldin, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (New York: Schocken Books, 1974), p. 173. 36. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 48a; Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, p. 217. 37. Cf. D. Luria (ed.) Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (in Hebrew) (Warsaw, 1852; repr. Jerusalem, 1963), p. 44a. 'The rod' is not mentioned in all versions of PRE; cf., e.g., G. Friedlander's version, The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great (London, 1916; New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981), p. 124, and see M. Perez Fernandez, Los

92

Targumic and Cognate Studies

sources specify that the rod was that of Aaron. See Sifre Deut. 355;40 b. Pes. 54a; Mek. SbY. to Exod. 16.32.41 ARN A and ARN B include both 'the rod (of Moses)' and 'the staff of Aaron'. The Mekiltato Exod. 16.31, having mentioned 'the rod' in its list of ten things goes on to say that 'some say: also the garments of the first man and the rod of Aaron with its ripe almonds and blossoms'.42 Like the passage from Pseudo-Jonathan in which we are interested (Exod. 2.21),43 the different versions of the Chronicle of Moses as preserved by Shinan,44 and the Yalqut,45 while not enumerating a list of things that were created on the eve of the first Sabbath, state that the staff which Moses discovered in Reuel's garden had been created when God completed the works of creation. Sefer ha-Yashar describes it as 'the staff with which all the works of our God were performed after he had created the heavens and the earth and all the host of them...'46 Jellinek's version does not associate the staff with the eve of the first Sabbath.47 Ps.-J. Exod. 4.20 refers to the staff of Moses as 'the staff which he had taken from the garden of his father-in law', and informs us that it

Capitulos de Rabbi Eliezer (Biblioteca Midrasica, 1; Valencia: Institution Jeronimo para Investigation Biblica, 1984), p. 150 and n. bb. 38. Cf. Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, p. 312. 39. The list given in this text includes 'the mouth of the speaking ass', the ass referred to being Balaam's, so that the inclusion of the list in Num. 22.28 is understandable since this verse forms part of the story of Balaam's ass. 40. Cf. L. Finkelstein, Sifre ad Deuteronomium (Berlin: Jiidischer Kulturbund, 1939; repr. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), p. 418; R. Hammer, Sifre. A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (Yale Judaica Series, 24; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 372. 41. Cf. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed, Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b. Jochai (Jerusalem: Hillel Press, 1955; repr., 1979), p. 115. 42. Cf. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, II, pp. 124-25. On the rod of Aaron that put forth blossoms and bore almonds see Num. 17.1-11 (English versions). 43. See also Ps.-J. Exod. 14.21 which states that the staff was created 'at the beginning (mn syrwy'y. 44. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, §14. 45. Cf. Yalqut 168 (p. 110), and 173 (p. 113). 46. Cf. Goldschmidt, p. 263. 47. Cf. Jellinek, p. 7.

MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

93

was made of sapphire,48 that it weighed forty seahs, that the divine name was engraved on it, and that Moses worked miracles with it.49 In his rendering of Exod. 14.21 Pseudo-Jonathan adds that 'the ten signs' with which Moses had smitten the Egyptians, the names of the patriarchs and matriarchs, and of the 'twelve tribes of Jacob' were all inscribed on the staff. The same targum at Deut. 34.12 repeats that the staff weighed forty seahs, and that Moses divided the sea and struck the rock with it. In Exod. 2.21 and in the texts just mentioned (Exod. 4.20; 14.21; Deut. 34.12) we see an example of Pseudo-Jonathan's practice of taking up the same haggadic tradition in several texts, adding different elements of the tradition to different verses.50 The Great and Glorious Name The formula 'the great and glorious name', which Pseudo-Jonathan uses in association with the rod of Moses and its miraculous powers, is without parallel in the other targums.51 With regard to the targumists' use of the divine name in general Shinan has pointed out that while the other targums mention it only in places where it is called for by the biblical text, Pseudo-Jonathan uses it more freely.52 The Palestinian targums mention the ineffable name (Sm* mprP) in their additions to the biblical text only in their accounts of the Golden Calf; see Exod. 32.25 (Neof., P, V, N;53 see also Ps.-J.); 33.6 (Neof., P; see also Ps.-J.). In 33.4 Pseudo-Jonathan uses the formula 'the great and holy name'. 48. The Chronicle of Moses also states that the staff was made of sapphire; cf. Shinan, 'The Chronicle', p. 112, §14; Jellinek, p. 7; Yalqut 168 (p. 110); Sefer haYashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263). 49. For midrashic parallels cf. Tanhuma, Wa-Era, 9; Tanhuma, Tazri'a 8; Tanhuma B, Tazri'a 10; Exod. R. 8,3 (Lehrman, pp. 118-19). See further A. Rosmarin, Moses im Lichte derAgada (New York: Goldblatt, 1932), pp. 75-76. 50. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, pp. 119-31; idem, 'The "Palestinian" Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions', JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72-87. 51. Cf. A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), p. 346. 52. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, II, pp. 279-83; idem, 'Folk Elements in the Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch' (in Hebrew), in I. Ben-Ami and J. Dan (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Jewish Folklore (Folklore Research Centre Studies, 7; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), pp. 151-53. 53. P = fragmentary targum, MS Paris, Bibliotheque nationale Hebr. 110; V = fragmentary targums, MS Vatican Ebr. 440; N = fragmentary targum, ms Nurnberg, Stadtbibliothek Solg. 2.2°.

94

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Pseudo-Jonathan on the other hand refers to the great and glorious name in his expansions of several verses; see Ps.-J. Gen. 4.15; Exod. 2.21; 4.20; 14.21; 15.25;54 Num. 31.8; Deut. 9.19; in Num. 20.8 the term 'the great and explicit name (^m* rb3 wmpr$y is used, and in Exod. 28.30 the formula employed is 'the great and holy name'. In all these texts, except Ps.-J. Gen. 4.15, the sacred name is used in contexts that deal with the working of miracles.55 By thus using the divine name in conjunction with extraordinary events Pseudo-Jonathan distinguishes itself from the other Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch and gives expression to folk-beliefs that do not find their way into the other targums. Shinan's version of the Chronicle of Moses informs us that 'the Name of the Lord of Hosts' was 'clearly written (ktwb wmpwrtyupon the staff. The Yalqut and Sefer ha-Yashar have essentially the same reading,56 while Jellinek's version informs us that 'the explicit name' or the 'ineffable name' ($m hmpwrS) was engraved on the staff.57 The tradition that the name of God was written on the staff of Moses is known from several other midrashic texts. PRK, for example, in a comment on Isa. 51.15 ('I am the Lord who stirs up the sea'), states that the sea fled because it saw that the ineffable name ($m mpwrf), the Lord of Hosts, was graven on the staff.58 Commenting on this text from Isaiah the Yalqutt takes up the same tradition.59 Similarly, Deut. R., in a comment on Ps. 114.3 ('The sea looked and fled'), states that the sea parted when it saw the ineffable name (Sm mpwrf) engraved on the staff

54. Cf. Neof. gloss where the reading is $m} mprP. 55. On the magical uses of the divine name in Judaism see L. Blau, Das altjiidische Zauberwesen (Strassburg: Triibner, 1898; 2nd edn, Berlin: Lamm, 1914), pp. 117-46; J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition. A Study in Folk Religion (New York: Behrman, 1939), pp. 90-97; E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), I, pp. 124-34. Islam also attributed magical powers to the staff of Moses; cf. A. Fodor, 'The Rod of Moses in Arabic Magic', Acta Orientalia 32 (1978), pp. 1-21. 56. Cf. Yalqut 168 (p. 110); Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263). 57. Cf. Jellinek, p. 7. 58. Cf. PRK 19,6; B. Mandelbaum, Pesikta de Rav Kahana according to an Oxford Manuscript(Hebrew) (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), I, p. 308; Eng. trans. W.G. Braude and I.J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975), p. 328. 59. Cf. Yalqut 474 (II, p. 801).

MAKER Tar gum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

95

of Moses,60 and as one might expect that interpretation is repeated in Midrash Psalms to that verse.61 Deut. R. describes how Moses took the staff on which the ineffable name ($m mpwrS) was written and put the Angel of Death to flight.62 From Pseudo-Jonathan's version of Exod. 14.21 we learn that 'the ten signs with which he (Moses) had smitten the Egyptians' were written on the staff of Moses, and many sources repeat the tradition that the name of the ten plagues were written on the staff in abbreviated form.63 When PRE mentions the letters that were on the rod64 the reference could be either to the ineffable name or to the abbreviated names of the plagues. The Staff of Miracles The staff of Moses/Aaron figures prominently in the account of Moses' activities in Egypt (cf., e.g., Exod. 7.8-13; 8.16-17; 9.23; 10.13). The importance of the staff is indicated already in Exod. 4.17 where the Lord addresses Moses and says to him 'Take in your hand this staff, with which you shall perform the signs'.65 In translating Exod. 2.21, the passage under discussion in this essay, Pseudo-Jonathan anticipated this formula by describing the staff of Moses as that 'with which he was to work wonders in Egypt'. A similar formula occurs in the targums of Exod. 4.20 (Neof., Onq., Ps.-J.)66 and 17.9 (Neof., Onq., Ps.-J), where

60. Cf. Deut. R., Ekeb, 17a; Eng. trans, by J. Rabinowitz in The Midrash Rabbah. III. Numbers, Deuteronomy (new compact edn in 5 vols.; ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon; New York: Soncino, 1977), p. 76. 61. Cf. Midrash Psalms 114,9, Buber, Midrash Tehillim, col. Ixxv; Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, II, p. 221. 62. Cf. Deut. R., We-zoth ha-Berakah, 40a (Rabinowitz, p. 186). 63. Cf., e.g., Exod. R. 5, 6 (Lehrman, p. 84) and 8, 3 (Lehrman, p. 119). Tanhuma, Wa-Era 9; Tanhuma (Buber), Wa-Era 8. 64. Cf. PRE 40 (Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, p. 313). 65. Neof. translates this as 'the staff with which you will perform wondrous signs (nsy prySt'Y. 66. Cf. M. McNamara, R. Hay ward and M. Maher, Tar gum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994), p. 24 with n. 13, and p. 172 with n. 20; B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 7; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), pp. 10-11, with n. 11.

96

Targumic and Cognate Studies

the biblical text refers to 'the staff of God'.67 In translating Num. 20.8-9 which tells how Moses brought water from the rock Pseudo-Jonathan twice refers to the staff of Moses as the 'staff of the miracles (htr nysy'Y. The same term (htr nysyy')is employed in the targum version of the Crossing of the Reed Sea which was published by Y. Komlos,68 and in the Targum Tosefta of Exod. 13-15 in the Mahzor Vitry (htr dnysy').69 The Mekilta to Exod. 17.5 asserts that the Israelites must regard the staff as 'a means of performing miracles for them (mth...SI nsym.y.7Q The Chronicle of Moses refers to the staff that Moses found in the garden of Reuel as 'the staff of the signs (mth /rVfvv?)'.71 The texts referred to in the preceding paragraph which state that the names of the plagues were written on the staff all bear witness to a belief in its miraculous power.72 Dividing the Sea According to Exod. 14.21 'Moses stretched out his hand over the sea' and the Lord drove the sea back. Although several targums preserve the 67. Cf. McNamara et al., Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus, p. 74 with n. 8, and p. 211 with n. 14; Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Exodus, pp. 48-49 with n. 6. 68. Cf. Y. Komlos, The Targum Version of the Crossing of the Reed Sea' (in Hebrew), Sinay 45 (1959), pp. 223-28, at p. 227,1. 31. 69. Cf. S. Hurwitz (ed.), Machsor Vitry, nach der Handschrift im British Museum (Cod. Add. No. 27200 u. 27201) (Leipzig, 1889; 2nd edn, Nurnberg, 1923; repr. Jerusalem: Aleph, 1963), p. 307. 70. Cf. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, II, pp. 131-32. See also the parallel text in Mekilta de R. Shim'on bar Yohai (Epstein and Melamed, p. 118). On the text in the Mekilta see G. Bienaime, Moise et le don de I'eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: targum et midrash (AnBib, 98; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984), pp. 71-72; Towner, Rabbinic 'Enumeration of Scriptural Examples', pp. 126-30. Cf. Pseudo-Philo, LAB 19,11, where the staff of Moses is referred to as the staff by which miracles were performed (virga tua, in qua facia sunt signa), and where the Lord says that on seeing this staff he would be moved to mercy and would forgive the Israelites their sins. 71. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, §14. In the Yalqut version (168, p. 110) it is called mth h'wtywt, 'the staff of the letters'. The corresponding term does not occur in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263), and the relevant passage is not found in Jellinek's version of the Chronicle (p. 7). 72. On further haggadic traditions concerning the staff of Moses see Rosmarin, Moses im Lichte der Agada, pp. 75-76. Cf. also M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage zur Semitischen Sagenkunde (Leiden: Brill, 1893), which deals on pp. 152-85 with legends, mainly Jewish and Arabic, about Moses; the section concerning the staff is on pp. 162-64.

MAHER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

97

full text of this verse (cf. Neof., P, Onq., Ps.-J.; V and N preserve only one word) Pseudo-Jonathan is the only targum to state explicitly that Moses held the staff in his hand on that occasion. This idea is implicit in the texts quoted above which state that the sea fled when it saw the staff of Moses with the writing on it. The biblical text explicitly mentions Moses' staff when describing how he brought water from the rock (cf. Num. 20.8, 9, 11). Pseudo-Jonathan anticipates this event in his version of Exod. 2.21. Following the principle that 'there is no before or after in the Torah'73 the targumist can refer in a particular verse to an event that will be described only at a later stage in the biblical narrative.74 The reader of the targum would be familiar with this disregard for chronology and would find nothing disconcerting in Pseudo-Jonathan's reference in Exod. 2.21 to the story from the wilderness period about water from the rock. Planted in the Garden Although Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the staff which Moses saw in Reuel's garden with 'the staff that had been created at twilight' he does not explain how it happened to be in the garden of Reuel in Midian. Furthermore, it is not at all clear from Pseudo-Jonathan's text why the author should have introduced the story of the staff into a verse that simply tells us that Moses lived in the house of Reuel and married his daughter. A story in PRE fills in these details as follows: The rod which was created in the twilight was delivered to the first man out of the garden of Eden. Adam delivered it to Enoch, and Enoch delivered it to Noah, and Noah [handed it on] to Shem...to Abraham... to Isaac...to Jacob, and Jacob brought it down into Egypt and passed it on to his son Joseph, and when Joseph died and they pillaged his household goods, it was placed in the palace of Pharaoh. And Jethro was one of the magicians of Egypt, and he saw the rod and the letters that were upon it, and he desired in his heart (to have it), and he took it and

73. Cf., Sifre Num. 64 (Horowitz, p. 61). 74. Thus, for example, Ps.-J. Gen. 27.29 presumes that Balaam, son of Beor, is well known even though the Bible mentions this personality for the first time in Numbers ch. 22. See further, M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 90, n. 38.

98

Targumic and Cognate Studies brought it,75 and planted it in the midst of the garden of his house. No one was able to approach it any more. When Moses came to his house he went into the garden of Reuel's house, and saw the rod...and he put forth his hand and took it. Jethro watched Moses, and said: This one in the future will redeem Israel from Egypt. Therefore he gave him Zipporah his daughter to wife...76

This story also occurs in the Chronicle of Moses where we are also told that whoever wished to marry Zipporah had to try to uproot the staff in her father's garden. But no one was able to do so. Therefore when Moses came and uprooted the staff Reuel was amazed and he immediately gave him his daughter in marriage.77 Pseudo-Jonathan knew these details about the staff, how it came to be in the possession of Reuel and planted in his garden, and how it was associated with the choice of a husband for Zipporah. But he telescopes events, and he is satisfied to tell us in the briefest terms that Moses put forth his hand and took the staff. Taking for granted the haggadic traditions which I have just recorded, the most logical statement after Pseudo-Jonathan's declaration that Moses took the staff would be that Reuel gave him Zipporah as wife. But the order of the biblical verse obliged Pseudo-Jonathan to record that Moses wished to stay with the man, and only then could he add that the man gave him Zipporah as wife. 75. The Chronicle of Moses (Shinan, The Chronicle', p. I l l , §11) also states that when Jethro fled from Egypt he 'took Jacob's staff in with him'. But see the comment on this passage in n. 25 above. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 240) also asserts that Jethro took the staff with him from Egypt. 76. PRE 40 (Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, pp. 312-13). Essentially the same story is known in Syriac tradition; see E.A.W. Budge, The Book of the Bee. The Syriac Text with an English Translation (Anecdota Oxoniensia. Semitic Series, vol. 1, part 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), p. 50. This text says that the staff was handed on from Adam, to Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and Pharez. At the time of Pharez there was war everywhere and an angel hid the staff in a mountain in Moab. There it was found by Jethro who gave it to Moses when he married Zipporah. 77. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, §14; Yalqut 168 (p. 110) and 173 (p. 113); Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263). See also Midrash Wa-joscha (Jellinek, Part 1, pp. 41-42). For a somewhat similar legend from the tales of King Arthur see the story of the knight Balin who distinguished himself by drawing a damsel's sword from its sheath when all the other knights, and even King Arthur himself, had failed to do so; cf. E. Vinaver (ed.), The Works of Sir Thomas Malory (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), pp. 44-47.

MAHER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21

99

Well-known Traditions Pseudo-Jonathan gives a more prominent place in his narrative to the staff of Moses than do the other targums. See Ps.-J. Gen. 4.15; Exod. 2.21; 4.20; 14.21; Num. 20.8-9; 22.28; Deut. 34.12. It has been pointed out that other writers too showed an interest in the same staff. Ancient writers such as Artapanus, Ezechiel the Tragic Poet, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo, were, as I have noted, all intrigued by the staff with which so many wonders were worked.78 Traditions about the staff continued to grow in the Jewish community and we find them in a developed stage in the Chronicle of Moses and Sefer Ha-Yashar. Pseudo-Jonathan, who composed his work before these writers, also knew the haggadot that surrounded the staff. He has discreetly incorporated several elements of these haggadot, as well as other haggadic details about the life of the young Moses, into his version of Exod. 2.21. He did not need to elaborate on those details because he knew that they were familiar to his audience. He was satisfied to allude to the traditions and to allow his readers to complete the picture for themselves.

78. Cf. D.L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 170-73.

THE ATTITUDE TO WOMEN IN THE PROLOGUE OF TARGUM JOB Celine Mangan

I owe my continuing involvement in targumic study in large part to Martin McNamara. Every time in the past when my interest flagged, he was at hand with some new project. It was with pleasure, therefore, that I agreed to be associated with this tribute to him. We are indebted to him in particular for his work on the project, The Aramaic Bible,1 which has opened up this vast field of the past understanding of the Hebrew scriptures to many scholars in the English-speaking world. Introduction The world of the Hebrew text of the book of Job is undoubtedly patriarchal; male power over women is clearly apparent. Job's wife is obviously only a foil for her husband; the lost children are hers also, yet there is no mention of her grief at the loss of them.2 Her talk is said to be that of 'foolish women', a stigma that has attached itself to women ever since. The daughters also appear within a patriarchal setting: in 1.4 it is only the sons who are heads of households. Granted, they at least invite their sisters to feast with them but, presumably, while there the daughters behave themselves very demurely because when Job is offering sacrifice he is only afraid that the sons 'have sinned and cursed God in their hearts' (1.5). The three new daughters at the end of the book are proclaimed for their beauty. Women in patriarchy often exist 1. Cf. M.J. McNamara, The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections', in D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 103-15. 2. The LXX does, however, acknowledge the anguish of the wife of Job: 'your sons and your daughters are no more, those who were the pains and travail of my womb, and for whom I exhausted myself in vain' (LXX 2.9).

MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Targum Job

101

to be looked at and Job's new daughters are no exception.3 In between Prologue and Epilogue, Job, in spite of his affliction, comes across as a dominant male in a patriarchal society. He speaks of his past life as one who was prepared out of his bounty to be kind to the widow (29.13), who in such a society was dependent on the good-will, or lack of it, of men (cf. 22.9; 24.3, 21). Women are there to give birth (cf. 3.10-11; 10.18; 14.1; 15.14; 25.4), to be protected from the rapacious (cf. 31.1,9), but even in this the woman is the man's property and so must bear his punishment (cf. 31.9-12). At first glance Targum Job seems to present a far less patriarchal view of women than does the Hebrew text. In Tg. Job 1.2-3 the property that is Job's is given not only to the sons but also to the daughters and even to the wife. However, as the text goes on, it is clear that there is very little change; in fact things get worse—a much more negative attitude to women emerges in Job's words to his wife (2.9-10). This paper will confine itself to an examination of these two targumic developments in the Prologue of the book of Job. Women's Inheritance in Targum Job In the Hebrew text of Job the second group of Job's daughters are said to inherit 'among their brothers' (42.15). There is no such mention of inheritance for the first trio and it is clear from the text that they, unlike their brothers, do not own property since, although they are invited to their brothers' houses in turn, they do not reciprocate the hospitality (1.2-4). The targum changes all that, giving an inheritance not only to the daughters, but also to Job's wife: Seven sons and three daughters were born to him, and his flock consisted of seven thousand sheep, a thousand for every son; three thousand camels, a thousand for every daughter, five hundred yoke of oxen for himself;five hundred she-asses ashis wife's sole property(Tg. Job 1.3).4

3. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, 'Why is there a Book of Job and what does it do to you if you read it?', in W.A.M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of Job (BETL, 114; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1994), pp. 1-20. 4. Some manuscripts of the targum omit these additions to the Hebrew: cf. C. Mangan, J.F. Healey and P.S. Knobel, The Targum of Job, The Targum of Proverbs, The Targum of Qohelet (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 24-25. This translation of the text will be discussed further below.

102

Targumic and Cognate Studies

It is worth considering the possible contexts in Judaism which could allow such additions to the text of Job. 1. Inheritance in Judaism If the targumic text implies that the daughters and the wife are to inherit from Job then it is clearly in contravention of the basic Jewish laws concerning inheritance. In the earliest legislation in Israel only sons could inherit (cf. Deut. 21.15-17), the first-born receiving a double portion (Deut. 21.17); if there were no sons, levirate marriage was the means of providing an heir to the property (Deut. 25.5-10).5 In the celebrated case of Zelophehad's daughters (Num. 27.1-11), where a male heir was no longer possible, daughters were allowed to inherit if there were no sons (Num. 27.8). However, heiresses were then expected to marry within the tribe so that the land would not pass to another tribe (Num. 36.112). The principle that a daughter could inherit only if there were no son became the accepted law in the Mishnah (cf. m. B. Bat. 8.2). The wife, however, was not to inherit from her husband: A man inherits from his mother, and a husband from his wife and sisters' sons but they do not bequeath property to them. A woman bequeaths property to her sons, a wife to her husband and maternal uncles, but they do not inherit from them (m. B. Bat. 8.1).

2. Ketubah Even though daughters were not allowed to inherit if there were sons, maintenance for them by way of a dowry took precedence over the inheritance of their brothers: If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance; but if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go a-begging (m. B. Bat. 9.1).

What, then, of the 'five hundred she-asses' for Job's wife in Tg. Job 1.3? Is it a question of the wife's ketubahl6 Jastrow would seem to imply as much by translating Igrm in conjunction with 3tty3of the Aramaic text 5. Cf. S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 518ff. 6. Very strict laws governed the rights of a woman relating to her ketubah, a whole tractate of the Mishnah and Talmud being given over to a consideration of the matter.

MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Tar gum Job

103

'as his wife's sole property'.7 However, I do not think that what is in question in Tg. Job 1.3 is the ketubah of Job's wife since it is clear that there is no distinction between the way the property is assigned to the wife, to Job himself and to the sons and daughters, the preposition /being used in each case: Ikl br} ('to each son'); Ikl brt3 ('to each daughter'); Igrmyh ('as his own') and Igrm 'tty3 which I translated earlier,8 following Jastrow, 'as his wife's sole property' but which I now think would, as in the case of the son and the daughter, be better translated as 'as his wife's'.9 3. Gifts The passage may, however, be within the laws of Mishnah and Talmud, if what we have here is a matter of gifts rather than inheritance. Whereas a bequest by way of inheritance to other than the legal heirs was null and void, a bequest by way of gift was valid: If a man says, 'Such-a-one, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion', or 'Such-a-one, my son, shall not inherit with his brethren', he has said nothing, for he has laid down a condition contrary to what is written in the Law. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal with the firstborn his words remain valid...If a man said, 'Such a man shall inherit from me', and he has a daughter; or 'My daughter shall inherit from me', and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has laid down a condition contrary to what is written in the Law (m. B. Bat. 8.5).

Giving one's property as gift was clearly frowned upon, however, since the Mishnah goes on to say: If a man assigned his goods to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages have no pleasure in him.

This attitude is spelled out in great detail in the Talmud (e.g. b. B. Bat. 50b-52a). It is clear, then, that a daughter could obtain property by deed of gift even if there were sons, though not by deed of inheritance. The 7. M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 270; cf. J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch fiber die Targumim (Leipzig, 1867), p. 155. 8. Mangan, The Tar gum of Job, p. 24. 9. There are instances in the targums, however, where grm is associated with the giving of property, for example, Tg. Neof. Gen. 15.2; cf. M.J. McNamara, Tar gum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 95.

104

Targumic and Cognate Studies

discussion among the Rabbis about this in the Talmud comes from the time of the early Amoraim (cf. b. B. Bat. 5la). It is possible, therefore, that what was meant in Tg. Job 1.3 was that Job was giving gifts to his daughters and his wife in his lifetime, rather than waiting until after his death when they would have no inheritance. This, however, still leaves the mention of actual inheritance in 42.15 unaccounted for. 4. Practice outside the Usual Jewish Norms It is clear that from time to time in Judaism there emerged a tolerance for the inheritance of women which, however, rarely lasted for any length of time. An example can be seen in the papyri from the fifth century BCE Elephantine military colony where women appear as parties in independent business and legal transactions including the bestowal of property.10 Two other movements within the history of Judaism also tolerated the inheritance of women. The earliest was that of the Sadducees. The Talmud refutes vehemently the position attributed to them: R. Huna said in the name of Rab: Anyone, even a prince in Israel, who says that a daughter is to inherit with the daughter of the son, must not be obeyed: for such (a ruling) is only the practice of the Sadducees. As it was taught: On the twenty-fourth of Tebeth we returned to our (own) law; for the Sadducees having maintained (that) a daughter inherited with the daughter of the son, R. Johanan b. Zakkai joined issue with them. He said to them: 'Fools, whence do you derive this?' And there was no one who could reply a word, except one old man who prated at him and said: If the daughter of his son, who succeeds to an inheritance by virtue of his son's right, is heir to him, how much more the daughter who derives her right from himself!' (b. B. Bat. 115b).n

The suggestion has been made that the reason the Sadducees allowed the inheritance of women was to accommodate the succession of Herod to Hasmonean property by means of his wife, Mariamne.12 Upper-class Jewish women in the Hellenistic era seemingly had obtained some legal 10. Cf. A. Cowley, Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra (New York: Macmillan, 1919), pp. 42-48. 11. Cf. J. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1972), pp. 299303. The Rabbis Huna and Rab are third century CE quoting the first-century R. Johanan b. Zakkai. 12. Cf. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens, pp. 304-305; V. Aptowitzer, 'Das Erbrecht der Tochter bei den Sadduzaern', HUCA 5 (1928), pp. 283-89.

MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Tar gum Job

105

improvement in status.13 But that it was not a general trend is clear from the Testament of Job which, even though it is more or less contemporaneous with the Sadducees,14 contends that women are outside the laws of inheritance. Only males could inherit (46.1), and when Job's daughters objected they were given instead three magic cords which were to lead them 'into the better world, to live in the heavens' (47.3). They made it clear, however, that they could not earn a living from the cords.15 Another three daughters are mentioned as receiving inheritance in Ps.Philo, Bib. Ant. 29.1-2, where the three daughters of the judge Kenez are given a vast inheritance. In general, Pseudo-Philo's attitude to women would seem to be very positive and this incident may be his way of preparing the ground for the very favourable treatment of the judge, Deborah. But, from the point of view of inheritance, the passage merely reiterates the ruling on the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27.16 Although the Sadducean halakah disappeared in large part within Judaism after the fall of the Temple, it is clear that some of its traditions lived on to reappear from time to time.17 This is particularly true of early Karaite law. David ben Boaz gave equality of inheritance to daughters and sons, while Daniel al-Qumisi allowed daughters a third of the estate. But this did not last and later Karaites reverted to rabbinic practice.18 It would be possible to see in this early Karaite law another model for Targum Job in allowing women to inherit with men, thus placing the date of the targum as late as the ninth century. A caveat against this, however, is the fact that Saadiah Gaon (d. 942), who quotes the targum 13. Cf. L.L. Bronner, From Eve to Esther: Rabbinic Reconstructions of Biblical Women (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), p. 7; Z. Ben-Barak, 'The Daughters of Job', in S. Ahituv and B.A. Levine (eds.), Eretz-Israel 24: Avraham Malamat Volume (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1993), pp. 41-48. 14. Cf. R.P. Spittler, The Testament of Job', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I. Apocalyptic Literature (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983), pp. 833-34. 15. It is interesting that when L. Ginzberg (The Legends of the Jews [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1920], II, p. 241) speaks of the inheritance of Job's daughters, it is from the Testament of Job that he takes his material rather than from the targum. 16. C.A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), pp. 39-41. 17. Cf. S.W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), V, pp. 25 Iff. 18. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, V, pp. 243, 402 n. 41.

106

Targumic and Cognate Studies

frequently with approval, would presumably have objected strongly if he considered it to embody Karaite law.19 5. Job as a Foreigner Another possible explanation for the presence of female inheritance in Targum Job is that the author considered Job a foreigner and therefore not bound by the Israelite laws of inheritance. The LXX had identified Job as the Edomite king, Jobab, and the Testament of Job asserted that he was 'from the sons of Esau' (1.6). There was controversy among the Rabbis as to Job's origin (cf. b. B. Bat. 15b). While a few contended that he never existed, most considered him an Israelite, but there were some who had doubts, especially among those who knew the protesting Job of the poems rather than the Job of the Prologue and Epilogue. One tradition went so far as to say that he was one of Pharaoh's counsellors and therefore an enemy of Israel.20 The tradition that Job was a Gentile was known among the Rabbis as early as tannaitic times (cf. y. Sot. 20c) and was put forward sporadically through the centuries (cf. b. Sank. 106a; Exod. R. 27.3). Laws of inheritance outside of Judaism were as prejudiced against women as those of Israel. While there were some sporadic cases of women inheriting their father's property, most systems in antiquity only allowed sons to inherit. In Egypt, for example, throughout most of its history, sons and daughters received equal inheritance. Indeed the daughter kept her inheritance even on marriage and passed it on intact to her children. Greek law, on the other hand, did not allow the inheritance of women: at Athens daughters could not inherit with sons, but again there was the obligation on brothers to provide a dowry for them.21 Macedonian law was much more liberal, as women there had a more prominent-place in society.22 Roman law, however, especially from the time of the Justinian code allowed both wife and daughters to inherit equally with sons provided they were still within the jurisdiction of the 19. S. Poznanski, writing in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1940), VII, p. 664, suggests that Saadyia made it 'one of the great tasks of his life' to combat the Karaites; other scholars are not so sure: cf. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, V, p. 275. 20. Cf. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors (Brown Judaic Studies, 47; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 131, n. 23. 21. Cf. Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, VII, pp. 299ff. 22. Cf. B. Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 10-12.

MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Tar gum Job

107

paterfamilias s at the hour of his death.23 It is tempting to think of the author of the targum writing within a Roman colony and taking on board the mores of the surrounding society.24 At a much later stage in Islam the law was that a male should inherit twice as much as a female.25 This Muslim period is certainly not reflected in the verse we are considering since the daughters would seem to do far better than the sons and, even though the wife gets only 'five hundred she-asses', it is as least equal numerically to Job's own portion. 6. Targumic Systematization At the end of this brief study on the inheritance of women in Tg. Job 1.3,1 am forced to say that none of the explanations I have considered is totally satisfactory. Maybe the truest conclusion is the simplest one: that a targumist of a mathematical bent decided to compute the MT's 'and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers' (Job 42.15) to the conveniently phrased three thousand camels for the three daughters and the seven thousand sheep for the seven sons. Combining this with the supposition that Job was a Gentile meant that there was no need to worry about his keeping the precise Jewish laws regarding inheritance. The author of the targum did not stop to think that the women were doing very well indeed out of the bargain, camels presumably being of much more value than sheep. The Wife of Job (Targum Job 2.9-1 la) Women do not seem to do well in the second text for consideration, where the wife of Job, far from being the object of Job's benevolence as she was in the earlier text, is seemingly vilified by him. There have been recent attempts to rehabilitate the wife of Job. Claudia Camp, for example, in a work on Proverbs, has suggested that Job by accusing his wife of speaking as 'one of the foolish women would speak' clearly 23. Witherington, Women and the Genesis of Christianity, pp. 310-11; R.S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 55-56. 24. For the vexed problem of dating Targum Job, cf. C. Mangan, 'Some Observations on the Dating of Targum Job', in K.J. Cathcart and J.F. Healey (eds.), Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Dermot Ryan (Dublin: Glendale Press, 1989), pp. 67-78. 25. Cf. Qw3an 4.10 for the mathematics involved in female inheritance.

108

Targumic and Cognate Studies

expected wisdom and not folly from her.26 Likewise a recent book on Job goes to great lengths to show that the retention of the wife's words to Job to 'bless God' in both the Vulgate and the targum should be taken literally and not as a euphemism for 'curse', as the MT is usually understood, and in that case shows the wife in a very favourable light indeed.27 The targumic expansion of the Hebrew text reads: His wife, Dinah, said to him: 'Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Bless the Memra o/the Lord and die,' And he said to her: 'You talk as any woman who acts shamefully from the house of her father talks. Since we accept good from beforee the Lord should we not accept evil?'28

Calling Job's wife Dinah was a commonplace in the Midrash.29 The link was made as early as the Testament of Job (cf. 1.6), where Dinah is Job's second wife, and also in Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 8.8, where she is considered the mother both of the first group of children and of the second. Rabbinic tradition spoke of Dinah as a 'gadabout'.30 This was looked on as the cause of all her troubles. For example, when commenting on the reason why Eve was created from a rib rather than from any other part of man's anatomy, the feet are rejected because of the text that 'Dinah the daughter of Leah went out' and so went to her own downfall, a downfall, however, which was also laid at the door of her father: R. Judah b. Simon commenced: Boast not thyself of to-morrow (Prov. xxvii, 1), yet you [Jacob] have said, So shall my righteousness witness for me to-morrow (Gen. xxx, 33)! Tomorrow your daughter will go out and be violated. Thus it is written AND DINAH THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH WENT OUT (Gen. R. 80.4).

This tradition would seem to be reflected in the targum by the addition of 'from the house of her father' to 2.10. Job insults his wife by implying that she was deviant even while still in her father's house. 26. C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Bible and Literature Series, 11; Columbia: Almond Press, 1985), p. 87. 27. Cf. D.J. O'Connor, Job, his Wife, his Friends and his God (Dublin: Columba Press, 1995), pp. 25ff. The retention of 'bless' in the Vulgate, while generally considered a euphemism for cursing, has from time to time been taken in a more positive light; cf. F. Kermode, The Uses of Error (London: Fontana Press, 1991), pp. 425ff. 28. Mangan, The Targum of Job, pp. 26-27. 29. Cf. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors, pp. 17-18. 30. For texts cf. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, p. 313, n. 285.

MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Tar gum Job

109

Indeed some of the midrashim would suggest that this deviancy was the very reason why Dinah had been given to the foreigner, Job. The identification of Job with the Edomite, Jobab, of Gen. 36.33 is possibly behind the link with the family of Jacob made in Ps.-Philo and the Testament of Job (cf. 1.6), but the Rabbis were not content with merely taking over the older identification of Job's wife with Dinah. They made the link by themselves by means of the word nebdlah occurring both in Job 2.10 and Gen. 34.7. They put forward various possible epochs for the date of Job, that for the time of Jacob reading: Some say that Job lived in the time of Jacob and married Dinah the daughter of Jacob. [The proof is that] it is written here [in the book of Job], thou speakest as one of the impious women [nebdldth] speaketh, and it is written in another place [in connection with Dinah], Because he had wrought folly [nebeldh] in Israel (b. B. Bat. 15b).

The downward spiral in the understanding of the Hebrew text's use of 'foolish' in relation to the wife is already apparent in the Testament of Job where Job's first wife, Sitidos, is considered as 'one of the senseless women who misguide their husband's sincerity' (26.6; cf. LXX 2.10).31 The picture of the women in the first part of the Testament of Job is basically negative.32 The doormaid and Sitidos are portrayed as agents of Satan and easily fooled by his ruses. That foolishness leads to the wife's exposure by the public shearing of her hair, thereby leaving her open to sexual shame.33 Thus there is a subtle link already in the Testament of Job between the 'foolishness' of the Hebrew text and sexual shame.34 The targum, by translating nebalah by qelana ('shame, disgrace, 31. Some MSS of the Vulgate add 'mulieribus' to 'stultis'; cf. Libri Hester et Job (Biblia Sacra, 9; Rome: Vatican Press, 1951), p. 100. 32. Cf. S.R. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex" in the Testament of Job', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 55-70; P.W. van der Horst, 'Images of Women in the Testament of Job', in M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in the Testament of Job (SNTSMS, 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 93-116. 33. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex'", pp. 61-63. 34. This link is also made by contrasting the wife's 'weakness of heart' (T. Job 25.10) with Job's own steadfastness. A woman leading a man astray by means of a wrong use of 'heart' is also a targumic addition to the text of Prov. 7.10; cf. J.F. Healey, The Targum of Proverbs (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 24. It is common in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 234.

110

Targumic and Cognate Studies

nakedness') is clearly within the same tradition and therefore not necessarily dependent on the later tradition of the Babylonian Talmud. When there is no question of a sexual context nebdldh and cognates are usually translated in the targums by words connoting wickedness such as ri&a (e.g. Tg. 2 Sam. 3.33; Tg. Isa. 32.5), Siqra (e.g. Tg. Isa. 9.16; Tg. Ezek. 13.3), qelana being usually reserved for an act of a sexual nature.35 Though it can refer to the violation of a man (Tg. Judg. 19.23), it usually refers to a woman, either as a shameful act done to a woman (e.g. Tg. Onq. Gen. 34.7; Tg. 2 Sam. 13.12) or done by a woman herself (e.g. Tg. Deut. 22.21; Tg. Hos. 2.11-12).36 Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, it has to be said that, though women's inheritance in Tg. Job 1.3 would seem to be a liberation from the patriarchal setting of the Hebrew text, it is doubtful if such a liberation was in the mind of the targumist who made the addition. It is much more likely that he was merely delighting in making the Prologue of the text fit in neatly with the Epilogue in the matter of inheritance. That his opinion of women was even more depressing than that of the Hebrew text is clear from the development at 2.10. No more than to the Testament of Job, can we look to the targum for a 'visionary precedent to feminism'.37

35. Tg. Job 42.8, where the friends have acted in folly, is an exception. Cf. C. Mangan, 'Cursing and Blessing in the Prologue or Targum Job', in forthcoming collection of papers read at the Second Targumic Conference, Cambridge, 1995. 36. qln' is used for menstrual flow in Tg. Onq. Lev. 20.17-18 thus showing the deep mistrust of womanly functions within the targumic traditions: cf. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to Numbers (The Aramaic Bible, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), pp. 43-44. 37. Cf. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex'", p. 70.

THE IMAGE OF ISRAEL ACCORDING TO TARGUM EZEKIEL Josep Ribera

1. The Spiritual Meaning of the Name 'Israel' The Hebrew expression 'the house of Israel' is normally retained in the Targum of Ezekiel. In one case it is rendered by 'children of Israel' (Tg. Ezek. 3.4) and in another one 'rebellious house' is replaced by 'rebellious people' (3.27). Likewise, the phrase 'sons of Israel' is generally retained. When the MT repeats the word 'house' ('the house of Israel', 'the rebellious house', Ezek. 12.9) Targum Ezekiel usually replaces the second word with 'people'. On a number of occasions, however, Targum Ezekiel adds to or changes the MT by inserting the expression 'the house of Israel' (Tg. Ezek. 17.4). In Tg. Ezek. 34.31 and 36.38 'man' is translated by 'the house of Israel' in order to show the unique status of Israel in relation to other peoples who are considered inferior.1 The use of these statements means that both the MT and, especially, Targum Ezekiel understand the word 'Israel' in a spiritual way, as a community that believed in the Lord and enjoyed a special relationship with him through observance of the Torah. Targum Ezekiel emphasizes more the spiritual character of Israel than the political and social by adding the syntagma 'the land of (39.9, 'the cities of the land of Israel'; 39.4, 'the mountains of the land of Israel'); this is confirmed by the use

1. The Jewish aversion to Gentiles is displayed in the statement of R. Simeon according to which the nations must be esteemed like 'beasts' (b. B. Mes. 114b); cf. L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav; Baltimore: The Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983), pp. 3-4, nn. 19-20; E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible. Contents and Context (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), p. 184. On the distinction between 'Juda' and 'Israel' in the Roman period, cf. K.G. Kuhn, 'Israel', TDNT, III, pp. 356-69.

112

Targumic and Cognate Studies

of a typical expression in the targumic version: 'the congregation of Israel' (keniSta" de-Yisrffel:16.14, 20, 32).2 2. Israel's Fidelity to their Lord As for the religious vision of Israel, Targum Ezekiel notes their disloyal behaviour: the people do not accept the Word (memra) of the Lord (Tg. Ezek. 3.7); they pay no heed to the Prophets (7.13; 20.25; 21.18);3 their deeds are comparable to those of scorpions (Tg. Ezek. 2.6),4 while they do not perform good deeds (Tg. Ezek. 13.5) and they suppose that their actions are unknown to the Lord (8.12). They are a rebellious people (2.7) with foolish hearts, who have forsaken the worship of their God (6.9). The greatest wrongdoings are, for Targum Ezekiel, the worship of idols (14.6), rendered on the heathen altars (6.4, 5), and the forsaking of the fear of the Lord (11.15), and hence the transgression of the Torah (16.61). Israel do not wish to repent of their sins (21.18; 24.6), and thus provoke the anger of the Lord (8.17). 3. The Lord Punishes his People Justly Targum Ezekiel insists on the divine will that Israel should give up idolatrous worship and return to his worship (Tg. Ezek. 18.30) in order to find instruction before him and thus reach genuine repentance (14.46).5 Targum Ezekiel insists that God always punishes justly, according to the crime committed (21.32);6 so the punishments inflicted on Israel are 2. Cf. B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 134, n. 4. 3. This attitude of contempt for or rejection of the prophets is often stressed in Tg. J.; cf. J. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias; version critica, introduccion y notas (Biblioteca Midrasica, 6; Valencia: Institucion S. Jeronimo para la Investigacion Biblica, 1988), p. 141, n. 9 and p. 241, n. 8. 4. The Aramaic root dhl means 'fear', 'worship' and 'divinity'; cf. J. Ribera, Traduccion del Targum de Jeremias (Biblioteca Midrasica, 12; Estella [Navarra]: Verbo Divino, 1992), p. 48. 5. Repentance, which in the Targum means above all the return to the worship of Yahweh (cf. Tg. Ezek. 14.6; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 126), is a basic attitude in Judaism and hence the targumic literature lays special emphasis on it; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 210, n. 513. 6. According to the well-known rabbinic sentence, 'measure for measure'; cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, p. 139, n. 7.

RlBERA The Image of Israel according to Tar gum Ezekiel

113

the result of a judicial condemnation (pui^anut, 5.8), the final retribution (7.2) made by divine decree (5.15).7 He raises up his destructive might against his people (6.14) in the time of retribution for sins (7.9, 12).8 For that reason the Lord removes his Shekinah (7.22) and does not accept the prayers of the people (8.18), whom he abandons (9.9), though not for ever (11.16).9 He delivers the land to sinners and the wicked (7.21) for its destruction (7.25) and Israel suffers the great punishment of exile (4.13; 21.18; 24.6).10 Israel still felt the lack of Torah instruction (7.26).11 Nevertheless, Targum Ezekiel insists that the divine punishment inflicted for sin leads to the spiritual and moral purification of the chosen people (23.27). 4. A Theological Reflection on Israel's History There are in the book of Ezekiel a number of summaries of varying lengths about the history of the salvation and punishment of Israel, which are often described in a metaphorical manner and are interpreted by Targum Ezekiel in a moral sense. Ch. 16 is a classic example; it tells the allegory of a young abandoned woman, who practised harlotry and was taken under the Lord's protection to become his spouse.12 Targum Ezekiel interprets it by evoking 7. Every divine word is an unappealable decision, a decree; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 134, n. 35. 8. Divine wrath is always justified in the Targum because of the wrongful behaviour of the chosen people; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 80. 9. The text mentions synagogues as a provisional substitution for the temple of Jerusalem, which is expected to return very soon; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 142. 10. Exile is accepted more as a divine punishment for the moral depravity of the people than as a result of a political or social force; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 201. The targumic interpretation of Ezek. 24.6 ('exile upon exile her people has been driven out') refers to two exiles: presumably one to Babylon in 586 BCE and the other after the Roman conquest in 70 CE. 11. The fact that Tg. Ezek. regards prophets as teachers and promotors of the Law is the reason for the rendering in this passage and in Tg. Ezek. 12.17 of 'vision' (hdzon) as 'instruction'; cf. J. Ribera: 'The Image of the Prophet in the Light of the Targum Jonathan and the Jewish Literature in the Post-Biblical Period', in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), p. 128; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 144. 12. This chapter and ch. 1 of Ezekiel caused grave difficulties for the canonization of the book; a rabbinic tradition therefore forbade their reading in the

114

Targumic and Cognate Studies

various stages of the history of Israel from antiquity, passing through the present state of distress towards a hopeful future of renewal. The subject of all these events is 'the congregation of Israel' (Tg. Ezek. 16.14, 20, 32, 34, 35). Targum Ezekiel begins its interpretation by evoking the divine revelation to Abraham, to whom the future slavery and liberation from Egypt are announced (16.3). Targum Ezekiel does not agree with MT that Abraham is an Amorite and Sarah a Hittite (vv. 3, 45). Israel, like a little child, feels banished, abandoned and oppressed by slavery (vv. 4-5). Targum Ezekiel refers to God's covenant with the Patriarchs, the sign of which is the blood of the circumcision and Passover (v. 6).13 Likewise, the liberation, prosperity and expansion of Israel—equivalent to the puberty of a virgin according to MT—depends for Targum Ezekiel on the merits of forefathers (v. 7).14 Similarly the time of love and election of the naked young girl—referring to the slavery and oppression in Egypt (v. 8)—as spouse by the Lord is understood in relation to the Sinaitic revelation, which is the culmination of the spiritual redemption from sin and the physical liberation from oppression, when Israel becomes the elected people who worship the Lord alone (vv. 8-9). According to Targum Ezekiel the embroidered garments of the bride mean the constitution of Levitical and Aaronic priesthood (v. 10). The jewels and ornaments are the precious stones of the Mosaic Law and the sanctification of Israel in the name of the Lord (v. 11). The ark of the covenant, the cloud of glory, the angel who guides the people, and the tabernacle are for Targum Ezekiel the components of the stage of the divine election of Israel, which becomes prosperous and a ruler of kingdoms; in the MT these elements (vv. 12-13) represent royal ornaments of the bride. But Israel have defiled their holiness and dignity by idolatrous worship (vv. 15-16): the Israelites have performed human sacrifices to idols (vv. 20-21), they have built heathen altars and participated in the worship of idols—this is how Targum Ezekiel understands the provocative activity of prostitution (vv. 24-25); therefore the Lord has raised the striking power of his might against the people. Israel has ignored the synagogue; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 52, n. 297. 13. Both the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael in its commentary on Exod. 12.23 and b. Ker. 9a provide the same causes in regard to the liberation from Egypt. 14. The Targum emphasizes on many occasions the saving power of the merits of the Patriarchs; cf. Ribera, Targum de Jeremias, p. 46, n. 158.

RIBERA The Image of Israel according to Targum Ezekiel

115

Torah and repentance (vv. 28-29); their behaviour is like that of the unfaithful wife, who abandons her husband and prostitutes herself (v. 32); therefore, in anger the Lord has delivered them to death (v. 38). In spite of punishments Israel did not renounce their abominations (v. 43). They had behaved like Canaanites, after the behaviour of Sodom and Gomorrah, although their ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, rejected idolatry in the midst of the heathens (v. 45). For this reason the sin of Israel becomes worse than that of Samaria and Sodom (vv. 46-47). Israel have assumed the responsibility for their guilty decisions and their abominable worship (v. 58). The Lord, then, shall take revenge on his people who have altered the covenant (v. 59)15 and who have not observed the Law (v. 61). Nevertheless in the future Yahweh shall conclude a new covenant with Israel, who shall cease to be arrogant in their words when they feel forgiven for their ignominy (v. 63).16 Chapter 19 offers, in its turn, another brief summary of the spiritual history of Israel, with the metaphor of a vine.17 The luxuriant vine, which withers and dries up (19.10-14), symbolizes prosperous Israel while they obey the Law (vv. 10-11) and their ruin and exile due to the sins of pride and the incapacity of their rulers (vv. 12-14).18 In ch. 20 there is also a brief outline of the immoral behaviour of Israel throughout their history, and the condemnation of the Lord. Targum Ezekiel enumerates the reasons for Israel's punishment in the past, the refusal to receive the prophets, to abandon idolatrous worship (20.8, 25, 28), or to heed the Word of God (memra, v. 39); rebelling against him (vv. 13, 21, 25) and his ordinances (v. 16), the observance of which is, according to Targum Ezekiel, the sure way to reach eternal 15. The targum mitigates the forthright statement of MT 'break the covenant' by using 'change the covenant' (see also Tg. Ezek. 17.18); cf. J. Ribera, 'La imatge d'Israel en el targum dels profetes',in La Paraula al servei dels homes (Barcelona: Associacio Biblica de Catalunya, 1989), p. 58; K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 14; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), p. 214, n. 34. 16. Mekilta Ba-HodeS, parasah 9 (ed. Lauterbach, II, pp. 273-74), explains that the humble man attracts the Shekinah, which moves away from the haughty one. 17. Already in Tg. Isa. there is a clear application of the allegory of the vine to Israel. Cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, pp. 78ff. See also Tg. Hos. 10.1. 18. The principle of Deuteronomic ideology that prosperity and destruction of the people are closely linked with the observance or rejection of the Torah is frequently stated in the Targum; see also Tg. Jer. 11.16; Tg. Amos. 9.1; Tg. Mich. 5.14; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 49, n. 39.

116

Targumic and Cognate Studies

lifee (vv. 11, 21). Therefore the Lord banished them (v. 25) taking revenge through a judicial sentence (vv. 36-37). Nevertheless, in the future, Israel shall recognize with regret the misdeeds they have committed (v. 43). Many historical details are added to MT of ch. 21. Targum Ezekiel distinguishes between the tribes of the South (Judah, Benjamin) and those of the North (Israel) when it deals with the exile of the kingdoms (Israel and Judah) owing to their idolatry (21.15-17).19 Then some historical particularities are indicated with mention of the proper names (the removal of the high priest Seraiah and the king Zedekiah; and the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael; vv. 31-32).20 At the same time Targum Ezekiel points out the refusal of the people to turn back from their misdeeds in spite of the persistence of the prophets; therefore they shall be exiled (v. 18) and slain by judicial punishment (vv. 19-22). Some erotic expressions from ch. 23, which are also found in ch. 16, take on a moral feature in Targum Ezekiel. The young breasts handled and pressed as well as the harlotry are symbols of the heathen worship and the wrongdoings of the earlier age of Israel.21 The wicked behaviour of the rulers of Israel is the principal subject of ch. 34, in which the MT uses the allegory of the shepherds and the herd. Targum Ezekiel explains how the rulers have abused their subjects and have thereafter abandoned them (34.2-4), emphasizing the image of a people which has strayed and been delivered to the plunderer kings (v. 8).22 From this miserable profile of the past Targum Ezekiel foresees an eschatological time when the transgressors and sinning leaders will be destroyed (vv. 10, 16). In addition, Targum Ezekiel points out that the trial shall be performed personally: the Lord will judge between sinners and transgressors (v. 17), between rich and poor (v. 20), between man and man (v. 22). Likewise the national and cultic unity in the future is emphasized: 'I set up over them one leader, who shall provide for them, 19. Tg. Zech. 11.7 also deals with these two tribal groups; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 213, nn. 23-24. 20. It seems reasonable to assume that Tg. Ezek. borrowed these historical details from the books of Kings and Jeremiah; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 194-95, nn. 180-83. 21. The Targum usually understands words and sentences with erotic meaning as idolatry; see for example, Tg. Jer. 3.8; 23.26; Tg. Nah. 3.6; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, pp. 101-102. 22. There is apparently an influence from Ezek. 34.2 on Tg. Zech. 11.7ff.; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 212, n. 16.

RlBERA The Image of Israel according to Tar gum Ezekiel

117

my servant David...he shall be their leader' (vv. 23-24) while Israel shall settle in the holy sanctuary (v. 26). They shall be liberated from the nations which oppressed them (v. 28), and they shall become an elected community over which the name of the Lord shall be called (v. 31). 5. Jerusalem is Spiritually Identified with Israel In the mind of the author of Targum Ezekiel, Jerusalem, although politically the capital of Judah, is identified with the community of Israel (Tg. Ezek. 22.24). In Jerusalem all kinds of crimes (24.12) and intrigues are carried out, among them the shedding of innocent blood (22.2; 24.8). All the social categories of the city are denounced for abusing their power: the scribes (MT prophets), priests, magistrates and prophets (these last because of their false messages, 22.25-28). The perversion of the city is such that nobody can be found to do good deeds and implore mercy for the others (13.5; 22.30).23 Jerusalem refuses to repent (24.6). For this reason God has decreed a just and punitive condemnation (24.14), therefore Jerusalem becomes a city full of dead bodies (24.5), a desolation (24.11), its people carried into exile (24.6). One of the most awful punishments is the destruction of the temple (24.25).24 6. The Congregation of Israel and Personal Responsibility Targum Ezekiel denies clearly the solidarity of the community in sin; by no means do the sons have to be punished when the fathers sin (Tg. Ezek. 18.2). Guilt falls only on the guilty (18.20), and so the judgment must be passed person by person (34.22). Among the individual sins, Targum Ezekiel explicitly mentions idolatrous worship (18.6, 15). The Lord also personally calls the wicked to return to his worship and to repentance, because he does not take pleasure in the death of those who deserve to die (18.31-32).25 23. Cf. also Tg. Isa. 63.5. 24. The destruction of the temple is not considered to be a result of a political and historical event but an inevitable punishment because of collective wickedness; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 175, and n. 2, where other quotations from the Targum regarding the same issue are found. 25. In contrast to the collective influence of the merit of Ancestors (cf. n. 14), post-biblical Judaism does not accept solidarity in sin and, consequently, in punishment; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, pp. 83, 110-11; R. Le Deaut and J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque. II. Exode et Levitique (SC, 256; Paris: Cerf, 1979), p. 165.

118

Targumic and Cognate Studies

1. The Hopeful Future for Israel Targum Ezekiel describes a future Israel who repent for the evil committed (Tg. Ezek. 20.43); they shall dwell in the land of life, in which sanctuary shall be found and their offering shall be accepted (20.40-41) and the observance of the Law, which is the fountain of eternal life, shall be fulfilled (20.11, 21).26 In ch. 36 Targum Ezekiel recounts the moral behaviour of Israel throughout history and foresees a spiritual renewal in the future. Because of the innocent blood shed and the idolatrous worship, the Israelites have been exiled, removed from the Shekinah (36.18-21).27 But the Lord shall approach them again28 and forgive their wrongdoings through the expiatory sacrifices (vv. 24-25);29 he shall change their evil heart, inspiring fear in it (v. 26; cf. 11.19; 18.31), and putting his holy spirit in it (v. 27), for Israel shall fulfil his will (v. 26; 11.19)30 and become a holy and purified people through repentance for their sins (v. 31), a people that shall be renewed and repatriated (v. 38). 26. In fact the Targum adds references to the final time of history throughout the Bible; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, pp. 222ff. The use of the phrase 'the Kingdom has been revealed' in Tg. Ezek. 7.7, 10 is noteworthy because it is typical of the Targum in referring to an eschatological era; cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, p. 132, n. 12. Likewise, the targumic paraphrase: 'the day that is about to come from before the Lord' (Tg. Ezek. 30.3) is related to the final period of the history when the kingdom of Lord shall reveal all its might and splendour; cf. J. Ribera, 'La escatologia en el targum Jonatan y su relacion con el targum palestinense', in V. Collado and V. Vilar (eds.), II Simposio Biblico Espanol (Valencia, 1987), p. 489. 27. The targum carefully adds the epithet 'innocent' (see also Tg. Nah. 3.1) in order to stress the immoral meaning of the action since not all bloodshed is evil, though murder is one of the unforgivable crimes; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 5-6, n. 30, 214, n. 541. In fact, the shedding of innocent blood and idolatrous worship are considered capital sins in rabbinic law. 28. The idea of 'bring near' in a spiritual sense in opposition to 'go away' from the Lord is frequent in the targumic literature; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 181,n. 24. 29. Related to purification by the ashes of the immolated cow according to Tg. Ezek. 34.25 (see also Tg. Zech. 13.1); cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 220, n. 2. 30. The holy spirit, according to Jewish tradition, is the vehicle by which the Lord conveys prophetic messages and inspires good deeds; cf. J. Ribera, 'La exegesis rabmica postbfblica reflejada en la version aramea de los profetas', El Olivo 13 (1981), pp. 71-73; idem, El Targum de Isaias, p. 43, n. 85.

RlBERA The Image of Israel according to Tar gum Ezekiel

119

In ch. 17 Targum Ezekiel presents a messianic vision of the kingdom of Israel. The people, who have altered the covenant of the Lord, suffer the exile to Babylon as a divine vengeance (17.20); nevertheless God will choose a descendant of David and will establish him as a mighty king on the holy mountain of the land, from which he will strengthen his kingdom (vv. 22-23); 'all the righteous shall rely upon him and all the humble shall dwell in the shade of his kingdom' (v. 23).31 In the symbolic resurrection of Israel (ch. 37), Targum Ezekiel recounts the reunification of the tribes from North and South (37.16, 19), the gathering of the scattered (v. 21) on the holy mountain under a single king, like another David (v. 24), with the beneficent presence of the Shekinah in their midst (v. 27).32 Another vision of the future is found in chs. 38-39, the protagonist of which is King Gog of Magog, who will fight against Israel, but will finally be destroyed. Targum Ezekiel identifies Gog with the Roman Empire (39.16),33 and also notes the moral reasons for the disaster and restoration in 39.28-29: 'I exiled them because they sinned before Me, and when they repented, I gathered them into their land...and never again will I remove my Shekinah from them, for I have poured out my holy spirit on the house of Israel'.34 31. Cf. also Tg. Ezek. 34.23-24. There is another targumic sentence which indicates that the eschatological future is near: 'the day that is about to come from before the Lord' (Tg. Ezek. 30.3). Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 226, n. 614. 32. While the concept of resurrection in Tg. J. is somewhat obscure in this chapter (Tg. Ezek. 37.13 can be understood in this way, following the interpretation of b. Tacan. 2a) it is interesting that the interpretation of resurrection of the dead appears in one fragment of the Palestinian Tg. to the Prophets (Tg. Ezek. 37); cf. A. Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrection (Granada: Facultad de Teologia, 1978), pp. 73-93. Similarly the fragment of Pseudo-Ezekiel from Qumran (4Q365) speaks of individual resurrection as a reward for fidelity to the covenant. Cf. F. Garcia Martinez, '^Fin del mundo o transformacion de la historia? La apocaliptica intertestamentaria', Communio 21 (1994), pp. 26-27. 33. On the targumic identification of Gog with Rome, cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, p. 213, n. 1; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 203. Tg. Ezek. 39.16 and Tg. Isa. 25.12 may refer to the downfall of Rome. Cf. P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Yale Oriental Series, 14; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), p. 28. 34. The relationship of King Gog with the messianic era is frequent in Jewish literature, not only in the Palestinian Targum but also in other rabbinic documents; cf. Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrection, pp. 127-139; M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones mesidnicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia: Institucion S. Jeronimo para la Investigation Biblica, 1981), pp. 282-86.

120

Targumic and Cognate Studies

8. Summary and Conclusions It is clear that Targum Ezekiel considers both the word 'Israel' and the syntagma 'congregation of Israel' in a religious way, on occasions representing Judah and on others Jerusalem. When Israel's past is described, their forefathers, especially such celebrated ancestors as Abraham, Sarah and Moses, are idealized. The covenant with Abraham, the signs of which are the blood of circumcision and of Passover and also the good deeds of the Patriarchs, their merits, are the main reasons which induce the Lord to liberate the people from the Egyptian slavery. The divine election and consecration of Israel culminates with the delivery of the Law to Moses. When the moral degradation of the people is described, Targum Ezekiel stresses, on the one hand, how the people reject the divine memra and the messengers of the Word of the Lord, the prophets; and on the other, Targum Ezekiel points out the depravity of the people's deeds, which is shown in a singular manner in the abandonment of the worship35 and fear of Yahweh and in the practice of idolatrous worship.36 Ignorance of the Law and its trangression complete the spiritual image of Israel given in Targum Ezekiel. The political and religious leaders of the people are considered to be mainly responsible for the immoral behaviour of the people. Nevertheless, Targum Ezekiel insists on personal responsibility for individual actions and their consequences. The Lord longs for repentance, for return to his worship and knowledge of the Law. This calling is not only collective but individual because the divine sentence is personal. But at the same time God punishes with justice. Among the punishments which Targum Ezekiel emphasizes are the removal of the beneficent presence of the Shekinah, the destruction of the land and the exile of Israel.

35. I do not share the opinion of Levine (Aramaic Version, p. 103, n. 15) that the targumic addition of the word 'worship' means that the targum tries to mitigate the Hebrew expression 'you have forgotten Me' (see Tg. Ezek. 22.12; 23.35). I think that this addition shows rather the targumic trend to specify certain Hebrew sentences which are considered too generic. 36. Idolatry is one of the most recurrent issues in targumic exegesis. Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 150-56. Precisely in Tg. Ezek. 22.4 'idols you have made' is replaced by 'your worship of your idols' to mark the moral gravity of idolatrous worship. Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 35-36, nn. 207-208.

RlBERA The Image of Israel according to Tar gum Ezekiel

121

Targum Ezekiel points to a hopeful future, when God shall draw his people to himself forgiving their sins and infusing a fearful heart and holy spirit. This people is spiritually renewed and repatriated. Sometimes this future vision is identified with the eschatological and messianic era. The Lord shall choose a descendant of David, to establish him in the centre of his land, the holy mountain, where the sanctuary of the Lord is found, as a mighty king among the nations, to be served by a righteous and humble people who will be the select community under the protection of the Shekinah and the holy spirit. In conclusion, the image which Targum Ezekiel offers of Israel is identical with that of the other prophetic targums.37 Therefore it is confirmed, on the one hand, that targumic exegesis is not a spontaneous, popular, improvised interpretation of the Bible, but a scholarly work well linked and harmoniously structured throughout; on the other hand, it is very possible that this exegesis reflects the first period of Jewish literature, which follows biblical literature, with evident references to apocalyptic and eschatological ideas; thus it appears to be situated chronologically between the second century BCE and the second century CE, that is before what is known as rabbinic literature.38

37. Cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, pp. 43-46; Targum de Jeremias, pp. 45-50; La imatge d'Israel, pp. 57-64. 38. This period includes an extensive ideological plurimorphism, in which it is difficult to speak of orthodox and heterodox trends. Hence, within the Judaism of this time, any group can be considered as a sect, in the sense of following erroneous doctrine that is not in accord with traditional teaching. Cf. G. Boccaccini, 'Middle Judaism and its Contemporary Interpreters (1986-1992): Methodological Foundations for the Study of Judaisms: 300 BCE to 200 CE', Henoch 15 (1993), pp. 207-33.

POST-PENTATEUCHAL FIGURES IN THE PENTATEUCHAL ARAMAIC TARGUMIM*

Avigdor Shinan

I

The so-called 'Palestinian' Aramaic targumim to the Pentateuch make no pretensions of presenting their listeners and readers with an exact translation—insofar as it is at all possible—of the biblical text to be translated. As a matter of fact, innumerable times these targumim go clearly beyond the bounds of the verse or the chapter being translated and are enhanced by diverse aggadic and halakhic traditions, both long and short, by words of rebuke and words of praise, slightly vulgar popular motifs as well as delicate matters of belief, explanations of issues arising from the written text or transparent hints at questions of current import. This type of aggadic and halakhic material accompanying the translation of the Pentateuch has been examined primarily around different thematic subjects, such as prayer,1 the angelic world,2 the appearance of the holy spirit,3 other forms of divine revelation,4 the law of reward and punishment.5 Such an examination serves as an excellent tool for uncovering the goals of the authors of the targumim and their methods of work, their potential audience and religio-social status, their sources and

* I wish to thank Mrs Hani Davis for translating this article from the Hebrew. 1. M. Maher, The Meturgemanim and Prayer', JJS 41 (1990), pp. 226-46. 2. A. Shinan, 'The Angelology of the "Palestinian" Targums on the Pentateuch', Sefarad433 (1983), pp. 181-98. 3. P. Schafer, 'Die Termini "Heiliger Geist" und "Geist der Prophetic" in den Targumim unddas Verhaltnis der Targumim zueinander', VT20 (1970), pp. 304-14. 4. A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tubingen: Mohr, 1986). 5. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972), pp. 120-32.

SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

123

their conceptual-spiritual world,6 as well as allowing for a comparison to be made between the world of the Targum and that of other collections of our early literature, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. This examination also helps identify unique features characterizing each and every one of the targumic texts at our disposal. In the context of these discussions, I shall examine below an issue that, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet received any serious treatment, that is, whether post-pentateuchal figures (and even post-biblical ones) are explicitly mentioned in the pentateuchal targumim. Such a phenomenon would appear to be surprising and largely unexpected, clearly going beyond the horizons of the Pentateuch, as in the following example:

Gen. 46.17:

nrnriN men mr-ai -ran men mo- TB« "m

Asher's sons: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Beriah, and their sister Serah

Tg.-Ps.J.: ~D rraTtn print* men nirnji *w\ men nsa- "itBin ^m p "73K "an-1? nrro KTT D-p ^ori apirb mam ^u t«rnr:k wyp «-n 3KT 'ova ^lop p The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and their sister Serah, who was taken to the garden (of Eden) while still alive because she had announced to Jacob that Joseph was alive. It was she who delivered the inhabitants of Abel from the judgement of death in the days of Joab.7

At this preliminary stage of our discussion it is sufficient to point out the clear reference to an event which is to take place hundreds of years later, in the Davidic period: Joab's persecution of Sheba son of Bichri in the city of Abel and the saving of the city by a 'wise woman' identified here as Serah, the daughter of Jacob (2 Sam. 20.10-23). This event is incorporated because of the mention of Serah in the genealogical list of the people going down to Egypt. Below I shall clarify the scope of this phenomenon in the targumim, and I shall identify who these post-pentateuchal figures are; I shall try and find out in what contexts they appear and what functions they served. Our discussion will centre around two complete corpora of pentateuchal Aramaic targumim of Palestine: Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. However, when necessary, I will compare 6. See my summary, The Embroidered Targum (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), pp. 104-108 (Hebrew). 7. On Serah and her image in rabbinic literature—including her entrance into Paradise alive—see J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development(Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 56-63 (Hebrew).

124

Targumic and Cognate Studies

what is found in these targumim with other targumim as well. I shall also show that this examination—which deals with an unequivocal, easily identifiable phenomenon—will also help point out the different character of these two texts regarding the mention of extra-pentateuchal figures in pentateuchal material. An examination of the modern concordances to Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 8 has shown that there is explicit or unequivocal mention in them of 26 figures from the post-pentateuchal period.9 However, we should deduct from this list three names of parents who are mentioned only as part of their children's names (i.e., Joash, who is mentioned in the combined name Gideon son of Joash, or Manoah, mentioned together with his son, Samson), and so we arrive at 23 figures—one woman10 and 22 men, judges, kings (and their court subjects) and prophets, Jews, and Gentiles—from the period of the judges until the Persian period. A total of 46 references are made to these figures in the targumim under discussion. The following is an alphabetical list of these names and where they appear in the two targumic texts: 1. 2. 3.

Agag Ahab Azariah

Num. 24.7—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Deut. 33.11—Tg.Ps.-J. see Hananiah

8. In this article I have used the following texts, translations and concordances: A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientlficas, 1968-78), with an English translation by M. McNamara (Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and M. Maher (Exodus and Deuteronomy); S.A. Kaufman and M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-In-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti i (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993); E.G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken: Ktav, 1984); M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, IB; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992); the translation of this targum on the rest of the Pentateuch is mine. 9. The list is limited to named post-pentateuchal human figures. It therefore includes neither anonymous figures (such as the 'clever woman' mentioned above), names of angels or names of post-pentateuchal nations (such as Babylon) nor eschatological figures, such as Gog (cf. n. 27). The list does not include names of figures who are supposed to have lived in the pentateuchal era, although they are not mentioned in the Pentateuch itself, such as Ishmael's wives (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21.21) or Pharaoh's magicians (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 1.17; 7.11; see also Num. 22.22). 10. Esther. But cf. n. 25.

SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures 4. 5.

Barak11 David

6.

Elijah

7. 8.

Elisha Eliphaz (Job's friend) 9. Esther 10. Ezekiel 11. Gideon (ben Yoash)

12. Hananiah 13. Isaiah 14. Jephthah 15. Joab 16. Job 17. Jonah 18. Mishael 19. Mordecai 20. Samson (ben Manoah)

21. Saul 22. Sennacherib 23. Yohanan

125

Deut. 34.2—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 29.35—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 31.14—Tg.Ps.-J. Exod. 6.18—Tg.Ps.-J. Exod. 40.10—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 30.4—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 33.11—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 34.3—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 34.3—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 36.12—Tg.Ps.-J. Exod. 17.16—Tg.Neof. Exod. 13.17—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 49.18—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Deut. 33.17—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Deut. 34.2—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 38.25—Tg.Ps.-J.,12 Tg.Neof. Deut. 32.1—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Gen. 31.21—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 34.1—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 46.17—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 36.12—Tg.Ps.-J. Exod. 9.20—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 30.13—Tg.Neof. see Hananiah Exod. 17.16—Tg.Neof. Gen. 30.6—Tg.Ps.-J. Gen. 49.17—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Gen. 49.18—Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof. Deut. 34.1—Tg.Ps.-J. Exod. 17.16—Tg.Neof. Num. 24.7—Tg.Ps.-J.,13 Tg.Neof. Num. 24.22—Tg.Ps.-J. Deut. 33.11—Tg.Ps.-J.14

11. Pseudo-Jonathan's only manuscript reads here p^3, but from the context it is clear that the text has to be emended. 12. Pseudo-Jonathan hints at Hananiah and his two friends (Mishael and Azariah [Dan. 1.6]) without mentioning their names: 'the three holy ones who will sanctify your name by going down to the furnace'. 13. Pseudo-Jonathan does not mention the name Saul but clearly refers to him. 14. The identification of this figure will be discussed below in section IV.

126

Targumic and Cognate Studies

A brief glance at this list reveals that twenty different names (mentioned altogether 32 times) appear in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and eleven names (occurring altogether 14 times) in Targum Neofiti. Only eight of the 23 names are common to both targumim (Agag, Gideon, Isaiah, Saul, Samson and Daniel's three friends: Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah); three are unique to Targum Neofiti (Esther, Mordecai and Jonah) and twelve to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In other words, the number of figures mentioned in Pseudo-Jonathan is almost twice as great as that in Neofiti and this holds true regarding their frequency (almost two and a half times) as well. This quantitative inventory regarding the relative wealth of Pseudo-Jonathan in the number of post-pentateuchal figures added to the text conforms with the picture obtained from every examination of aggadic material deriving from the two targumim at hand, and this is not surprising. Moreover, it appears that, in addition to the quantitative difference between Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti there is also a qualitative difference—yet another dimension among the distinctions being made between these two targumic texts in modern research.

n What are the verses in which the pentateuchal targumim make explicit mention of post-pentateuchal figures? It seems that we can speak generally about a few groups of verses. The most natural and largest group consists of verses found in the biblical text itself which speak about the future. In this group we should include prophecies—for example, the two last speeches of Balaam in Num. 24, in which Balaam explicitly says to Balak: 'Let me inform you of what this people will do to your people in days to come' (v. 17). The same holds true for oaths or promises that deal with the future, such as the closing verse of the war with Amalek, The Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages' (Exod. 17.16), which speaks explicitly about events to occur in future generations. To this we should add also blessings given by a father to his children before his death, such as the blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49), who tells his sons, 'I tell you what is to befall you in days to come' (v. 1), as well as blessings given by a leader to his people before leaving them, such as the blessing of Moses (Deut. 33), who counts the tribes and also speaks about what lies ahead for them. To all these we should also add stories concerning the naming of the newborn, which, according to popular biblical conception, contains

SHIN AN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

127

some sort of prophecy of the newborn's fate or even the determination of his or her future. Lastly, we must mention in this group prophetic poetry, such as the song Ha'azinu (Deut. 32), which was written as a testimony of the future: 'When I bring them into the land...then this poem shall confront them as a witness' (Deut. 31.20-21). In all of these cases, and in similar ones, the actual biblical text contains a view deviating from the pentateuchal framework, and therefore it allows or even obligates the meturgeman to mention extraneous figures and events. Gen. 49.18 is an example of this group. Gen. 49.18: I wait for your deliverance, O Lord.

'n Trip -[nDicr1?

Tg. Ps.-J.:p"pl m]a 13 pBOD m B7KY1"Q ]VJi: IT KOFI "D 3p!T 1Q« pinn rrjpma1? ^ qriprs'? ,p-no KDK ]TOfxn rnp-nsfr t^n -Don «» 1

]pTis -ppTi=n ,'n npm^i rrDO -pp-re ? ]Tf?K ,«ni«n jpTE pnipmsi ycto

When Jacob saw Gideon son of Joash, and Samson, son of Manoah, who were arising as redeemers, he said: I have not yearned for the redemption of Gideon, nor have I waited for the redemption of Samson, for their redemption is the redemption of an hour. But for your redemption I yearn and wait, O Lord, because your redemption is an eternal redemption.15

In the preceding verse (v. 17, 'Dan will be a serpent by the road', etc.), most of the targumim16 mention the judge Samson, who will kill the Philistines and their heroes as a 'snake [lurking] in my path'. The words of our short verse, 'I wait for your deliverance, O Lord', have apparently caused people to wonder why they are separated from the context in which they are found,17 and therefore they are translated—stressing the possessive suffix of the word "[fUMET^ ('your deliverance')—as 15. The same tradition appears also in Tg. Neof. (and its marginal notes), Frg. Tg. (M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980]) and various Targum Tosefta. For a theological discussion see M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 243-44. 16. Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. (and its marginal notes), Frg. Tg. and a hint in Tg. Onq (A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onqelos [Leiden: Brill, 1959]). 17. Cf. R. Syren, The Blessings in the Targums. A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1986), esp. pp. 113-15.

128

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Jacob's confession of the temporary state of redemption that Samson and Gideon will bring about;18 this is in contrast to the future divine salvation, which is the only eternal and ultimate salvation.19 It seems to me that one should consider the possibility that behind the names of Samson (and Gideon) stand historical figures from the period of the authors of the targumim—and Bar-Kosiba is at the head of the list20— and the words they put in the mouth of Jacob refer, to a large degree, to the events of their days. In any event, this large group includes half (23 out of 46) of the occurrences listed above. However, another fact is also interesting: this group includes 70 per cent of all occurrences of this phenomenon in Targum Neofiti (10 out of 14), but only 40 per cent of the occurrences in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (13 out of 32). Moreover, it appears that there is a certain misconception in listing the three companions of Daniel, mentioned in a single breath, as three separate figures, and for our purposes they should be understood as one collective figure. In this case 10 out of 12 occurrences in Neofiti, as opposed to 11 out of 30 in Pseudo-Jonathan, are included in the large group listed above, and these figures require an explanation. In Targum Neofiti most of the postpentateuchal figures appear in the anticipated contexts of prophecy (Agag, Saul), oath and promise (Esther, Mordecai and Saul), blessing (Gideon and Samson—twice each), and prophetic poetry (Isaiah). Exceptions to this rule are the three companions of Daniel, as well as Jonah the prophet, as we shall see below.

Deut.30.n-i4:rr?ra2;n ifr rfrir -o TO^ NTT a-ora ^...n^rn mson -D nnp-i o-n ~ay *TK ifr -mir -a TO^ KTF cfr "am vfr\...ih nnp-i nznn -p*7K rmp ^...±> 11 Surely, this instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. 12 It is not in the heavens, that you should say, 'who amongst us can go up to the heavens and get it for us...' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who among

18. Mentioning Gideon from the tribe of Manasseh in the targumic rendering of the blessing to the tribe of Dan is peculiar. See Maher's note in his translation of this verse. 19. For parallels in rabbinic literature and further discussion of this tradition see M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones Mesidnicas en el Targum Palestinense. Estudios exegeticos (Valencia and Jerusalem: Institution San Jeronimo, 1981), pp. 145-54. 20. See R.G. Marks, 'Dangerous Hero: Rabbinic Attitudes toward Legendary Warriors', HUCA 54 (1983), pp. 181-97.

SHIN AN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

129

us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us...' 14 No; the thing is very close to you... Tg. Neof.rpTO" "1 N"H] n^QD in p mn TfT> ItfEb wmN «7! K'ara vb

mn 'it> -Brak WTTIK trn ran na^ nnu ]B tf?i...f? nrr ncn wxb wn Tip DTW...]1? nrr pen rm nan "ipQ^ mrr H traa HIPD in f? mrf? Kn:nD ]Dnrf7 The law is not in the heavens, that one should say: 'Would that we had one like Moses the prophet who would go up to heaven and fetch it for us...' Nor is the law beyond the great sea that one should say: 'Would that we had one like Jonah the prophet who would descend into the depths of the great sea and bring up the law for us...' for the word is very near to you.

An identical tradition to v. 12 (but not to v. 13) appears also in the Fragment Targum (in both versions) while an identical tradition to v. 13 appears in the marginal notes of Targum Neofiti and probably also in MS. Vatican of the Fragment Targum.21 This tradition was dealt with extensively and accurately by Martin McNamara,22 who showed its relationship to the New Testament (Rom. 10.6-8: 'Do not say in your heart "who will ascend into heaven?"...or "who will descend into the deep'") when both the targumim and Paul understand the words D"n "Ql? bto Tnjr-n ('Who can cross to the other side of the sea') to mean actually descending to its depths. The polemical and current nature of the targumic tradition in Targum Neofiti is apparent. However, it seems that it focuses primarily on v. 12, which deals in anticipation of the arrival of one like Moses the prophet, that is, a second Moses. Both the Christians and the Samaritans built their religions to some extent on this idea, and the author of the targum wishes to annul this notion completely. Ascension to receive the Torah is a regular motif in the biblical literature connected with Moses;23 however, the reason for the introduction of the prophet Jonah in this context is not clear. There is nothing in the description of Jonah in the Bible to justify presenting him as one who went down into the sea to obtain the Torah. On the contrary, Jonah flees God and reaches the depths of the sea as punishment for his behaviour, and the fish's belly is the place where he is said to have thought about his defective behaviour. 21. The text is n31 [... ] «"D] in, but Klein is most probably right in assuming that it should be read as niPD. 22. McNamara, The New Testament, pp. 70-81. 23. E.g., Exod. 19.2, 20; 34.2; Deut. 9.9

130

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Moreover, the targum of the verse is as follows: 'Nor is the law beyond the great sea that one would say: Would that we had one like Jonah... who would descend into the depths of the great sea and bring up the law for us'. The change24 from mi na^ 121? p (= 'beyond the great sea') to mi rrDH ^IpD^ (= 'into the depth of the great sea') leads me to believe that the mention of Jonah is a secondary unorganic insertion. I would interpret it as a mechanical, automatic translation by someone who wished to make a full comparison between v. 12 (speaking about Moses' ascension to Heaven) and v. 13 (speaking, according to his understanding, about descent to the depths of the sea) while incorporating mention of the prophet Jonah (is there another biblical figure who could be mentioned in this context?) without going into the full significance of the addition. Be that as it may, barring this passage and the mention of Daniel's three companions, Targum Neofiti does not add post-pentateuchal figures—except according to the rules mentioned above—and it seems that the targumic world reflected in this text adhered to an unwritten rule to preserve the pentateuchal framework. The situation in PseudoJonathan which contains 19 more occurrences, is different. The post-pentateuchal figures mentioned only in Pseudo-Jonathan may be classified by additional subdivisions. One group containing four names surprisingly appears in genealogical lists: Job and his friend Eliphaz (Gen. 36.12), Elijah (Exod. 6.18) and Joab.25 For example: Gen. 36.12: pbo» DK ^xb TTTTI TDS p ^Xb lOfrs nnTT SJ3Tt\ Timna was a concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.

Tg.Ps.-J.: Kin pto rr isftvb rrr'n wj -a Tgfrxb wp'ra rmn laom arm man srtw Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz, he is Eliphaz the friend of Job.

It is clear that the words DTK! rrnan TS^K Kin ('he is Eliphaz the friend of Job') were inserted into the text in an unexpected place, not next to the mention of Eliphaz, but rather after the mention of Amalek. This 24. Cf. McNamara, The New Testament, p. 75. See also B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, II (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 280-81. 25. Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 46.17, as discussed above, mentions in a genealogical list also the anonymous 'clever woman' from Abel.

SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

131

addition, like the remaining additions in the genealogical lists, refreshes the otherwise dry list because of the surprising association it makes between various biblical stories and because it also diversifies the targumic text.26 A group of names which are unique to Pseudo-Jonathan appear at the beginning of the last chapter of the Pentateuch:

Deut. 34.1-3: p«n ^D fit* 'n in«Ti...i3] in ^N ZIKIQ m:ni;a rroa 'wi nupn iD-sn nKi...ntram D-ISR pa nsi ^nsi ^D n«i p i!> ufran PK "UEi i!J D-ionn TS irrr Moses went up from the steppes of Moab to Mount Nebo...and the Lord showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh...the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar.

Tg.Ps.-J.: "13 ]Tootzn pmrn iifra pi nna\..rr...'rn trum n4? "ITOI |in:i...pi3 DU parmni -^ns] mna p-o *]*» rn p cm? pi rroQ Kni'pn ]Q ibn in^« "TQ^n rm^a rn...rro]Q viv pi low ~a puiai wzr^ -TD'TI nrr?: n"i YTTI And the Word of the Lord showed him... Jephthah from Gilead... and the victories of Samson the son of Manoah from the tribe of Dan and the thousand officers from the house of Naphtali who join Barak...and the mighty deeds of Gideon the son of Joash from the tribe of Manasseh... and the exile of the disciples of the pupils of Elijah that were exiled from the valley of Jericho and the exile of the disciples of Elisha.

This tradition in the targumic world, according to which Moses saw at the end of his days not only a geographical region but also, and primarily, the history of the Jewish people up to KirKTI 0'U17Q~IN miimD ^131 fcQ"lp "HlDl (The calamity of Armalagos27 the wicked and the wars of Gog), until the advent of the ultimate redeemer, the angel Michael28

26. Maher records Tanhuma (ed. Buber, Wayera 30) as the only parallel of this tradition, but cf. also Lekah Tov, Exod. 17.8 (ed. Buber, 117). 27. On Armalagos in the targums see S.H. Levey, 'The Date of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets', VT 21 (1971), pp. 193-95; R. Le Deaut and J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque. IV. Deuteronome (SC, 271; Paris: Cerf, 1980), pp. 29899. Cf. E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible. Contents and Context (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 46, 213. 28. On Michael and his roles in the targums, cf. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum, p. 126.

132

Targumic and Cognate Studies

(v. 4), is unique to Pseudo-Jonathan.29 In this group, as we have seen, six more names appear. The remaining nine occurrences in Pseudo-Jonathan cannot be generalized. They are employed to introduce the biblical plot or to clarify it, and they appear in diverse contexts. For example Gen. 31.21: ijfran TT V3S TO ozn iron TO i3jn...ppjr) rrm And (Jacob) fled...Soon he was across the Euphrates and heading toward the hill country of Gilead. Tg. PS.-J.:DTI« iifan vmsb pio-o1? Tsa* rv mm rna rr lain ap...^i ivh: pi nrEf -ova in1? wnano Tra1? THU jam «emp rrra «an And he went30...arose and crossed the Euphrates and set his face to go up to the mountain of Gilead for he saw in the Holy Spirit that his children would experience liberation there in the days of Jephthah who was from Gilead.

It appears that this is an unparalleled aggadic tradition.31 According to the pentateuchal story, Laban caught up with Jacob on Mount Gilead after seven days (v. 23). However, the meturgeman wishes to say that it was not coincidental, and that Jacob, with the help of God, decided to flee to this place because of the mountain's uniqueness. One final example: Exod. 9.20:

^ TnpaTO!mi?TO0'3H nins "OBD 'n -QlTO»Tn

Dim Those among Pharaoh's courtiers who feared the Lord's word brought their slaves and livestock indoors to safety.

Tg. PS.-J.:

rn TOJ? n' BD ninai Tnwa 'm Karen Vm mm nr« tvra i^ "in-:

Job, who feared the Lord's word, gathered his slaves and livestock into the house.

The meturgeman avoids the anonymity of this verse32 by making an analogy between KTn in the verse and NT in Job 1.8. In the next verse which says exactly the opposite ('But those who paid no regard to the word of the Lord') Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the subject of the verse as 29. For a partial parallel cf. Sifre Deut. 157. No parallel has been found concerning the tradition about Elijah and Elisha and their disciples. 30. Pseudo-Jonathan changes 'he fled' to 'he went' in order to preserve Jacob's honour, a very common trait of the targumic world. 31. Cf. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 109, n. 15. 32. For parallels see y. Sota 5.6 (20c) and elsewhere.

SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

133

Balaam.33 Job's (and Balaam's) connections with Egypt and with the period of slavery in Egypt are mentioned often in the aggadic literature.34 It becomes clear, then, that Pseudo-Jonathan is distinct from Neofiti by virtue not only of quantity but also quality: the post-pentateuchal names appearing in it serve needs other than those of Targum Neofiti such as advancing and clarifying the biblical plot, diversifying the genealogical lists, and so on. Such a picture may be obtained from consideration of many more issues in which Pseudo-Jonathan holds fast to the common traditions of the other targumim but adds its own unique forms and thematic features. What I have tried to show in various areas35 regarding the features characterizing Pseudo-Jonathan within the Aramaic pentateuchal targumim is corroborated, in my opinion, by our present examination.

m The material compiled above raises additional questions about PseudoJonathan one of which is the absence in it of three names which appear only in Targum Neofiti: Jonah (whom I discussed and interpreted above), Esther, and Mordecai, who are mentioned in this targum only once and in the same verse: Exod. 17.16: TTT "1T1Q p^Qin 'rf? HQn^Q iT DD ^S 1* 'D TOtTl He said: Hand upon the throne of the Lord. The Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages.

Tg.Neof.:36rraip VKhs *» pm •"•p'K "OTO rnnn p nps] nirnc TOW •no- sin izrp p ^INP -irr Kin p-m woo p op-ob ~rnin robo (ntw) •pirer pm TTTBHD nm pa'aD DIJ p^a ^iQp'i p^au ira DD «mp pi m1? p'aain KTDTT n- tmzro1? nno-oa IQK 'm nno«i -DTTQ pnrr And he said: An oath has gone out from beneath the throne of the Glory of the Lord of all the world: the first king who is to arise from the tribe of Benjamin shall be Saul the son of Kish. He shall wage war on the house of Amalek and shall kill kings with rulers and Mordecai and Esther shall 33. Probably an unparalleled tradition. 34. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 7-43. 35. See my book, The Embroidered Targum. 36. A similar tradition is found in Frg. Tg, in the marginal notes of Tg. Neof. and in various Targum Toseftot. See M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, I (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), pp. 253-55. Tg. Neof. to this verse reads nKQ and I follow Diez Macho in reading nD^Q.

134

Targumic and Cognate Studies blot out what remains of them. And the Lord decreed in his word to blot out the memory of Amalek for all generations.

Tg. PS.-J.: rrr n-ra-aa «im m-p- rroTDa'm mma n-'p mis IQKI tmm pn Kofan trna tm Ttrf? jinn' -s-en p^au rraia N2"ip -ranrcafrjrrtrrm Nrroai And he said: Surely the word of the Lord swore in his seat of glory that He is his word will fight the house of Amalek and will wipe them out from three generations, from the generation of this world and from the generation of the Messiah and from the generation of the world to come.37

Here Pseudo-Jonathan clearly deviates from the common tradition of the other targumim which speak about Saul as well as Mordecai and Esther. He commands the destruction of Amalek by God only and does not rely upon mortal salvation. In this regard he follows Targum Onqelos in principle, which translates K^TH Dip ]Q Kl «TQK nimen "1DK1 P^QI? rrmn 'n mp taip mm Tnin mp' 'DTD ^i? rrnrDen Kft'?:) mo ]inm^^^: 'He said: with an oath this statement is said before the Fear who dwells on the seat of glory, that there will be a battle before the Lord against the house of Amalek, to destroy them throughout all generations'. Do we have here an inter-targumicdisagreement38 about revenge on the house of Amalek and who was commissioned to carry it out? The language of Pseudo-Jonathan, 'He in his word will fight the house of Amalek and will wipe them out', sounds as if it was meant to obviate the possibility of revenge by another, a mortal being. It seems that the choice made by the author of Pseudo-Jonathan to use this targumic method testifies to his wish to minimize—at least in this instance of the eternal enemy—the status of human heroism and to put in its place divine salvation, as if the meturgeman wished to say to the different generations that the annihilation of Amalek should be left to God himself. And it seems that because of this he did not follow the targumic method of introducing Esther, Mordecai, and Saul. This corresponds well with Pseudo-Jonathan's treatment of King Saul in another, yet similar, context: 37. On the eschatological significance of this tradition, cf. McNamara, Targum and Testament, p. 133. 38. Cf. J. Elbaum, 'R. Eleazar Hamodai and R. Joshua on the Amalek Pericope', in I. Ben-Ami and J. Dan (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Jewish Folklore presented to Dov Noy on his sixtieth Birthday (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), pp. 99-116 (Hebrew).

SHIN AN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

135

Num. 24.7: VTChfc WBm
Tg. Ps.-J.: spin "ID rr-inn IT pmi prm pnpnsi prr:±>a pro Dip' p^ai; m"n ta"p rrn pn-^a ~ft>cn n^op pino ]-QQ^3 iphBr n^niD^Q rrro 'TCMIT ^» oim j^m IIHD^Q :DN ^u ^rnrn Their king shall rise up from among them and their redeemer shall be from them and with them, and the seed of Jacob's sons will rule over great nations. The first that will reign over them will fight the house of Amalek and will rise over Agag their king, but he will have pity on him and because of that his kingdom will be taken from him.

Targum Neofiti (and Fragment Targum) speak of an ingathering of exiles and of the messiah who will be stronger than Saul, who took pity on Agag king of the Amalekites. At the beginning of the verse PseudoJonathan also speaks about the messiah, and at the end of the verse he comments on 'The first that will reign over them' (referring, of course, to Saul, but not mentioning him by name) while telling about his sin and the loss of his kingdom. Targum Neofiti therefore, understands the words irTD^Q K2?3m ('his [their] kingdom shall be exalted') as praise for the messiah while Pseudo-Jonathan interprets them as punishment for Saul. This means that the figure of Saul in this verse—according to Pseudo-Jonathan—is very negative in comparison to that presented in Neofiti and he is not even explicitly mentioned by name. Is there room to claim that the author of Pseudo-Jonathan did not perceive Saul as a figure worthy of mention and therefore ignored him in the targum of Exod. 17.16 and, on the other hand, chose to talk about his sins (without mentioning his name) in the targum of Numbers 24? This question at the present stage of research has yet to be studied, although an affirmative answer seems most probable. 39. Cf. Frg. Tg. and G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2ndedn, 1973), pp. 159-61. 40. The text should probably be DQVYn.

136

Targumic and Cognate Studies

IV It is impossible to treat our subject without also dealing with Ps.-J. Deut. 33.11, a verse that has received much treatment in targumic research.41 Deut.33.11:]TQ1p- ]Q VNJDD1 TOp D'PQ fTO rain TT ^1D1 frn 'n TT3 Bless, O Lord, his substance and favour his undertakings, smite the loins of his foes and let his enemies rise no more.

Tg. Ps.-J.: TT p-pi totBDD p 10020 pm T? n-ai TOD*: 'n -pa rrwo 3Kn&n icnn Tan ,ffuna *?apn tfaro lonea aipoi NTO irr^i

"an Km KTO pm "iwo1? 'n' t^i .rrtaip1? p'-pi top-to "3] nprnsi npa^

Bless, O Lord, the possessions of the house of Levi, who gives the tenth of the tithe. Receive with favour the offering from the hands of Elijah the priest, who is offering on Mount Carmel. Break the loins of Ahab, his adversary and the neck of the false prophets who stand against him. Let not the adversaries of Yohanan the High Priest have a foot to stand on.

It was Geiger who proposed viewing the words 'Yohanan the High Priest' as a reference to the Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus (who reigned in the years 135-104 BCE), seeing it as one of the earliest remnants of targumic literature. According to this, a harsh curse is placed on the king's enemies, although they are not explicitly identified,42 and this curse was preserved apparently in Pseudo-Jonathan a long time after the Hasmonean dynasty had waned. I am not inclined to accept this interpretation of the targum, since Pseudo-Jonathan does not usually make explicit mention of figures who are not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and this supposed exception to the rule is impossible to ignore. When the author of a targum wishes to discuss a post-pentateuchal figure or condition, he does so through a biblical figure, at times even by hinting that this figure is a pretext for another, current matter.43 We should also remember that two more 41. For a systematic and comprehensive summary of this issue see Syren, The Blessings in the Tar gums, pp. 165-78. The following translation of Pseudo-Jonathan is his. 42. The Samaritans? Members of the Dead Sea sect? Cf. Syren, The Blessings in the Targums, p. 175; J.M. Baumgarten, 'Qumran and the Halakha in the Aramaic Targumim', in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Bible Studies (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988), p. 49. 43. Very famous is Pseudo-Jonathan's treatment of Islam and Mohammed through its translation of various verses concerning Ishmael. See Shinan, The

SHIN AN Post-Pentateuchal Figures

137

biblical figures are also mentioned in the verse itself, Ahab and Elijah (cf. the story in 2 Kgs 18); the addition of a third post-pentateuchal figure does not seem probable.44 I have already suggested elsewhere45 that what we have here is nothing but an orthographical error in the reading of 'Yohanan' for 'Aaron' (the graphic similarity between the two words—priK and ]]nv—in cursive Hebrew-Aramaic writing is most apparent). Aaron, or any priest, is indeed called tO~l N3rD many times in Pseudo-Jonathan.46 It appears that the combination *7n:i ]i~D pnv in the prayer recited on Hannukah since the end of the rabbinic period47 is what led a copyist to read 'Aaron' as 'Yohanan'. And, generally, if the reference is indeed to the Hasmonean king, then it is hard to understand why they would continue to curse the enemies of a king who had lost his notoriety a long time before. This was not the case with Aaron, who is a perpetual symbol of the priestly house. Moreover, the attitude toward the Hasmonean dynasty in the traditional Jewish literature is generally negative48 and thus there is difficulty in assuming that they would continue to curse the Hasmonean enemies in the Jewish liturgical context to which some Pharisaic sages belonged. The reference 'Yohanan' in Ps.-J. Deut. 33.11 therefore appears to me to be a textual mistake and, in all honesty, should be removed from the above list. V

We set out to examine the post-pentateuchal figures mentioned in Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and we found ourselves learning not only about the methods by which these figures were incorporated into the pentateuchal targumim, but also about another difference between the two major targumic texts. Of course, the study of the Aramaic targumim will, over time, reveal additional distinctive Embroidered Targum, pp. 156-64. Cf. above, the discussion of Gen. 49.17-18. 44. On Elijah as a priest from the house of Levy see Syren, The Blessings in the Tar gums, pp. 171-73. Cf. also Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 6.18, and A. Zeron, 'The Martyrdom of Phineas-Elijah', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 99-100. 45. The Embroidered Targum, p. 195. 46. See, for example, Lev. 4.3; Num. 25.13; and Deut. 30.4. 47. Sof. 20.6 (ed. Higger, 346). 48. But cf. G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, I (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967), pp. 15-25 (Hebrew).

138

Targumic and Cognate Studies

features of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti and this will allow us to understand them as unique and special entities which, when combined, create the rich world of the Aramaic Targum. The study of this exciting world has gained momentum and growth in our generation; the contribution of Martin McNamara to this study—especially in regard to the relationship of the targumim to early Christian literature—is mentioned here with much gratitude and appreciation.

Part II ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC STUDIES

THE CURSES IN OLD ARAMAIC INSCRIPTIONS Kevin J. Cathcart

Inspired by D.R. Millers's investigation of 'the relation between the curses attached to treaties and the prophetic literature',11 have suggested further possible parallels to ancient Near Eastern curses, including treatycurses, in the biblical book of Nahum.2 The 'parallels' in the prophetic books of the Old Testament are often in the form of doom oracles and threats. Killers quite rightly points out that the Aramaic inscriptions of Sefire provide many interesting and close parallels to Old Testament literature.3 As I observed in my earlier studies, this is particularly interesting in the case of Nahum, because the city and king combination is an object of curse in both Sefire and Nahum.4 Killers also stresses the greater importance of those treaties which come from the ninth to the seventh centuries BCE.5 Since the publication of Killers's study, another important Old Aramaic inscription has been discovered, namely the Assyrian-Aramaic

1. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr, 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), p. 2. Killers refers to the earlier study by F.C. Fensham, 'Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties, and KudurmInscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75 (1963), pp. 155-75. 2. K.J. Cathcart, Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum', CBQ 35 (1973), pp. 179-87; Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr, 26; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973), pp. 67, 131, 138, 140, 149, 150. In many instances, 'treatycurse' is probably an unfortunate term. In any case, I have not confined myself to any particular kind of curse. S. Gevirtz, 'West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law', VT 11 (1961), pp. 137-58, concentrates on 'inscriptional' curses or curses protecting the inscription. 3. Treaty-Curses, p. 77. 4. Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum', p. 179. 5. Treaty-Curses, p. 77.

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

141

bilingual from Tell Fakhariyah.6 This late ninth-century inscription has a number of interesting curses which have parallels in other ancient Near Eastern texts and in the Old Testament.7 It might be useful therefore to examine further the curses in the Tell Fakhariyah inscription and in other Old Aramaic inscriptions, conveniently gathering together similar curses from other Semitic texts and the Old Testament for comparison. Of course many of the curses in the Tell Fakhariyah and Sefire inscriptions have been discussed already, to a greater or lesser extent, in earlier publications, but there is no convenient study of them in one place. Tell Fakhariyah 11-12 wzy yld Smy mnh wySym Smh hdd gbr Ihwy qblh And whoever removes my name from it and places his own name, may Hadad the Warrior be his adversary.

It seems that the Tell Fakhariyah inscription was 'composed and inscribed on the occasion of the renewal of the statue of Had-Yitci, Governor of Gozan, and its rededication to the Hadad temple of Sikanu'.8 The lines cited above contain a threat to anyone who might erase the name of Had-Yitci. The verb yld, 'removes' is from a root Iwd or /yd,9 and occurs elsewhere in the inscription (line 9, Imld; line 16, yld). It appears in a similar context in the Sefire inscriptions: I.C.I8; II.C.2, 6, 9.10 In these inscriptions, specific curses are invoked against 6. The editio princeps is A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A.R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameenne (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982). Numerous articles on the inscription have been published and many are conveniently listed in W.E. Aufrecht and G.J. Hamilton, 'The Tell Fakhariyah Bilingual Inscription: A Bibliography', Newsletter for Targumic & Cognate Studies (Sup 4; 1988). 7. Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye, pp. 75-79, have already commented on them. Cf. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse Formulae of the Tell Fekherye Inscription', RB 92 (1985), pp. 47-59.1 have not yet seen the article by F.M. Fales, 'Massimo sforzo, minima resa: maledizioni divine da Tell Fekheriye all' Antico Testamento', Annali di Ca'Foscari 21 (1982), pp. 1-12. 8. S.A. Kaufman, 'Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh', Maarav 3 (1982), p. 158. 9. Cf. D.M. Gropp and T.J. Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic Text of the Hadd-Yithci Bilingual', BASOR 259 (1985), pp. 49-50. 10. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr, 19; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967).

142

Targumic and Cognate Studies

those who order the inscriptions (spry*) or its words (mlwK) to be effaced or removed. In the tenth-century Phoenician Ahiram sarcophagus inscription, the removal of an inscription is actually invoked as a curse against leaders who uncover the coffin: why ymh sprh, 'and as for him, may his inscription be effaced!'11 In the Phoenician Kilamuwa I inscription (line 15), the verb sht is used of the smashing of an inscription, and in the Karatepe inscription (line 15), mhy is used with reference to the removal of a name, and $t for placing a name (lines 1618). Note Sefire II.C.4-5,3bd for 'destruction' of inscriptions. Another verb, yhgc, 'effaces', is used in the Aramaic Hamath-Zakir inscription, lines B.I5-18: [wkl] mn yhgc >yt 3[sr ydy] zkr mlk hm[t wl]c$ mn nsb3 znh, 'Now, whoever effaces the story [of the achievements] of Zakir, king of Hamath and Lucath, from this stele...'12 Hdd gbr, 'Hadad the Warrior', compares with yl gbr in Isa. 9.5; 10.21; Jer. 32.18. Cf. also Deut. 10.17; Ps. 24.8; Zeph. 3.17. Tell Fakhariyah 16-18 mn yld Smy mn nv'ny3 zy bt hdd mr'y mr>y hdd Ihmh wmwh 3l ylqh mn ydh wsl mr'ty Ihmh wmwh 3l tlqh mn ydh Whoever removes my name from the vessels of the temple of Hadad my lord, may Hadad my lord not accept his food and water from his hand; may Sala my lady not accept his food and water from his hand.

With Greenfield and Schaffer, I read wsl for swl, which seems to be a scribe's error.13 This emendation is followed by Gropp and Lewis: 'The syntax (Old Aramaic, not Akkadian) cries out for the conjunction'.14 Kaufman compares the curse here with Lev. 26.31, wP yryhbryh nyhhkm, 'and I will not savour your pleasing odours'.15 Perhaps more interesting is Amos 5.21-22: 'I hate, I reject your feasts and I will not 11. J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. III. Phoenician Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). Cf. also, Gevirtz, 'West-Semitic Curses', pp. 140-58. 12. J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. II. Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 10-11, 16. 13. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye', Iraq 45 (1983), p. 115. Cf. also, E. Puech, Review of Abou-Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, RE 90 (1983), p. 596. 14. 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 52. 15. 'Reflections', p. 168.

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

143

take delight (I3 3ryh) in your assemblies. Even if you offer me burnt offerings and your gift offerings, I will not accept them (I3 3rsh); and I will not look upon (I3 3byt) your offerings of fatted cattle.' Hebrew rsh has a cognate in Aramaic rqy, which occurs with the same meaning in Hadad (Zenjirli) 22, ...zbhh \v3lyrqy bh, '...his sacrifice, and may he not look favourably upon it'.16 Tell Fakhariyah 18-19 wl zr* w*l yhsd w'lp Fryn Izr^ wprys Phz mnh And may he sow but not harvest; may he sow one thousand measures, but take only a parts from it.

As several scholars have observed, the most striking parallel is in Mic. 6.15,3th tzr* wl3 tqswr, 'you will sow but not reap'.17 But note also Isa. 5.10, ky csrt smdy krm ycsw bt 3ht wzr* hmr yfsh 3yph,'For ten acres off vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield a mere ephah'; and Hag. 1.6, zr'tm hrbh whb3 mct, 'you have sown much, and harvested little'. See also the discussion of Sefire I.A.27-29 below. Greenfield and Schaffer have pointed out that Pryn = Heb. $ecartm, 'measures' (Gen. 26.12) and not secorim, 'barley'.18 Tell Fakhariyah 20-21 3

3

3

wm h s wn Ihynqn mr w^l yrwy wnfh swr Ihynqn cgl w3l yrwy wm'h nSwn Ihynqn clym w*l yrwy And may one hundred ewes suckle a lamb, but let it not be satisfied; and may one hundred cows give suck to a calf, but let it not be satisified; and may one hundred women suckle a child, but let him not be satisfied.

Sefire I.A.21-24 [ ] JPf w'l thry w$bf [mhyjnqn ym$h[n Sdyhn wjyhynqn clym w'l ySbc wSbe ssyh yhynqn cl w3l y$[bcw$bc] Swrh yhynqn fgl w'l ySbf wSbc S3n yhynqn 3mr w[3l yS]bc 16. Gibson, Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 68-69. 17. J.W. Wesselius, Review of Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye, BO 40 (1983), col. 182; Greenfield and Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse Formulae', pp. 53-54; V. Sasson, 'The Aramaic Text of the Tell Fakhariyah Assyro-Aramaic Bilingual Inscription', Z4W97 (1985), p. 100. 18. 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue', pp. I l l , 115; 'Notes on the Curse Formulae', p. 53.

144

Targumic and Cognate Studies [] a ewe, may she not conceive; and should seven [nurjses anoint their breasts and] nurse a young boy, may he not have his fill; and should seven mares suckle a colt, may it not be satis[fied; and should seven] cows give suck to a calf, may it not have its fill; and should seven ewes suckle a lamb, [may it not be satisjfied.

The editors of the Tell Fakhariyah inscription noticed immediately the very similar series of curses in the Sefire inscriptions.19 They pointed out also the interesting text in the Annals of Ashurbanipal: 'Even when the young camels, donkey foals, calves and lambs sucked seven times at the mothers who nursed them, yet they could not satiate their stomachs with milk'.20 There has been much discussion about sywn, 'ewes', in the Tell Fakhariyah text. The word has the samek spelling for t and the cognates are Ugaritic tat, pi. tut, and Egyptian Aramaic ft3.21 In the Sefir inscriptions the word appears as Ft (I.A.21) and pi. S'n (I.A.23; II.A.2). It may also appear in Panammu 6, 9 as Pt. Fitzmyer, following DupontSommer, relates these words to Hebrew seh, but this may not be right.22 Tell Fakhariyah 22 wm'h n$wn I3pn btnwr Ihm w3l ymPnh

And let one hundred women bake bread in an oven, but not fill it.

There is a striking parallel to this curse in Lev. 26.26, bSbry Ikm mth Ihm w'pw fsr nfym Ihmkm btnwr 3hd whfybw Ihmkm bmSql w*kltm wP tsbcw, 'When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven and dole out your bread by weight; though you eat, you shall not be satisfied'.23

19. Abou-Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, p. 77 (though note that the Aramaic text of the last curse is missing). 20. Streck, Assurbanipal 76.ix.65. Cf. ANET (3rd edn), p. 300. The text is cited also by Greenfield and Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse Formulae', p. 55; Gropp and Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 58. It had already been noted by Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 41. 21. The evidence (with previous bibliography) is laid out in Gropp and Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 53. 22. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 41.

23. Cf. Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye, p. 78 (though beware of the transliteration); Kaufman, 'Reflections', p. 170.

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

145

n$wn is an unusual plural form, for the normal form is nSyn. Compare s'wn in line 20. Kaufman (apud Rosenthal) notes Arabic niswan.24 Wesselius, however, prefers to regard it as an ending -fin (versus - In).25 Tell Fakhariyah 22 wmn qlqlf llqtw ^nSwh &rn Pklw And may his people scavenge barley grains to eat from the rubbish dumps.

qlqlf (probably the plural qilqilate) and its equivalent tupkinnate in the Akkadian text have been discussed extensively by Greenfield and Schaffer.26 They point out that the usual forms in Aramaic are qiqla (absolute form) and qiqilta (determined form). But a most interesting form is kiqillutu, apparently an Aramaic loan-word in Neo-Assyrian.27 In a footnote to their discussion of qlqlf,Greenfield and Schaffer make the following comment: 'The relationship of qlqlf/qlqla a and Biblical Hebrew qiqdlon "shame, infamy" is worth further consideration'.28 Now many years ago, I discussed in some detail the meaning of ki qalldta in Nah. 1.14.29 The last colon of that verse reads 3atfm qibrekd ki qalldta, which the NRSV renders, 'I will make your grave, for you are worthless', and the JPSV, 'I will make your grave accord with your worthlessness'. In my earlier study I followed some critics in repointing MT >dsim to ^aSSim (hiph. imperf. of $mm), 'I will devastate'. I translated ki qalldta literally: 'because you are worthless'. G.R. Driver, on the other hand, proposed long ago the existence of a noun qlyt, which he described as an 'abstract with semi-concrete meaning'.30 He rendered the whole line as follows: 'I will make thy grave as (a thing of) shame'. Other commentators have suggested a reading qdlon, 'dishonour, shameful thing', omitting ki as due to dittography,31 or qiqdlon with 24. 'Reflections', p. 169. 25. Review of Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, col. 182. 26. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Qlqlf, Tubkinnu, Refuse Tips and Treasure Trove', Anatolian Studies 33 (1983), pp. 123-29. 27. 'Qlqlf, Tubkinnu', pp. 124-25; 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue', p. 116. 28. 'Qlqlt3, Tubkinnu', p. 124, n. 7. Biblical Hebrew qiqalon is found only in Hab. 2.16. 29. Nahum, p. 67. 30. 'Linguistic and Textual Problems. Minor Prophets. IF, JTS 39 (1938), p. 270. 31. J.M.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books ofMicah,

146

Targumic and Cognate Studies

similar meaning.32 But the most attractive reading is that found in the apparatus of BHS: qiqalot, 'dung-heap', a proposal going back to G. Bickell33 at the end of the last century, and adopted by H. Gunkel.34 Thus in Nah. 1.14 it seems better to read >asim qibreka qiqalot, 'I will make your grave a refuse dump'.35 In the treaty of Ashurnerari V with Mati'ilu of Arpad, rev. IV. 16, we find the following curse: ina tubkinni lu mayalSunu, 'may their sleeping place be in a dung-heap' (so S. Parpola36) or 'may their sleeping place be on a refuse dump' (Greenfield and Schaffer37). Of course, it would be pressing the evidence too far to propose a reading kiqallot on the basis of the Aramaic loan kiqillutu in Neo-Assyrian, mentioned above. The mention of Sinfka, 'your name', and qibreka, 'your grave', in Nah. 1.14 supports the restoration of Sefire II.A.4-5, proposed by Dupont-Sommer and followed by Fitzmyer: [...w^mh y]tn$y wyhwh qb[rh...], '[...and may his name be for]gotten, and may [his gravje be...'38 The meaning of Aramaic Iqt, 'scavenge', in this Tell Fakhariyah curse is similar to that of Hebrew Iqt in Judg. 1.17, where it is used of picking up scraps of fallen food.

Zephaniah, and Nahum (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 328, following Wellhausen and others. 32. Cf. BHS; K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwolf kleinen Propheten (ATD, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th edn, 1967), II, p. 8; A. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophetes (Paris: Gabalda, 1908), p. 430. 33. Beitrage zur semitische Metrik I. Das alphabetische Lied in Nahum 1,2-2,3 (Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 5; Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894). 34. H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), p. 103. 35. K.J. Cathcart, 'Nahum, Book of, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), IV, p. 998. 36. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria, 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), p. 11. 37. 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual', p. 116. 38. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 80-81, 85-86; Cathcart, Treaty-Curses', pp. 180-81.

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

147

Tell Fakhariyah 23 wmwtn Sbt zy nyrgl 3l ygtzr mn mth And may pestilence, plague of Nergal, not be cut off from his land.

The Aramaic text does not correspond to the Akkadian (lines 37-38): di}u $ibtu di

pte ina mdtiSu Id ipparrasu, 'May malaria, plague and sleeplessness not be removed from his land'. Aramaic mwtn is not a translation of di>u, for Akkadian mutanu is usually associated with dPu, Sibtu and diliptu in curses.39 Nergal is the god of pestilence. In Esarhaddon's succession treaty, lines 455-56, Nergal sends pestilence (mutanu) and in Esarhaddon's accession treaty, rev. 26-27', Nergal destroys through plague and pestilence (ina $ibti u mutant).40 Sefire I.A.26-27 wysk cl 3rpd [}bny b]rd and may he (Hadad) shower upon Arpad hail [stones].

In Josh. 10.11 it is reported that the Amorites were routed when 'the Lord hurled huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones ( (frbny hbrd) than the Israelites killed with the sword' (cf. Isa. 30.30). It is on the basis of these texts that the words [>bny b]rd have been restored by Dupont-Sommer, followed by Fitzmyer41 and Gibson.42 Sefire I.A.27 wSbf Snn y>kl >rbh wSbf Snn fkl twlch For seven years may the locust devour (Arpad) and for seven years may the worm eat.

Very similar curses are found in Esarhaddon's succession treaty: line 443, 'May the locust who diminishes the land devour your harvest'; lines 599-600, 'May they (the gods) cause locusts...lice, caterpillars and other field pests to devour your towns, your land and your district'.43 In 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

Cf. Gropp and Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 54. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 23, 48. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 14-15, 46. Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 30-31, 39. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 46, 55.

148

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Exod. 10.4-5 and Ps. 105.32-34, there is the same sequence of hail and locusts,44 and in the curses of Deut. 28.38-39 there is a sequence of locust and worm. Sefire Aramaic twlch and Biblical Hebrew twlft(the form found in Deut. 28.39 and Jon. 4.7) /twlfhhave a cognate in Akkadian tiiltu, which occurs in Esarhaddon's succession treaty: line 570, ki...tultu takuluni, 'as a worm eats'.45 Sefire IA.29 w>l yt$mc ql knr b3rpd wbcmh

May the sound of the lyre not be heard in Arpad and among its people.46

This curse is classified by Killers as an example of the 'Removal of Joyful Sounds' type.47 There is a striking parallel in Ezek. 26.13, wqwl knwryk P ySmf cwd, 'The sound of your lyres will not be heard again'. I have pointed out a linguistically similar text in Nah. 2.14, wP y$mf cwd qwl mPkyk (MT mPkkh), 'And the voice of your messengers will not be heard again'.48 The NEB has 'and the sound of your feeding shall no more be heard'. It follows the suggestion of G.R. Driver to read ma^kdlek, 'your feeding'.49 Quite rightly, the REB has 'your envoys'. Sefire I.A.30-33 wySlhn 3lhn mn kl mh 3kl b3rpd wbcmh [fklp]m hwh wpm cqrb wpm dbhh wpm nmrh wss wqmlw3[...yhww]clhqq btn [ySJtht lySmn3hwhwthwy 3rpd tl l[rbq sy wjsby \v$cl w3rnb w$rn wsdh \v...v/qhw3l t3mr qr[yt3 h3...] May the gods send every sort of devourer against Arpad and its people! [May the mo]uth of a snake [eat], the mouth of a scorpion, the mouth of a bear, the mouth of a panther! And may a moth and a louse and a [.. .become] to it a serpent's throat! May its vegetation be destroyed unto desolation! And may Arpad become a mound to [house the desert animal]; the gazelle and the fox and the hare and the wild cat and the owl and the [ ] and the magpie! May [this] ci[ty] not be mentioned (again)...50 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Cf. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 46. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 53. Contra Fitzmyer, b3rpd and wbfmh are linked together, as in line 30. Treaty-Curses, pp. 57-58. Cf. Fensham, 'Common Trends', pp. 171-72. Cathcart, Nahum, p. 110; Treaty-Curses', p. 183. 'Linguistic and Textual Problems', p. 271. Parts of these lines are difficult, but I have followed Fitzmyer whose text and

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

149

The curse of devouring animals is dealt with extensively by Hillers.51 For general biblical parallels, cf. Lev. 26.22; Deut. 32.24. In his comment on hwh, 'snake', Fitzmyer notes the pertinent text in Jer. 8.17.521 have recently discussed the serpent as an 'agent of the Lord' in Amos 9.14_53

There are particularly interesting biblical parallels which mention the various animals referred to in the Sefire text. Note especially Isa. 51.8; Jer. 5.6; Hos. 5.12; 13.7-8. The sequence >ryh...nmr, 'lion...panther', in Jer. 5.6 matches that in the fragmentary Sefire II.A.9, [wy3kl] pm 3ryh wpm [...]. wpm nmrfh]..., '[...and may] the mouth of a lion [eat] and the mouth of [a...] and the mouth of a panther'.54 The curse of a place becoming a desolation and a dwelling place for animals is examined at length by Hillers.55 He lists the following biblical texts: Mic. 3.12 (cf. Jer. 26.18) (Jerusalem); Isa. 13.19-22 (Babylon); 34.11-17 (Edom-Bozrah); Jer. 50.39-40 (Babylon); Zeph. 2.13-15 (Assyria-Nineveh). Sefire I.A. 35-36 >yk zy tqd Pwf z3 b>$ kn tqd 3rpd w[bnth r]bt Just as this wax is burned by fire, so may Arpad be burned and [her gr]eat [daughter-cities]!

Fitzmyer56 points out the partial parallel in Ps. 68.3, khms dwng mpny yS y3bdw r$cym mpny 3lhym, 'as wax melts before the fire, so may the wicked perish before God'. For the burning of an 'image of wax' (salmu i$kuri), see Esarhaddon's succession treaty, line 60S.57 Biblical parallels to the burning of cities in a 'curse' context include Hos. 8.14; Amos 1.4, 7 etc.; Nah. 3.13, 15.

translation are given here. Cf. Gibson, Textbook...Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 40-41, for criticism of some of Fitzmyer's proposals. 51. Treaty-Curses, pp. 54-56. 52. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 48. 53. K.J. Cathcart, 'rotf, 'poison', in Amos ix, I', VT44 (1994), pp. 393-96. 54. Cf. Hillers, Treaty-Curses, p. 55. 55. Treaty-Curses, pp. 44-54. 56. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 53. 57. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 55.

150

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Sefire I.A.36 wzr* bhn hdd mlh wShlyn w>l y3mr

May Hadad sow in them salt and cress, and may it not be mentioned again.

The sowing or spreading of salt as a curse has been examined by Fensham, 58 and is discussed further by Fitzmyer.59 They note the following biblical references: Deut. 29.22; Judg. 9.45; Jer. 17.6; Zeph. 2.9; Job 39.6. The combination of salt and cress is found in a passage in the Annals of Ashurbanipal: 'I laid waste the districts of Elam, I scattered salt and cress over them'.60 In Zeph. 2.9, Moab and Ammon are to be 'possessed by wild vetchling (hrwl) and salt pits (mkrh mlh) and be a waste forever'.61 At Hos. 9.6, we read 'Precious is their silver; nettles shall possess them [i.e. Israel], thorns their tents'. Now the targum of this verse is rather interesting: 'In their houses of precious silver nettles shall lodge, wild vetchling in their castles'.62 In targumic manuscripts, this verse has the word htwlyn, 'cats', which is a rather strange translation of MT hwh, 'thorns, thorny shrubs'. Jastrow suggests emendation to hnvlyn, which he renders 'thorns',63 but 'wild vetchling' might be a better translation. Sefire I.A.38-39 vfyk zy tSbr q$t3 whsy* }ln kn ySbr >nrt whdd [qStmf}l] wqSt rbwh

Just as (this) bow and these arrows are broken, so may Inurta and Hadad break [the bow of MatT'el] and the bow of his nobles.

Compare Hos. 1.5, wSbrty >t q$t ysrt, 'I will break the bow of Israel'; Jer. 49.35, hnny $br 3t q$t fylm,'I am going to break the bow of Elam'. In Esarhaddon's treaty with Baal, king of Tyre, rev.iv.18, there is a

58. F.C. Fensham, 'Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East', BA 25 (1962), pp. 48-50. 59. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire,p. 53. 60. Streck, Assurbanipal, 56.vi.79. Cf. CAD (S), p. 64. 61. Hebrew hrwl is probably a cognate of Akkadian halluru, 'chick-peas'. 62. Cf. K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 14; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), p. 48. 63. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 512.

CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions

151

curse which reads 'May Astarte break your bow in the thick of battle',64 and there is reference to bow and arrows being struck by God in Ezek. 39.3. Killers describes this type of curse as that of 'breaking weapons'.65 Sefire I.A.39-40 c

[w'yk zy] ygzr gP znh kn ygzr mf^l wygzrn rbwh [Just as] this calf is cut in two, so may Mali' el be cut in two, and may his nobles be cut in two!

The ritual cutting up of an animal in a treaty or covenant-making setting is well known from Gen. 15.9-18 and Jer. 34.18. Fitzmyer also draws attention to the dismemberment of a spring lamb in the treaty of Ashurnerari V with Mati'-ilu, king of Arpad, I,10-29.66 The significance of these rites is discussed by Dennis J. McCarthy.67 Sefire I.A.40-41 c

[w>yk zy frr z]n[yh] kn y rrn nSy m/°/ wnSy cqrh wn$y r[bwh [And just as a pros]ti[tute is stripped naked], so may the wives of Mati'el be stripped naked, and the wives of his offspring and the wives of [his] no[bles!]

This text has been restored by Hillers, who cites Jer. 13.26-27; Ezek. 16.37-38; 23.10, 29; Hos. 2.5, 12; Nah. 3.5 as parallels to a curse concerned with the punishment of a prostitute by stripping. Nah. 3.5 is a particularly good parallel: wglyty Swlyk cl pnyk whr>yty gwym mcrk wmmlkwt qlwnk, 'And I am going to lift up your skirts over your face, and I will show the nations your nakedness, and the kingdoms your shame'.68 Gibson prefers to read znh for znyh and translates as follows: 'this thing [is stripped naked]'.69

64. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 27. 65. Treaty-Curses, p. 60. 66. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 8-9. 67. Treaty and Covenant (AnBib, 21A; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), pp. 91-95. 68. Cathcart, Nahum, pp. 117, 130-31; 'Treaty-Curses', pp. 183-84. 69. Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 33, 42.

152

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Sefire I.C.21-25 yhpkw 3lhn 3s[3 h]3 wbyth wkl zy [b]h wySmw thtyth [lc]lyth w3! yrtSfy l]h m

May the gods overturn th[at m]an and his house and all that (is) in it; and may they make its lower part its upper part! May he inherit no name!

This curse is invoked against anyone who would not observe the obligations set out in the inscription on the stele or would dare to efface its words or upset the treaty. At the end of the passage, the words 'May he inherit no name' are based on F. Rosenthal's reading yrtSfy l]h, a Gt form of yrL10 Fitzmyer has w3l yrt SrfSJhh 3$m, 'May his scio[n] inherit no name!'71 The verb hpk, 'overturn', is found in a curse in the Phoenician Ahiram inscription, line 2: thtpk ks3 mlkh, 'May his royal throne be overturned'. Fitzmyer points out that in Sefire I.C.19, hpk is used metaphorically of upsetting good relations, and in Deut. 23.6 the same verb is used of changing a curse into a blessing.72 Hadad (Zenjirli) 24 wSnh lmnf mnh blyl3

May he (Hadad) withhold sleep from him in the night.

Denial of sleep is found in a curse in Esarhaddon's succession treaty, lines 637-40: 'Just as the noise of (these) doves is persistent, so may you, your women, your sons and your daughters have no rest or sleep and may your bones never come together!73 'Sleeplessness' is mentioned in lines 418 and 487 of the same treaty. It is a pleasure to dedicate this survey of the curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions, which I hope will give a fair impression of their importance, to Martin McNamara, a friend for many years.

70. 71. 72. 73.

ANET(3rdedn), p. 600. Cf. Kaufman, 'Reflections', p. 173. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 21, 77. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire,p. 76. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 57.

OUR TRANSLATED TOBIT* Edward M. Cook

The title above will, I hope, recall for many C.C. Torrey's Our Translated Gospels (1936).l Torrey believed that the gospels were translations of early Aramaic originals. But when he wrote, there were few if any examples of Aramaic texts that had been translated into Greek and so he had to rely on his own Aramaic back-translations for his conclusions—a procedure with obvious risks. His method presupposed that certain difficulties must have attended the transition from Aramaic to Greek, and that often these difficulties produced a garbled Greek text that only made sense when the original was reconstructed. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls gave New Testament scholars a fairly large corpus of original Hebrew and Aramaic texts from the first centuries BCE and CE by which one could test some of Torrey's hypotheses. Most notably, they gave Torrey a belated victory over his antagonist Edgar Goodspeed, who had claimed that 'in the days of Jesus the Jews of Palestine were not engaged in writing books'.2 Some of Torrey's other assumptions were proved wrong. He believed that scriptio continua, writing words without a space, was responsible for some translation errors in the Greek gospels.3 The Qumran texts show that scriptio continua was not customary in Hebrew or Aramaic at the turn of the era. More seriously, the scrolls suggest that Hebrew was at least as * This essay is offered with gratitude to Martin McNamara, who has done so much to place Aramaic studies on the agenda of New Testament scholarship. 1. C.C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1936). 2. E.J. Goodspeed, 'The Original Language of the Gospels', in T.S. Kepler (ed.), Contemporary Thinking about Jesus: An Anthology y (New York: AbingdonCokesbury, 1944), p. 59. 3. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 2, 139, 162, etc.

154

Targumic and Cognate Studies

important as Aramaic as a literary language, perhaps more so. Although Torrey was perfectly justified in positing original Aramaic gospels in view of the evidence available to him, the new evidence requires us to consider the possibility of original Hebrew gospels as well. Some of Torrey's retrojections better fit a Hebrew original in any case. For example, he thought that Lk. 8.14 Ttope-oojievoi croiircviyovTCu (RSV: 'as they go on their way they are choked') concealed the Aramaic original "ppTin^! j^TN, 'they are gradually choked'.4 Although this modal use of ^R is known from Syriac and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of a later period, it is as yet unattested in Qumran Aramaic. The modal use of "[^n, however, would have been familiar from Biblical Hebrew and is attested in free composition at Qumran (e.g., 4Q306, fr. 1.13 [np"im HD'pin rrnnn).5 Torrey devoted most of his attention to finding mistranslations of an Aramaic original gospel. He believed that the Greek translators could err by choosing a wrong (though possible) equivalent of an Aramaic word, dividing sentences wrongly, taking a question for a declaration, incorrectly vocalizing the text, confusing Kin with Kin, and, rarely, relying on an already corrupted Aramaic text.6 R.M. Grant pointed out that this procedure depended on the translation being ungrammatical or, if grammatical, nonsensical; otherwise the mistranslation could not be detected. Furthermore he observed that Aramaists 'have a tendency to disagree as to what the original was'.7 For this reason many since Torrey have concentrated on identifying Semitic interference in New Testament Greek instead of hunting for mistranslations. That is where the Qumran text of Tobit comes in. The five witnesses to the Tobit text from Cave 4 (four Aramaic, one Hebrew), though fragmentary, allow us to check the accuracy of translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew) to Greek. The availability of the original (or close to it) helps to overcome one of the difficulties Grant noted. Comparing Aramaic Tobit to Greek Tobit may provide a useful case study in identifying both 4. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, p. 27. 5. C.F.D. Moule also suggested that Lk. 8.14 is a Hebraism: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1963), p. 209. 6. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 3 (wrong equivalent), 5 (wrong division), 84 (question), 91 (vocalizing), 115 (confusion), 125 (corruption). 7. R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Touchstone edition; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), p. 41.

COOK Our Translated Tobit

155

possible mistranslations and Semitic interference in Biblical Greek. Greek Tobit exists in three recensions. The short recension (I) is represented in Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and many uncials. The long recension (II) is found in Codex Sinaiticus. The 'third recension', mediating between the first two, is found in two uncials and part of the Peshitta.8 Qumran Tobit in general (but not exclusively) agrees with the long recension. Qumran Tobit exists in four principal manuscripts: 4Q196-198 (Aramaic, herein A-C; 199 is too fragmentary to be used) and 4Q200 (Hebrew). Only a small portion of the total text is covered and the placement of some fragments is still uncertain. Part of 4Q196 has recently been published by J.A. Fitzmyer and by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise. A complete transliteration has been published by Klaus Beyer.9 I assume for heuristic purposes that Aramaic Tobit as we have it from Cave 4 is essentially the same as the source text of the Greek versions. This assumption needs some defense, since Beyer claims that Aramaic Tobit was translated from Hebrew Tobit, and that Greek Tobit was translated directly from Hebrew Tobit.10 His argument rests on two foundations: the presence of Hebrew words in the Aramaic text and Greek mistranslations of an apparent Hebrew source text. As for the first point, Qumran Aramaic liberally borrowed Hebrew words and used them in free composition;11 furthermore, Hebrew Tobit contains Aramaic words, as Beyer notes (e.g., HDD, pn, -ss, nnt?, nmntfn). His second argument is no more convincing. Beyer suggests that the 8. R. Hanhart discusses the witnesses to Greek Tobit in Tobit (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientarum Gottingensis editum VIII, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 7-36. 9. J.A. Fitzmyer, 'Preliminary Publication of pap4QToba ar, Fragment 2', Bib 75 (1994), pp. 220-24; R. Eisenman and M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury: Element, 1992), pp. 97-99; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Ergdnzungsband (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), pp. 134-47. 10. Ergdnzungsband, pp. 134-35. 11. See S. Fassberg, 'Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran', in T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-Nahrain, Sup 3; Louvain: Peeters, 1992), pp. 48-69. Of the five Hebraisms Beyer identifies—^'^ 'idol' (14.6), -n-lK 'cursed' (13.4), ]'^nn 'psalms' (13.10), top 'call' (5.9), and nnDKJQ 'family' (1.22)—N~)p is a normal Aramaic word, while nriDtDQ is used in free composition in the Aramaic Testament ofLevi (Bodleian MS, B 16).

156

Targumic and Cognate Studies

translator misunderstood Hebrew 'P'QOI 'and (she) bore (you in the womb)' (4Q200, 4.4) as JTD01', producing the Greek ecopocicev, 'she saw'. But the Greek is not a good translation of ^DO1"; an aorist is a poor choice to translate an imperfect, and the root ^DD in the Hiphil does not mean 'to see'. Beyer has failed to understand the nuances of the root *730. The Greek text reads Kiv8\>voi)<; noAAaix; ecbpaicev enl aoi ev TTI KoiX(a ainfjq, 'many risks she beheld [= experienced] for you in her womb' and the Hebrew iTtfQQ riDDIR ^"QOI, 'and (she) bore you in her womb'. The root ^30, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, can mean not only 'to bear, carry' but also 'to suffer, endure'. An original Aramaic text such as rPDQD ~p n^3D could be understood either as 'she bore you in her womb' (as the Hebrew translates) or 'she suffere^ for you in her womb' (as the Greek has it, more paraphrastically). There is no need to postulate a Hebrew original. His other clue is also weak: Hebrew ""Ull 'rejoice' (13.13, restored) misread as "nm, 'run' (Gk. 7topet>0r|Ti [II]). pi, of course, is a good Aramaic word; if the translator read *p~l in its place, it only means he 'saw' a Hebrew word where he expected an Aramaic one. However, 7iopei>ou.(xi is not a very apt translation for j"n. It is more likely that here we have a different source text: TIQ& "O^ if Hebrew, HFI TIN if Aramaic, producing rcopeuOrjti KOC! ccyaAAiocaou (II).12 In short, it is still not proven that Hebrew Tobit was the source text of the Greek.13 It should also be borne in mind that Aramaic Tobit has a history both before and after Cave 4, so that when the Greek offers a different text it may be using an earlier or later version of the Aramaic. The Greek texts also have histories, and may have inner-Greek changes that move the text away from its Aramaic source. Still, as noted before, Aramaic Tobit is, by and large, very close to the source text of the second recension (although the other two Greek recensions also preserve what can now 12. Another possibility is that Aramaic "^m "in, which is actually attested (B 13.13), was understood as "Wai "in, which the translator paraphrased as best he could. 13. Wise has also suggested that Hebrew Tobit was original, noting the 'tendency to use the infinitive absolute in place of finite verbal forms. Such usage is surprising if this text is translation Hebrew, not least because one rarely encounters the infinitive absolute at all in Qumran Hebrew' ('A Note on 4Q196 [papTob Ar3] and Tobit I 22', VT 43 [1993], p. 569 n.4). But if the liberal use of the infinitive absolute is otherwise absent in free Hebrew composition at Qumran, then its use in Tobit indicates that it is not freely composed Hebrew, but a translation—perhaps an effort to duplicate the nuance of the narrative participle in Aramaic.

COOK Our Translated Tobit

157

be recognized as original readings). Hence it can be used for the exploratory purposes of this initial inquiry. Only a few topics can be handled here, for reasons of space. A thorough treatment would deal with all of the grammatical phenomena of the Greek and Aramaic texts, including how the Greek deals with the Aramaic tenses, word order, and other syntactic features, as well as presenting thorough collations of all the relevant witnesses to the Greek text. The questions taken up here, however, may shed some light on Aramaic approaches to the gospels. 1. Translation of the Particle "H Greek Tobit shows few signs of misunderstanding the Aramaic particle H. It is used in Qumran Tobit as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Genitive marker: mr] "1 «T2J, 'the wall of Nineveh' (A, 1.17), Gk. xeixovq Niveuri (I, II); ]S H "D1, 'a ram of the flock' (B, 7.9), Gk. Kpiov 7cpo(3dTcov (I), Kpiov eK 7cpo(3aTcov (II). Relative pronoun: [n]]HT H |in« n^ 1[3 vb] (A, 3.15), 'he has no other child to inherit him', Gk. o\)% -urcdpxei amcp eiepov TEKVOV ivoc KA/npovouriar| a\)iov (II); ^flD]<> n] D mrD ptf "1 (A, 7.3), 'from the children of Naphtali that are in captivity in Nineveh', Gk. EK TCOV vicov Neq>0aA,ei|j. r|U£iq (I om.), icbv aix|ia?icotio0£VTCov ev Nwe\)T) (II). Conjunction: [pn1? n~l]3p H3« '[!]..."inn (A, 1.19), 'he told...that I buried them', Gk. on eycb GaTixco a\)TO\)<; (II); ~|3Q n^DD1? ^1^1 ^ID" ^ H n]« UTl (B, 6.13), 'I know that Reuel will not be able to withhold her from you', Gk. eTiiaiafiai oti o\) \nr\ 8-uvT|0Ti 'PayoDTiX Kco?ix>aat a\)TTiv (XTco oov (II); etc. Introducing direct discourse: rft «]0]« ]^T "1 H^ pOKI (B, 7.4), 'they said to her, We know him', Gk. mi ei?iav a\)ifi rivcboKo^ev fmeiq avtov (II); «1H ^3« n n-D[1CD] "ID[»1] (B, 7.5), 'and Tobias said, He is my father', Gk. mi eircev Tco(3{a<; '0 Tiaxrip jio-u eaxw (II; I om. 6).

There is one example where the translator might have misunderstood the Aramaic H: [...KrON "p DDQ^] fipa H ~[in« m[pD HIDI «*7n] (A, 6.16). The Greek reads o\) iieiivrjoai Tat; evioXac; TOV Tiaipoq ao\), on eveteiXato aoi Xotpeiv 7\)vaiKa...(II), 'do you not remember the commands of your father, that he commanded you to take a wife...'

158

Targumic and Cognate Studies

That is one possible way of understanding the Aramaic; it is more natural, however, to understand it to mean 'the commandments of your father which he commanded you, viz., to take a wife...', that is, "H here is a relative pronoun, with 'commands' as antecedent. The I text translates accordingly: icov A,6ycov, (bv evexeiAmo aoi 6 rcairip aoi). To judge from these examples the Greek translators of Tobit had no unusual difficulty in translating Aramaic H. 2. Translation of 1 Torrey theorized that certain uses of Aramaic 'and' might have confused the Greek translators.14 The uses of Aramaic (and Semitic) 1 are indeed manifold, but they also overlap considerably with the uses of Greek ml. Aramaic 1 is used in Qumran Tobit as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Simple conjunction: "-Q milCD! TTTUK npn] (A 1.20), 'Hannah my wife and Tobias my son', Gk. (TC^TJV) "Avva<; ifjq yovaiKO<; ux)t> mi Tcopia TO\) inou HOD (I, II); ''OKI "QN (A 6.15), 'my father and my mother', Gk. TOU mipoc; uou mi ir\q ur|Tp6<; urn) (I, II); 'Um "Hn (A 13.13), 'rejoice and be glad', Gk. xdpr|0i Koci dyaAAiaaai (I); etc. Consecutive: nm^ ]13K ^sm (B 7.1), 'then he brought them into his house', Gk. Kai ifyayev autoix; ei<; TOV OIKOV a\)io\) (II); npltfl n^m (A 1.19), 'I was afraid and fled', Gk. e(po|3T|0r|v Kai djreSpaoa (II); cpopriOeiq dvexcopriaa (I); ^[Dtx \)7tdpxei avtw TeKvov...o\)8e aSeXtpoi; a\)T^> eyyix; (II). Epexegetical: n*7 "in^l mps (C 14.3), 'he commanded him and said to him', Gk. eveieiXaio a\)ica Xeycov (II); ]13« D^KEi Jin1? n*lQ«1 K]1^ (B 7.3), 'Edna asked them and said to them', Gk. fipcoiriaev avioix; "E8va Kai eiTcev a\)ioi<; (II). Purpose: [nn]]*^ ~p nnom n3Q'p]...^Q3 (B 6.13), 'we will speak... we will raise her up(?) so that you may take her to yourself as wife'. The Greek (II) differs from the Aramaic. The Aramaic phrase occurs twice, once at the beginning, once at

14. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 64-73.

COOK Our Translated Tobit

159

the end, of Azariah's instructions to Tobias in 6.13. The first time the Greek has A,ccXr|oa>...iva Ari|j,\|/a6u£0(x ooi amfiv v6|i
an). As we found with H, the Greek translators of Tobit seem to have had no particular problems with the nuances of 1, sometimes translating literally, sometimes using more idiomatic Greek. 3. The Interrogative Particle Torrey believed that since there was no Aramaic interrogative particle for the original gospel writers to use, questions were occasionally liable to be taken as declarations.16 Although he recognized that the proclitic -H was used in Daniel and the targums, he considered it an artificial borrowing from Hebrew; the 'authentic' Aramaic of the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim never use it.17 Torrey was probably wrong, first, in preferring the later Palestinian Aramaic of the Talmud and midrashim, which in any case tended to use "ICJETK to introduce questions, and second, in assuming that -il was a Hebraism: it is already found in the Ashur letter of the sixth century BCE (n» tf?a 'nn^n, 'are you angry with me?' KAI 233.19). In any case, it is

15. B.C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS, 51; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 80. 16. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 54-63. 17. Our Translated Gospels, p. 54.

160

Targumic and Cognate Studies

used in free Aramaic composition at Qumran,18 including Tobit: D^n Kin (B 7.4), 'Is he well?', Gk. uyuxvvei (I, II). 4. The Translation of Aramaic Idioms Torrey did not focus on the translation of Aramaic idioms, but many since have turned up numerous examples of 'Semitisms' in the gospels. In Tobit, the Greek translators sometimes translated idiomatic Aramaic literally, producing a 'Semitism'. Sometimes they translated it into more idiomatic Greek. Some examples of both follow. 13.19 mr] ^3 (A 1.19), 'Ninevites', Gk. icov eic TTK Nive\)fi (II); ^HD] "B (B 7.3), 'Naphtalites', Gk. to>v WCDV NecpGaXein (I, II); [KBtilp -]]3 (A 13.13), 'sons of truth', Gk. \noix; TWV SiKodcov (II), mole, TCOV 8iKa(cov (I). ^m. ^mn *?« (B. 5.21), 'fear not', Gk. \u\ koyov e/e (I, II); ^mn ^ (B 6.18), Gk. uiitaSyove%e (II); ^mn^ (B 8.21), Gk. Gdpoei (II). «n. n]« «n (B 6.11), Gk. i6o\) eyco (II). Moule considers the Greek phrase (foundin Acts 9.10) to be 'septuagintal for 'DDH'. 20 Aramaic Tobit, if the phrase is not itself a translation from Hebrew,21 suggests that the expression had become natural in Aramaic. *]0in.22 KTl^vb ^rnti? spin (C 14.2), 'he continued to fear God', Gk. TcpoaeOeto (po|3eia9cu idjpiov tov 6eov (I), jcpooeGexo e\)Xoyeiv TOV Oeov (II). DT. ]liniD« 'QV3 (A 2.1), 'in the days of Esarhaddon', Gk. enl Iap%e66vo<; (II). D^2J. HQ^ I'PKEJ (B 7.1), 'they asked his peace' (= greeted him), Gk. E^aipeTiaav a\)iov (II); D^^3 l^^l jirrriK D^EJ1? (B 7.1), 'for peace you have come, so enter in peace', Gk. Xoupeie rcoAAcx, d8eX,(po(, Kai KaXc5<; iiXOaTe \)yia(vovteq, 'very welcome are you, brethren, and fitly enter in good health'.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

18. See K. Beyer, Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), p. 558 (s.v. n) and Erganzungsband, p. 336

(s.v. n). 19. 20. 21. 22.

Cf. Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 174-75. Moule, Idiom Book, p. 183. As Beyer believes (Erganzungsband, p. 134). Moule, Idiom Book, p. 177.

COOK Our Translated Tobit

161

5. Mistranslations Some mistranslations do occur in Greek Tobit, confirming that they are possible in the translation from Aramaic to Greek: 1.

2.

3.

H^ pn pirnOK ncftete (A 1.22) 'Esarhaddon made him rule as second to him', Gk. KaieoTTjoev ou)tov Lap%e86vo<; EK 8e\)iepa<; (I, II), 'Sarchedonos appointed him a second time'. It seems that the Greek translator misunderstood the intent of the original, or misread the text as mm.23 [H^] Dm TON (B 6.12), 'her father loved her', Gk. 6 m-crip amr\q Kakoq (II), 'her father is handsome', possibly reading the text as DTD, 'beloved'. Some uncials, including those of the 'third recension', have dycnia autTjv. 'wuri rvn1? NCTtip ']-|Tl (B 7.1), 'lead me, honest man, to the house of Reuel', Gk. aTidcyocye (ie e\)0eiav rcpoc; 'Payo\)t|A, (II), 'lead me straight to24 Ragouel'.25

Other possible misunderstandings of the text were noted above at 6.13 fppB "1 TDK) and 6.15 (mirp]). In general, these mistranslations —if not indeed based on a different Vorlage —have little effect on the basic understanding of the text. Of course, Torrey did not believe that the mistranslations of the gospels were very serious either. Their primary purpose in his eyes was to prove that the gospels were translations and not free Greek compositions. The preliminary results of this exploratory survey may be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

With a few minor exceptions, the Greek translator of Tobit understood his text quite well. Aramaic words with a variety of nuances, such as "H and 1, gave the translator no trouble. Aramaic had a method for distinguishing questions from declarations, and Aramaic Tobit uses it. When translating from Aramaic to Greek, sometimes the

23. Cf. Wise, 'A Note on 4Q196', p. 569; and Fitzmyer, 'Preliminary Publication', pp. 223-24. 24. The Old Latin adds 'to the house of. 25. This understanding of the Aramaic was suggested to me by S.A. Kaufman.

162

Targumic and Cognate Studies translator chose to be literal and produced Semitisms, sometimes he rendered his source in idiomatic Greek.

The implications for the study of the gospels, if the limitations mentioned above are kept in mind, are these: 1) If the gospel translators did their work as well as the Tobit translator, then the Greek gospels accurately represent their source text; 2) although Semitisms in the Greek text probably indicate an underlying Semitic source, the reverse is not true: the absence of Semitisms (i.e., the presence of idiomatic Greek) does not imply the absence of an underlying Semitic source; 3) although mistranslations and misunderstandings are always possible in translating Aramaic to Greek, it seems likely that they were less frequent than Torrey surmised. Further study of Tobit will no doubt refine and add to these conclusions.

TRANSLATIONAL FEATURES OF THE PESHITTA IN l SAMUEL* Robert P. Gordon

My interest in the Peshitta version of the books of Samuel developed in the course of preparing a biblical commentary on those books. The existence of the edition of the Peshitta of Samuel prepared by P. A.H. de Boer in collaboration with the Peshitta Institute, Leiden,1 ensured that interest was sustained amidst the many more obvious concerns that occupy a commentator on a biblical book. In fact, very few observations on the Syriac were included in the commentary, for the true worth of the Peshitta—whatever and wherever its origins—lies more in its function within Syriac Christianity and in its contribution to the history of biblical interpretation. In this short chapter I propose to say something about the work that has already been done on the Peshitta of Samuel in the past hundred years or so, and then to look at some texts which are of special interest for what they reveal about the translational character of the Peshitta and even, if we could be sure, about the early history of this great monument of early Syriac literature. If the discussion seems highly selective as to what it nominates for comment this is because of the limitations of space and also because there have already been serious attempts at monograph level to set out and explain the main translational features of the Peshitta in 1 and 2 Samuel. Indeed, there is need now for some synthesizing of the results of the studies that have been carried out, but this cannot be undertaken here. The Peshitta of Samuel has enjoyed the attention of a number of scholars during the past hundred years. As well as making use of it in his Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Samuel,2 S.R. Driver devoted * I am most grateful to Dr M.P. Weitzman for suggesting a number of very helpful points in connection with this study. 1. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, II, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1978). 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 1, xxii-1, xxvii; 2nd edn: Notes on the

164

Targumic and Cognate Studies

several pages of the book's introduction to the Peshitta. Driver highlights some of the main features of the translation (additions, omissions, paraphrases, internal corruptions), and provides generous illustration of each. He begins, however, by citing a list of passages whose phrasing is strongly suggestive of Jewish exegetical, and specifically targumic, influence upon the Peshitta. This applies to other books in the Peshitta and may indicate that the translators were Jewish or, as he suggests elsewhere in his introduction, 'more probably, Jewish Christians' (p. Hi). In 1896 Emanuel Schwartz published a monograph on the Peshitta of 1 Samuel, in the form of a verse-by-verse commentary on the Peshitta in relation to the MT, LXX and Targum.3 Schwartz resorts regularly enough to the 'variant Vorlage' explanation of Peshitta readings that do not correspond to the MT, but his repertoire is not restricted to this heavy-handed approach, and in any case he regarded the Syriac as basically a translation of the MT, even if its Vorlage diverged from the standard text from time to time (p. 93). Schwartz reports the then common view that the Peshitta originated in Edessa (p. vii), but observes that unanimity on the question of authorship had proved much harder to achieve. He himself finds in the varying relationship between the several parts of the Peshitta and ancient Jewish interpretative tradition a clear indication that this version is not to be treated as a unity (pp. viii-ix), and he concludes that only by study of the individual books of the Peshitta will the contributions of their translators become distinguishable from the imported elements from other versions and the origins of the Peshitta be clarified (p. ix). In his chapter summarizing the findings of his commentary, however, Schwartz restricts himself to textual and translational realia, upon which others are, presumably, supposed to build (pp. 93-104). The Peshitta of 1 Samuel also benefited from three studies, in 1938,4 19425 and 19496 respectively, by P.A.H. de Boer, the eventual editor of 1-2 Samuel in the Leiden Peshitta project, in each of which the MT is Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), pp. 1, xxi-1, xxvi. 3. Die syrische Uebersetzung des ersten Buches Samuelis und ihr Verhaltniss zu MT., LXX und Trg. (Berlin, 1896). 4. Research into the Text of 1 Samuel i-xvi (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1938). 5. '1 Samuel XVII. Notes on the Text and the Ancient Versions', OTS 1 (1942), pp. 79-103. 6. 'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', OTS 6 (1949), pp. 1-100.

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 165 discussed in association with the three major ancient versions, namely, Targum, Peshitta and LXX. De Boer is not as impressed as some others have been by evidence for a special relationship between the Peshitta and the Targum, emphasizing instead the extent of the Peshitta's independence of the latter and its frequent agreement with the LXX, especially in its rendering of more obscure passages.7 The specific issue of the origin of the Peshitta of 1 Samuel was addressed by C. Peters in an article published in 1941.8Peters was interested to know whether, on the analogy of the Peshitta of the Pentateuch, it could be established that the Peshitta of 1 Samuel had developed from a targumic original. In demonstration of this he gives two lists of correspondences between the two versions, one of them involving direct verbal equivalence and the other something less than literal word-forword equivalence (though occasionally even more striking than the first group). Apparently concerned that his lists could be judged not to add up to a sufficient case, Peters claims that it is the quality, rather than the quantity, of his examples that supports his argument (p. 31). Moreover, the correspondence between the Peshitta and the Targum is regarded by Peters as originally having been stronger than is now apparent, on the supposition that the Targum has undergone a process of revision towards the MT, which has thus reduced the number of parallels remaining visible. Occasionally the Peshitta may retain an old targumic reading which the Targum itself no longer preserves, as at 1 Sam. 29.3 when compared with 27.7 (p. 32). At the same time, Peters nuances his position to the extent that the Peshitta and the extant Targum may derive from separate branches of the oldest Jewish-Aramaic Targum (p. 33). Early in his article Peters comments on a potential weakness of the commentary approach to the Peshitta, in that it can become very difficult to obtain an overview of the situation amidst the mass of detail being reported. His own study shows how even a short article may make a good case if it matches worthwhile observations with some regard for good method. In his monograph on the Peshitta of 2 Samuel, published in 1949, D.M.C. Englert observed, with numerous examples, a range of textual and translational features of the Syriac, including what he claimed to be

7. 8. 34.

'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', p. 4. 'Zur Herkunft der Pe§itta des ersten Samuel-Buches', Bib 22 (1941), pp. 25-

166

Targumic and Cognate Studies

evidence of dependence upon other translations.9 The Peshitta of 2 Samuel 'has been influenced to a great extent by the LXX and to a less extent by the Targum' (p. 87). Englert's study produces a handy profile of the Peshitta in this particular book. His parting shot is that the Peshitta of 2 Samuel 'may well have been done by Jewish translators' (pp. 87-88), but, as his reviewers have pointed out,10 all but the closing paragraph of his concluding chapter relates to the Peshitta version as a whole, and involves too much generalization about what is, by general consent, a composite work. Three aspects of the Peshitta of the Samuel text of Jacob of Edessa are discussed by R.J. Saley in his Harvard dissertation entitled, 'The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa: A Study in its Underlying Textual Traditions' (c. 1982),11 viz. the relationships among the Peshitta, the Syro-Hexapla and the LXX in Jacob's text, the extent to which the major LXX families are represented in this text, and the number and nature of those readings that stand apart from the main Syriac and Greek traditions. Saley concludes, inter alia, that Jacob's basic text was the Peshitta rather than the Syro-Hexapla, and that in his revision he made more use of the LXX than of the Syro-Hexapla. A substantial number of non-hexaplaric Lucianic readings are found, but only a small number of non-Lucianic hexaplaric and even fewer Lucianic hexaplaric, which indicates that Jacob used a manuscript or manuscripts from the Lucianic tradition (though they represent that tradition in a quite uneven manner) that contained some hexaplaric revisions. The unique readings divide between minor variants, which Saley attributes to Jacob's own editorial activity, and more substantial ones which are in the main attributed to a pre-existing source or sources. A case for the text-critical superiority of the Peshitta over the MT in two verses in 1 Samuel 16 was made by J. Joosten in an article published in 1991.12 For MT 'Surely the Lord's anointed is before him' in v. 6, the Peshitta has 'The Lord's Messiah is like him himself, and for the elliptical-sounding MT 'For it is not as man sees' in v. 7 the Peshitta has 'For I am not as man sees'. Joosten contends that the 9. The Peshitto of Second Samuel (JBLMS, 3; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1949). 10. See J. Ziegler, Bib 31 (1950), p. 255; W.D. McHardy, JTS NS 2 (1951), p. 194. 11. Noted and summarized in HTR 75 (1982), pp. 133-34. 12. '1 Samuel XVI6, 7 in the Peshitta Version', VT41 (1991), pp. 226-33.

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 167 Peshitta has neither misunderstood the MT nor superimposed its own interpretation upon the Hebrew text, but that the MT itself is deficient in both cases. While Joosten has highlighted two interesting features of the Peshitta in this chapter, there is room for disagreement as to their explanation. It could be argued that the kind of text represented by the Peshitta rests less comfortably in its context than the equivalent clauses in the MT. Again, in the light of certain lines of argument that will be developed later in this study it might even be possible to construct a case for regarding the Peshitta in v. 6 as having been 'Christianized', since the statement 'The Lord's Messiah is like him himself would suit very well the Christology of the New Testament, as of most of Christian tradition. However, the point will not be pursued further here. Other recent studies that have touched upon the Peshitta of Samuel include my article on 2 Sam. 20.18-19 in the MT and the major ancient versions, where an instance of 'narrative analogy' on the part of the Peshitta is claimed.13 It appears very likely that when the Peshitta talks about Joab seeking to kill 'the child and his mother' (v. 19), for which the MT has 'a city and a mother', it is cross-referring to 2 Sam. 14.16, which also features in a story about a wise woman and also has to do with the threatened destruction of a woman and her son. More important observations of a different sort have been made by M.P. Weitzman, briefly in an article published in 1989,14 and more fully in a newly published study.15 Weitzman suggests that the Peshitta of Samuel is the work of two translators and that the break-point comes in 2 Samuel 6. Three main factors, viz. the translation of the Hebrew words fba3dt, wayehi and ^ron, point to the involvement of a second translator with a less literal and more idiomatic approach. For example, seba}dt is transliterated in all its seven occurrences in Samuel up to and including 2 Sam. 6.2, while from 2 Sam. 6.18 onwards it is translated by hayeltana. In what follows I shall concentrate on a number of texts in the Peshitta 13. R.P. Gordon, The Variable Wisdom of Abel: The MT and Versions at 2 Samuel XX 18-19', VT 43 (1993), pp. 221-24. 14. JTS NS 40 (1989), p. 164, in a review of A. Gelston, The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). 15. 'Lexical Clues to the Composition of the Old Testament Peshitta', in M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield and M.P. Weitzman (eds.), Studia Aramaica (JSSSup, 4; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 217-46. I am most grateful to Dr Weitzman for providing me with a summary of his views in a letter dated 24 November, 1994.

168

Targumic and Cognate Studies

of 1 Samuel whose full significance seems not to have been explored in previous studies of the Peshitta. They will include a couple that may have a bearing on the question of the Peshitta's early development. Problem-Solving in the Peshitta The exact nature of Saul's misdemeanour at Gilgal has long been a problem for readers of 1 Samuel 13. Did Saul offend by offering the sacrifices a few minutes in advance of the appointed time, or simply by discharging a priestly function, or by committing some ritual infringement? The Peshitta translator offers a solution that appears to belong to the last-named category. In the MT v. 9 reads: 'And Saul said, "Bring the burnt offering and the communion offerings to me", and he offered up the burnt offering'. In the Peshitta this becomes: 'And Saul said, "Bring me the burnt offering", and he offered up (or, "and I shall offer up") communion offerings for a burnt offering'. Schwartz decided that the Syriac made no sense and so reordered the text to conform to the MT, but in this he was mistaken.16 The Peshitta's solution, for all that, can be achieved only by doing violence to the Hebrew text, and it is very unlikely that a Hebrew Vorlage representing a straight retroversion of the Peshitta into Hebrew ever existed. Communion offerings and burnt offerings are clearly distinguished in the Old Testament, as much in the Peshitta as in the MT (cf. 1 Sam. 10.8; 2 Sam. 6.17-18; 24.25). In part the Peshitta's problem may be that the MT has Saul ask for a burnt offering and communion offerings and then offer only the former (vv. 9, 10, 12). But there would in that case have been other possible explanations of the sole mention of the burnt offering, for example because Saul did not have time to complete the ritual before Samuel's arrival or because the burnt offering was the most important sacrifice in the hierarchy of offerings (cf. Lev. 1). The Hebrew text's preoccupation with the burnt offering is unlikely, therefore, to be sufficient explanation for the Peshitta's handling of v. 9, though it may provide a clue to the nature of the offence as the MT intends it, if Saul's fa uxpas was to offer up the burnt offering, of all things, in the absence of Samuel. The Peshitta seems to regard the infringement as more complicated than this, viz. the offering of communion offerings as if they constituted a burnt offering. There were many similarities between the two (cf. Lev. 1 and 3), but there were differences, for example in the acceptability of a 16. Die syrische Uebersetzung, p. 36.

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 169 female animal as a communion offering (see Lev. 3.1). The Peshitta's attempted explanation of what went wrong for Saul at Gilgal is daring enough, but, as far as the question of origin is concerned, it can hardly be said to betray a specifically Jewish or Christian interest; and if the Peshitta translator is judged to have observed a ritual nicety at this point, this contrasts with other places where the Syriac blurs the distinction between one kind of offering and another. The Influence of Parallel Texts The translation theory reflected in the Peshitta allows that from time to time a passage may be translated in the light of another, even when there is no special difficulty attending the translation. This is also a feature of targumic translation practice, but since it is not restricted to these two among the ancient versions nothing much can be made of the comparison. Discussion here is restricted to one text, the Peshitta of 1 Sam. 28.6, where some elucidation is required. In this verse the MT says that when Saul, prior to his last battle with the Philistines, inquired of God about his prospects the Lord did not answer him by dreams, or by the oracular Urim, or by prophets. The Peshitta follows the MT fairly closely, except that for 'Urim' it has nwr3, which de Boer explains from the Syriac nwr} meaning 'mirror', 17 but without showing how this contributes to the overall sense of the Peshitta. However, it seems much more likely that the Syriac word is the commoner homonym meaning 'fire' and that MT 'Urim' has been associated by the Peshitta translator with the Hebrew ^wrAvr/z ('fire'). There is no other reference to the oracular Urim in Samuel, but at Exod. 28.30 the Peshitta renders by nhyf> ('light' [adj.]) and at Deut. 33.8 by nwhr3 ('light'). What appears to have happened in 1 Sam. 28.6 is that the statement 'the Lord did not answer him (by)' was drawn into the orbit of other biblical references to God's answering by fire, notably 1 Kgs 18.24 and 1 Chron. 21.26. Perhaps this happened at the stage of the original translation of the verse into Syriac, or it is possible that the Peshitta originally had nwhr3 as in Deut. 33.8 and that this was later changed to nwr3 under the influence of the references in Kings and Chronicles. The presumption would then be that Saul had offered sacrifice to God, but his sacrifice had not been accepted. Such an idea is particularly suited by the Peshitta's location of Saul at Gilgal at the time 17. 'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', p. 81.

170

Targumic and Cognate Studies

of his unsuccessful attempts to inquire of the Lord. According to MT 1 Sam. 28.4, the Philistines had advanced to Shunem (cf. Josh. 19.18; 2 Kgs 4.8) and had camped there, while Saul and his men had set up camp at Gilboa. In the Peshitta, however, these two locations become Shechem and Gilgal, whether because of a deficient Vorlage or deliberate choice or a combination of the two. (Gilboa is correctly represented in its other occurrences in Samuel [1 Sam. 31.1, 8; 2 Sam. 1.6, 21; 21.12], though in each case the expression in the Peshitta is 'mountain[s] of Gilboa'.) Gilgal was a place of negative association for Saul because of his earlier contretemps with Samuel over the issue of the offering of sacrifices that were supposed to have been presented by the prophet at an agreed time (1 Sam. 10.8; 13.4-15). The key statement is in 28.5-6: 'When Saul saw the Philistine army he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. So Saul inquired of the Lord...' This so closely parallels the situation described in 13.7b, 11-12 as to suggest the possibility that the reference to Gilgal in 28.4 is a conscious echo of the earlier passage, and that we are therefore faced with another instance of narrative analogy in the Peshitta.18 Of course, we cannot be certain that ch. 13 was in the mind of the Peshitta translator when Gilboa became Gilgal in his version of the story; but by his rendering he has opened up the possibility of such an association for his readers. The translation of MT 'Urim' by 'fire', has, at any rate, had an interesting knock-on effect in one strand of the Peshitta tradition in 1 Sam. 28.6, in that the manuscripts related to the twelfth-century text MS Oo.I.I, 2 of Cambridge University Library (the 'Buchanan Bible')— the twelfth-century text itself is not legible at this point—have my} ('water') instead of nby3 ('prophets'). It would be a simple enough graphic error in any of the Syriac scripts, but the commonplace pairing 'fire and water', found also in the Bible (see Ps. 66.12; Isa. 43.2; Mt. 17.15), will have exercised its influence. And this secondary reading confirms that at least a part of the Peshitta manuscript tradition understood nwr3 as meaning 'fire' rather than 'mirror'. Christian Elements in the Peshitta? 1 Samuel 2.35-36 These are the concluding verses to a prophecy by an anonymous man of God in 1 Sam. 2.27-36 and they relate to the faithful priest whom, the 18. Cf. Gordon, The Variable Wisdom of Abel', pp. 221-24.

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 171 prophet said, God would raise up to take the place of the failed Elide priesthood. A secure priestly house is promised, and the new priest would 'walk before' God's 'anointed' forever, whereas Eli's descendants would be reduced to seeking minor priestly office in order to sustain themselves. The Peshitta has significant deviations from the MT which seem to reflect an interested line of interpretation in the two verses. In the first place, the priest is described as being faithful 'according to my heart' (3yk Iby), this last expression being an addition in the Peshitta. Schwartz19 explains the extra words as a doublet on MT fcSr blbby ('according to what is in my heart') immediately following, but this is not so likely, if only because Schwartz has failed to observe the presence in the Peshitta of the dalath, as also the use of the absolute form in mhymn. The effect of this construction in the Peshitta is to make >yk Iby integral to the opening sentence of the verse. The expression itself is strongly evocative of the description of David as a man 'according to his [= God's] heart' in 1 Sam. 13.14. If we were to allow that the additional phrase is intended to call David to mind, there would be in the Peshitta a strong suggestion of the fusing of priestly and kingly (Davidic) roles. And if the Peshitta has a priest with royal associations in mind, should we be thinking of a Jewish-Christian or Christian translator (or, at the least, reviser) of this section of the Peshitta? The extent to which the phrase 'a man according to [God's] heart' became attached to David in early Christian thinking may be seen in Acts 13.22 where T have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will fulfil all my wishes' identifies David even more explicitly than does 1 Sam. 13.14. The idea of a royal priest may be represented further in the text. The MT envisages two individuals, the priest who is specially the concern of the anonymous prophet, and an 'anointed' king; thus v. 35 can say, 'and he shall walk before my anointed forever', where 'my anointed' without doubt refers to a Davidic monarch, and perhaps to David himself. The Peshitta, on the other hand, renders by 'and my anointed shall walk before me forever'. An unvocalized Hebrew text could tolerate this rendering, with lipene read as lepdnay, but the possibility that the Peshitta's vocalization was demanded by the translator's preferred interpretation of the verse has to be taken seriously. For though it would still be possible to interpret the Peshitta ('and my anointed shall walk before me') so that the 'anointed' remained distinct 19. Die syrische Uebersetzung, pp. 10-11.

172

Targumic and Cognate Studies

from the already-mentioned priest, the point of the Peshitta's vocalizing as lepanay seems to be that the distinction between the faithful priest and the 'anointed' is being broken down. That 'my anointed' simply refers to the priest as one anointed for the service of God must be considered a possibility in the light of Lev. 4.3, 5, 16; 6.15 (ET 22), yet in none of these places does 'anointed' stand on its own, the operative expression being 'anointed priest'. Taken with the Davidic-sounding >yk Iby earlier in the verse, this element of the Peshitta may reasonably be taken to suggest that for the Peshitta the faithful priest is an anointed ruler, since 'anointed' can naturally refer to a kingly figure, as in v. 10 of this chapter. In that case v. 36 in the Peshitta is saying that the survivors of the Elide connexion will present themselves before this priest-king and will ask him for help. It may also be significant in this regard that the Peshitta has a less than obvious translation of the closing sentence in v. 36: 'And he will say, "Send me to one of the priests so that I may eat a morsel of food'", which stands for the MT, 'And he will say, "Attach me to one of the priestly offices, so that [I] may eat a morsel of food'". While the Peshitta 'send' may reflect a reading $lh for the MT sph (>sphl}, the similarity is not so compelling as to suggest a misreading without a prior disposition to treat the Hebrew somewhat freely. With its change of verb the Peshitta appears not to associate the figure addressed with the appointment to (minor) priestly office in quite the way that the MT does. Moreover, the Hebrew is quite specific in its reference to one (fern.) of the priestly offices (kehunnot), so that the Peshitta's avoidance of a reference to the office e of priesthood may strike us as significant. That the translator would have had difficulty with kehunnot and so simply translated by 'priests' is unlikely in view of the existence in Syriac of forms like kwhn* and khnwt3 with comparable meanings to that of BH \fhunna. In other words, the Peshitta avoids the idea, expressed in the MT, that the faithful priest has priestly offices in his gift. And, in the light of the discussion so far, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that the priest-king figure in the Peshitta is divorced from the bestowal of priestly offices for some such reason as that the Peshitta is here reflecting a Christian interpretation of these verses, in which the idea of being sent to Jewish priests for help in the time of the priest-king is more acceptable than that of the priest-king appointing to priestly office in a way that did not conform with Christian practice or, if the term may be introduced to this discussion, with Christian eschatological expectation. It

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 173 is possible, therefore, that the 'priest-king tendency' of the Peshitta in v. 35 has been sustained in v. 36. Some of the observations made so far would appear, then, to favour the suggestion of a Christian interpretive dimension in the Peshitta of 1 Sam. 2.35-36, but it will be advisable to widen discussion a little before going too far in that direction. The Targum also finds 1 Sam. 2.35-36 a malleable text on a subject of central importance, translating as follows: And I shall raise up before me a faithful priest who will act according to my Memra and my will, and I shall establish for him an enduring kingdom, and he will serve before my anointed all the days. And it will come to pass that whoever is left in your house will come to bow low before him for a silver coin and a piece of bread and will say, Appoint me now to one of the priests' charges so that I can eat a morsel of food.

The surprise element here is the rendering of 'sure house' by 'enduring kingdom', not because the equivalence is wrong in targumic terms (see 1 Sam. 25.28; 1 Kgs 11.38), but because the expression is used in connection with the faithful priest. At the same time, the Targum clearly preserves the distinction between priest and 'anointed', with the former 'serving before' (MT 'will walk before') the latter, and therefore in some sense inferior to him. By translating MT 'walk before' by 'serve before' the Targum has emphasized the idea of submission more than it needed to: the same Hebrew verb is represented straightforwardly by its Aramaic cognate in 1 Sam. 12.2 where Samuel's 'walk' is in question. B.D. Chilton translates the targumic mlkw qym' by 'enduring reign',20 which, in the light of the already-quoted references at 1 Sam. 25.28 and 1 Kgs 11.38, might appear, by its use of the more abstract 'reign', to adjust a royal term slightly to fit a priestly context. However, 'reign' is a perfectly acceptable translation of mlkw, while, in point of fact, the real difficulty arises from the idea of a priest having either a reign or a kingdom. The fact remains, however, that the Targum makes a clear distinction between the 'anointed' and the priest, and in a way that parallels Zech. 6.13 (in the case of the Targum note especially Codex Reuchlinianus, 'a priest serving'). In the end, the Targum appears not to have gone as far at 1 Sam. 2.35-36 as it does at Isa. 22.20-24 where the prophecies relating to the priestly (implied in vv. 21, 22, 24 in the

20. The Glory of Israel. The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 24.

174

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Targum) Eliakim come closer to a fusing of priestly and royal roles.21 It is evident, then, that even though the Targum speaks of the 'enduring kingdom/reign' of the faithful priest it does not dissolve the difference between priest and 'anointed' in the way that the Peshitta appears to do. Nor does it remove the idea of the conferring, by the 'anointed', of priestly office upon individuals—an idea whose absence in the Peshitta, it was suggested, could be marginally important in any attempt to decide the theological stance of the Peshitta. This basic difference between the Peshitta and the Targum, for all their theological adaptation of the MT, leaves open the distinct possibility that Christological ideas first expressed in the New Testament, where royal and priestly roles are jointly attributed to the Christian messiah, have affected the rendering of the Peshitta of 1 Sam. 2.35-36. 1 Samuel 12.15 The end of this verse presents an obvious problem in its MT form: 'And if you do not listen to the voice of the Lord and rebel against the word of the Lord, the hand of the Lord will be against you and against your fathers'. None of the major versions agrees with the MT in envisaging 'retrospective' action of this sort! The LXX has, for the italicized words, 'and against your king' (to which the Lucianic tradition adds 'to destroy you'), while both the Peshitta and the Targum have 'as it was against your fathers'.22 As the Leiden edition of the Peshitta of Samuel notes in its apparatus, the ninth-century manuscript Or. MS 58 in the Bibliotheca Medicea-Laurenziana (9al in the Leiden edition) has a different approach to the second half of the verse: 'the hand of the Lord your God will be with you as it was with your fathers'. This does not fit easily with the first half of the verse, where the Peshitta approximates to the MT, though it is just possible that the variant assumes a complicated conditional sentence beginning in v. 14 whose protatic element is partly paralleled in v. 15a.23 Old Testament expressions involving 'the hand of the Lord' and the preposition be, as in our verse, commonly have a hostile sense (e.g., Exod. 9.3; Deut. 2.15; Judg. 2.15; 1 Sam. 24.13-14). As to the meaning 21. Cf. Chilton, The Glory, p. 24; The Isaiah Targum (The Aramaic Bible, 11; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987), p. 45. 22. The Vulgate follows the MT with et super patres vestros. 23. For examples of such in the Peshitta (cf. Targum) see my article, 'Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets', JSS 39 (1994), pp. 10-12.

GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 175 of the hand of God being 'with' the hearers, as in the variant reading, it is difficult to see this as having been intended in other than a positive light, though it is also true that examples of this type of expression are not so numerous as the other. The precise expression 'the hand of the Lord was with' apparently does not occur in the Old Testament, with Isa. 66.14 probably providing the closest approximation: 'and the hand of the Lord will be known with (}f) his servants'. There is an occurrence of the expression with a human subject in Jer. 26.24: 'However the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah so as not to give him into the hand of the people to kill him'. The variant Peshitta reading is, therefore, intended to represent the negative statement of the MT by a more hopeful assertion about both the hearers and their ancestors. That there was some interest within the Peshitta tradition in lightening the heavy, denunciatory tone of Samuel's speech in 1 Samuel 12 is also suggested by the occurrence in v. 16 of cmkwn ('with you') for clykwn ('against you') in two of the oldest manuscripts of the Peshitta of Samuel, viz. N.S. MS 2 of the Leningrad State Public Library and Add. 14.442 of the British Library (Leiden sigla 6hl and 7k3 respectively): 'And now prepare yourselves and see this great thing that the Lord is doing against ('with', 6hl, 7k3) you' (MT 'before your eyes'). The expression 'do/act with' occurs in various combinations, frequently with a positive sense as in v. 7 of this same chapter (cf. v. 24), while in Deut. 1.30 we have a combination of the variant Peshitta reading and the MT of our present text: 'The Lord your God who goes before you will fight for you according to all that he did with you in Egypt before your eyes'. Thus, although the difference is small in relation to the gravamen of Samuel's denunciation in these verses, it may again have seemed desirable to reduce, even in this small way, the condemnatory element in Samuel's speech. Once more the possibility of a Christian 'hand' in the translation, or at least the revision, of the Peshitta seems worth raising. For if it is difficult to find a straight Old Testament parallel to the expression 'the hand of the Lord was with', it is also the case that it is found twice in the New Testament, perhaps most conspicuously in connection with John the Baptist according to Lk. 1.66 ('the Lord's hand was with him'; see also Acts 11.21). This is hardly sufficient to prove that the variant reading of MS 9al comes from a Christian hand, and, even if the case were stronger, there would need to be further questions asked about the reading's status as original or secondary within the wider Peshitta

176

Targumic and Cognate Studies

tradition. In this regard we should have to keep in mind not only that Ms 9al is relatively old and its readings deserving of high regard as far as the earliest Peshitta text is concerned, but also that there is a similarly motivated (as it seems) variant in the very old MSS 6hl and 7k3 in v. 16. The basic assumption of occasional 'Christianizing' within the Peshitta tradition is itself very reasonable, and it scarcely needs defending here. One of the clearest instances is at 1 Chron. 5.2 where the majority reading 'from Judah shall king Messiah come forth' appears in the past tense in the already-mentioned MS 9al: 'from Judah king Messiah has come forth'. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the variant reflects a Christian point of view about the identity of the messiah. The Christian leaning of the couple of passages from the Peshitta of 1 Samuel discussed in this section may not be so easily demonstrated, nevertheless there is a case for recognizing the same 'Christianizing' tendency. It gives me great pleasure to dedicate the preceding paragraphs to Martin McNamara, whose seminal study on the Palestinian Targum and the New Testament,24 published in 1966, made an immediate impact on the scholarly community and helped promote so much of the subsequent research into the targums in particular.

24. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966).

'MAY HE BE REMEMBERED FOR GOOD' AN ARAMAIC FORMULA

John F. Healey

I have known Martin McNamara personally for a relatively short part of his scholarly career. For much longer I have been aware of the importance of his contribution to Semitic studies both internationally and within Ireland. I offer the paper which follows, on a minor matter in Aramaic epigraphy, as a mark of my respect for Martin's scholarship, knowing that he will 'be remembered for good.' There is a common Aramaic expression which first became well known in Nabataean graffiti, 'May he be remembered for good' (Nabataean dkyr btb).1 It appears dozens of times in a number of slightly variant forms and we owe to M. Lidzbarski an admirable survey of the material, principally Nabataean, known down to his time.2 This formulaic 1. btb might mean 'favourably'. G.A. Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 260, translates it as 'in welfare'. It may be noted that E. Littmann, 'Nabatean Inscriptions from Egypt', BSOAS 15 (1953), pp. 1-28; 16 (1954), pp. 211-46, preferred to translate it as an exclamation, 'Good luck!' (cf. J. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues[Jerusalem: Carta, 1978], p. 8 n. 27). In favour of this is the evidently Arabic bhyr in a similar role in CIS II 1499 (cf. 1631), but it will be evident from what follows that this interpretation is difficult, if not impossible, in many of the examples I cite. 2. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik (Weimar: E. Felber, 1898), I, pp. 165-69. His examples are mostly taken from CIS II and J. Euting, Sinaitische Inschriften (Berlin: Reimer, 1891). C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de I'ouest (Leiden: Brill, 1965), pp. 76-77, under ~DT], provides a useful listing including material published later. There is a discussion of the formula in the context of synagogue inscriptions in Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, pp. 7-9. See also Y. Yahalom, 'htpylh Irbym bktwbwt bty-hknst', Cathedra 19 (1981), pp. 44-46. Note also discussions in J. Naveh, 'Graffiti and Dedications', BASOR 235 (1979), pp. 27-30 and Y. Ustinova and J. Naveh, 'A Greek-Palmyrene Aramaic Dedicatory Inscription from the Negev', Atiqot 22 (1993), pp. 91-96.

178

Targumic and Cognate Studies

expression is now well known from several other types of Aramaic and some of these other sources throw light on the meaning and function of the phrase. Nabataean It should be noted, first of all, that many further Nabataean examples could now be cited as a result of later publications such as those of A. Negev.3 Variations on the Nabataean formula include: dkyr PN/PN dkyr, 'Remembered be PN' (e.g. CIS II 376, 393bis, 1373, 1378, 1379); dkyr PN btb (wbryk), 'Remembered be PN for good (and blessed)' (408, 493, 494); dkyr btb PN, 'Remembered for good be PN' (1174, 3229); dkyr PN b$lm, 'Remembered be PN for peace' (750); dkyr PN btb w$lm, 'Remembered be PN for good and peace' (785, 1375); dkyr PN btb lclm, 'Remembered be PN for good forever' (Jaussen and Savignac, II no. 281 [see n. 9 for full reference], CIS II 3200); dkyr PN bkl tb, 'Remembered be PN for all good' (1570). The basic formula is deceptively simple-sounding, though in fact it is not at all obvious what the meaning is. Conversations with colleagues have tended to elicit the response that they had never thought about it before. A common-sense approach might suggest that the implication is simply that the inscriber of the graffito wished to memorialize his own name and ask future passers-by (and in the longer term later generations) to think kindly of him.4 In such a case the intention would be that the named individual should be 'favourably remembered (with affection and fondness)'. A number of specific points in the Nabataean evidence suggest that the situation may be more complex than this: 1. bryk, 'blessed', is used as well as dkyr, 'remembered', in formulae similar to those cited. Whether the person involved is to be remembered or blessed, the question arises of who is to do the remembering or blessing. Could it be a divinity rather than later generations or simply passers-by? 2. In a smaller number of cases a deity is in fact mentioned—

3. Cf. The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai (Qedem, 6; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1977). See also M.E. Stone (ed.), Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project 1-3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992-94). 4. Lidzbarski, Handbuch, pp. 165-66.

HEALEY 'May He be Remembered for Good'

179

sometimes we find Sim ('peace') rather than dkyr.5 dkyr PN qdm DN, 'Remembered be PN before DN';6 dkyr PN btb mn qdm DN, 'Remembered be PN for good7 before DN' (CIS II 443); dkyr PN mn qdm DN btb, 'Remembered be PN before DN for good' ;8 PN Sim mn qdm DNN, 'PN, peace before DNN' (320); Sim PN qdm DN, 'Peace, PN, before DN' (1479); dkrwn PN mn qdm DN, 'Remembrance of PN before DN' (338). 3. There is an important but rarer type of expression in Nabataean in which it is explicitly stated that it is the deity who does the blessing: bl dkrt DN, 'Indeed may DN remember';9 dkrt DN PNN btb, 'May DN remember PNN for good';10 dkrt DN PN bSlm, 'May DN remember PNN for peace'.11 In these cases, according to the editors, dkrt is an optative or precative perfect and the divine name is the subject. The deity is female: hence the -t ending on the verb.12 It appears that the dkyr expressions convey the same idea but more impersonally. 4) There are plenty of examples associated with Nabataean graffiti from Sinai of the Greek equivalent of dkyr PN, jivrioGri PN ('Remembered be PN'), though I have not found any exact case of analogy with the Nabataean dkyr PN qdm DN. There are, however, clear Greek cases where the inscription is a prayer to the Lord to bless or remember the named person(s), especially in Christian inscriptions.13 It is difficult to understand clearly the distinction between those 5. There are also a few br(y)k examples from earlier Achaemenid Aramaic: CIS II, 128, 130, 134. 6. R. Savignac, 'Le Sanctuaire d'Allat a Iran', RB 41 (1932), p. 593, no. 3. (Despite the reading dkr given there, dkyris clear in the copy and plate: fig. 5 and pi. xviii.) 7. As noted above, Littmann translates btb as an exclamation, 'Good luck!' This would be difficult in cases where qdm DN is involved. 8. R. Savignac, 'Le Sanctuaire d'Allat a Iran', RB 42 (1933), p. 415: no. 5. 9. A.J. Jaussen and R. Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arabic, II (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), no. 213 10. These are inscriptions from the temple at Ramm: Savignac, RB 42 (1933), pp. 412ff., nos. 3, 7-11, etc. 11. Jaussen and Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arabie, II, no. 212. 12. This use of the perfect is very clear in the formula Pn dwSr^ (see, e.g., J.F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada'in Salih [JSSSup, 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], p. 73, in relation to no. H 1 = CIS II 199:4). 13. Negev, Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, nos. 25, 89 & 98. Note K. SchmittKorte on Christian Nabataeans in Sinai: 'An Early Christian Record of the Nabataeans: the Maslam Inscription (ca. 350 AD)', Aram 2 (1990), pp. 123-42.

180

Targumic and Cognate Studies

formulae which mention a deity and those which do not. The simple explanation might be to assume that those without reference to a deity are secular. There is a theoretical possibility that the inscriptions which do not mention a deity might be commemorations of the dead, but it should be noted that in no case where these Nabataean formulae are used is there any evidence that they are connected with burials and there is no reference to the possibility that the named person may be dead. Rather, commentators, including Lidzbarski,14 have tended to assume, surely correctly, that the named persons are normally the authors of the graffiti. This finds confirmation from the fact that there are cases where the same person has twice written one of these graffiti: wanting to be remembered in more than one place.15 Although this does not exclude the possibility that the named person hoped the graffito would survive him, we can be sure that the named person is usually invoking blessing upon himself and that commemoration of the dead has nothing directly to do with these graffiti. This point is worth emphasizing because it constitutes a fairly strong point of contrast with a later Jewish usage which seems at first sight to be analogous and which was examined in some detail by L. Zunz.16 The Jewish tradition (in Hebrew and Aramaic) uses various typical formulae as honorific invocations connected with holy persons of the past. The one which provides the closest analogy is DIO*? "TOT, 'May he be remembered for good' (see Nabataean dkyr btb). M. Jastrow translates as 'of happy memory'.17 This, however, seems to be a very special case and it is used only of Elijah as an outstanding man of God.18 All of the phrases of this kind in the Jewish tradition examined by Zunz are essentially applied to the dead and Prov. 10.7, zeker saddlq liberakd, 'The memory of the righteous is a blessing', may have had a decisive role.19 This clearly implies post-mortal memory of a good man 14. Handbuch, pp. 165-66. 15. E.g. Negev, Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, no. 212 and CIS II 636. See discussion of the family involved, Negev, pp. 55-6. 16. Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin: Veit, 1845), pp. 321-32. 17. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 400. 18. G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1916), p. 2; m. Sot. 9.15 (end). 19. Tg. Prov. 10.7 has simply dwkrn* dSdyqy brkf. See J.F. Healey, The Tar gum of Proverbs (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 28.

HE ALE Y 'May He be Remembered for Good'

181

producing blessings for the living and most commentaries on the Hebrew understand it this way.20 Although there is quite a big difference between the Nabataean and later Jewish traditions on this point, there are, as we shall see, Jewish inscriptions of an earlier period which are much closer to the Nabataean and other Aramaic usages. Even in the later Jewish expressions, however, it is arguable that it is God who is doing the remembering and (more obviously) the blessing, as in some of the Nabataean cases above. Returning to the earlier period, apart from the Nabataean examples, similar fairly enigmatic formulae are found in Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, Palmyrene and Hatran. Jewish Aramaic In earlier Jewish Aramaic inscriptions we have a number of examples of the formulae under discussion from early synagogues (third century CE onwards):21 dkyr Itb PN, 'Remembered for good be PN' (Naveh, nos. 30, 32-33, 58-60, 62-63, 65-66, 70, etc.); dkyryn Itb wlbrkth PAW, 'Remembered for good and for blessing be PNN' (Naveh, no. 24);22 dkyryn Itb kl bny hbwrth qdySth, 'Remembered for good be all the members of the Holy Society (who endeavour in the repair of the holy 20. Cf. W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 422-23. On the other hand C.H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), pp. 202-203, seems to exclude the idea of blessings flowing to the surviving community. Cf. Neh. 5.19; 13.31. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, p. 7, draws attention to targumic renderings of Hebrew zkr in Num. 10.9 and Ps. 38.1; 111.4 and 115.12 using the phrase dkyr (l)tb(3).Notable in the present context is Tg. Onq. Num. 10.9:dwkrnkwnlib3qdm ywy. For the formula in later Jewish epitaphs see D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), nos. 118, 120, 122, 131, 137, 183 (Italy and Spain). Cf. J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, I (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936), nos. 625, 629, 635. 21. Cf. K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), p. 554, etc.; and M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), pp. 14950. Further examples can be found throughout Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic. Cf. also J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, III (Rome: Pontifico Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1952). 22. Note here the addition of brkth as in the later Jewish expressions. Note also Hebrew: Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, no. 76 (and cf. 75 and 105).

182

Targumic and Cognate Studies

place)'23 (Naveh, no. 46, cf. 64). In this last example and in most cases in these synagogue inscriptions it is absolutely clear that the persons named were alive at the time of the creation of the inscription, often being benefactors of the community. An important example is an inscription from outside the Dura Europos synagogue which contains the formula: PN dkyr Itb qdm mry $my3, 'PN, be remembered for good before the Lord of Heaven'.24 There are other examples of the dkyr formula from Dura.25 Jewish inscriptions in Greek have similar formulae. Note for example from Beth Shean: uvriaOfi ei<; ocyocGov KOU ei<; e\)Xoyiav PN.26 It may be noted that there are analogous Christian inscriptions both from Sinai (as we have seen) and from Dura Europos.27

Syriac In the pagan Syriac inscriptions we find:28 dkyr PN, dkyr PN qdm 3lh3,29 dkyr PN dkyr qdm mrlh*,30 PN dkyr qdm 3lh3.31 The context is mostly

23. Translation from Israel Museum catalogue Inscriptions Reveal (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1973), p. 84. 24. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, no. 104. R. du Mesnil du Buisson, 'Sur quelques inscriptions juives de Doura-Europos (Syrie)', Bib 18 (1937), pp. 170-73, read qdm 3lh smy3. 25. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, nos. 102 and 103; and cf. R. du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire des inscriptions palmy reniennes de Doura-Europos (Paris: Geuthner, 2nd edn, 1939). 26. F. Hiittenmeister and G. Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1977), I, p. 64 (and cf. 171, 21). It may be noted that P.W van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: Kok, 1991), p. 45, associates Jewish Aramaic dkyr btb with epitaphs. It is part of my argument here that in earlier Jewish and also in pagan Aramaic tradition it is not normally to be interpreted in that way. 27. du Mesnil du-Buisson, Bib 18 (1937), pp. 170-73. 28. See H.J.W. Drijvers Old Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1972), index. As Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, p. 8, notes, we do not find Itb in the Syriac formulary. 29. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 13. 30. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 18. mrlh3 is a title of the moon-god. 31. This inscription on a votive stele comes from the temple of Hadad and Atargatis in Dura Europos: Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 63.6-8. C.C. Torrey, 'A Semitic Stele', in P.V.C. Baur et al. (eds.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report of Third Season of Work (New Haven: Yale University Press,

HEALEY 'May He be Remembered for Good'

183

votive (i.e. with a sanctuary context, especially that at Sumatar Harabesi) and non-funerary.32 For further light on the practical significance of these expressions we have to turn to the Palmyrene and Hatran texts. Palmyrene The well-known Palmyrene inscription dated 132 CE and in fact erected by a person of Nabataean background (NSI 140B = CIS II 3973)33 contains the following:34 These two altars have been made by PN... to DN... And remembered be PN...before DN...and remembered be everyone who visits (or passes by) these altars and says 'Remembered be all these for good'.

The idea here seems to be that the person concerned is commemorated before the deity and a similar blessed memory is to come to anyone who visits the shrine and says that the named person is to be remembered. Here we have expressed explicitly an element which might have been suggested by the Nabataean, Jewish Aramaic and Syriac evidence: it is specifically the mentioning of the name (in a favourable way) which is important, that is, the praising or blessing of the named individual. Otherwise in Palmyrene35 we may note examples of: dkyr PN, 'Remembered be PN';36 (bl) dkyr PN btb wm'yd*, 'Indeed remembered be PN for good, and the one who passes by (and remembers)' (CIS II 4207, 4208);37 dkyrn PNN btb qdm DN btb, 'Remembered for good be 1932), pp. 68-71, thought the inscription to be Christian, though this is most unlikely. 32. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 29 might be funerary, being located near a cave entrance. In Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 36.7 the phrase in question may also be funerary, though the dkyr formula is not part of the main inscription and the remembered person is the father of the tomb-owner. 33. See discussion also in J. Teixidor, The Nabataean Presence at Palmyra', JANES 5 (1973) (Gaster Festschrift), pp. 405-409. 34. The translation basically follows Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. 35. There is discussion of the dkyr formula in du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire, pp. 45-48. 36. D. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest suivi des inscriptions semitiques de cette region par H. Ingholt et J. Starcky (Paris: Geuthner, 1951), nos. 63ter, 64, 75. The inscriptions in this work are from outside the city of Palmyra. 37. Cf. J.T. Milik, Dedicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) (Paris:

184

Targumic and Cognate Studies

PNN before DN, for good';38 dkyr PN qdm DN (btb), 'Remembered be PN before DN (for good)'.39 There are also two rather interesting Palmyrene examples from Dura Europos which throw some light on the formula. One of these, on a fresco in a house,40 has: Remembered and blessed be the men who are depicted here before Bel and Yarhibol and cAglibol and Arsu; and remembered be PNN who painted this picture...

Here the blessing involved is not upon named individuals, but individuals whose pictures appear on the wall. Those being drawn to the attention of the gods are not dead at the time of depiction. The other example contains a number of difficulties but it too refers to a painting as the means by which commemoration is effected.41 Hatran Similarly Hatran Aramaic offers a variety of formulations including:42 dkyr PN, dkyr Itb PN, dkyr (PN) Itb (wlSnpyr43),dkyr PN qdm DN, dkyr PN qdm DN Itb (wlSnpyr), dkyr PN Itb (wlSnpyr) qdm DN, dkyr (wbryk) (PN) qdm DN Itb wlSnpyr, qdm DNN dkyr PN Itb wlSnpyr. Hatra offers a further explicit insight into the actual meaning and function of the phrase dkyr Itb. Hatra text 10144 has:

Geuthner, 1972), p. 183. It may be noted that the context of these particular inscriptions is funerary. 38. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest, no.78. The exact provenance is unknown. Cf. also no. 52, in which the formula is unclear. 39. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest, nos. 17 and 2ter, both from the temple of Abgal at Kheurbet Semrine. No. 17 comes from an altar. 40. Cf. du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire, no. 25. Readings and interpretation are far from certain. 41. du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire, no. 15. 42. References are not included here, since the examples can easily be located through the index of F. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra (Naples: Istituto Orientale, 1981). See also B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatreennes (Paris: Geuthner, 1991). 43. snpyr has virtually the same meaning as tb (cf. Syriac sappT). 44. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 101.

HEALEY 'May He be Remembered for Good'

185

Remembered be PN and PN before DN for good... and the curse45 of DN on anyone who reads this inscription and does not say 'Remembered be'.

There are several Hatran inscriptions of this type46 and they make it clear through the curse-formula that what was expected of the passer-by (or in the Hatran case the frequenter of the particular temple-building) was that he or she should mention the named individual. Another Hatran feature, which is, however, less clear because of disputed readings is the occurrence of a negative version of dkyr Itb in the form of dkyr lby$, 'Remembered be PN for evil/unfavourably'.47 This would itself be the equivalent of a curse.48 Conclusion The Palmyrene and Hatran texts I have quoted show very clearly what is going on here. The invocation implied in dkyr (bryk) ) is to the passerby or visitor to a sanctuary who sees the inscription and is required to say something, viz. 'Remembered be PN', a formula which perpetuates (in a positive way) the memory of the person concerned (whether he is dead or alive) and, in the case of those inscriptions placed in temples, 45. On Hatran bgn fl,'curse upon', see below in relation to Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 24 and also R. Degen, 'Zur Bedeutung von bgn in den Hatra Inschriften', in W.W. Miiller and W. Rollig (eds.), Neue Ephemeris fiir Semitische Epigraphik(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974), II, pp. 99-104. 46. Cf. Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 23, and the Sacadiya inscription (Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 106). Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 24 is probably in the same category, but see discussion below. On the cursing formula see F.A. Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', Folia Orientalia 16 (1975), pp. 63-64. Cf. also Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, nos. 30, 74. 47. The texts in question are nos. 100 and 24. With regard to the former there is a difference of reading between Vattioni (Ibys or Ps) and Aggoula (Itb). Vattioni's Ibys is the better reading, but he leaves it untranslated. For text 24 we depend on the reinterpretation of the text by Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', pp. 57-63, who takes lines 2 and 3b in the published numeration as a postscriptum containing the phrase dkyr IbyS, a reading which is materially plausible (though I am not completely convinced by the whole of Pennacchietti's argument about the antithetic structure of the postscriptum). I am grateful to Professor Beyer, who alludes to dkyr lby$ in Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, p. 554, for helping me to locate the examples and for directing my attention in this context to Pennacchietti's article. 48. Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', p. 63, notes the equivalence with bgn DN3l PN (see above Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 101).

186

Targumic and Cognate Studies

ensures his nominal presence in the sanctuary 'before the god'. It is interesting to note that the same qdm formula is applied to different deities in different traditions: Nabataean: Dushara, Allat or another local deity49 Syriac: probably Sin/maraldhe50 Jewish Aramaic: the Lord of the Heavens Palmyrene: Abgal, Bel, Yarhibol, cAglibol, Arsu, theywns, etc.51 Hatran: Marn, Martn, Bar-Maren,52 Allat, Baalshamin, Sams',53 et al.

It is difficult to account for all of this evidence through a single explanation. 1) Clearly in some of the Nabataean cases it is the deity who is to do the remembering. 2) In other cases the idea is that the named individuals should have their names mentioned before the deity by passers-by (the qdm types found in all five sources above)—with the result that the deity will have them in mind. 3) Finally there are the many cases where the situation is less clear because of the absence of reference to any deity. If the later Jewish tradition is any guide (zkwr lib), reference to the deity may be implied. Were the Nabataean travellers who wrote the numerous graffiti (some of them possibly Christians) invoking the protection of their own personal deity? Is there an implied curse, as in the Hatran inscriptions, on anyone so lacking in piety as to ignore the duty to mention the name or so wicked as to utter the negative dkyr IbySl Or is the purpose purely magical, analogous to a chain-letter which must be passed on in order to avoid misfortune?

49. Dushara does not really have a dominant position in Nabataean religiosity, especially outside the Petra region and northern Arabia. 50. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 18.2-3. 51. See du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire (references cited above). 52. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 125.2. 53. E.g. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 74.4. Cf. Milik, Dedicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr), pp. 401ff. Note may now also be made of J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995) under zkr{, pp. 321-29.

ALLUSIONS AND ILLUSIONS: ST EPHREM'S VERBAL MAGIC IN THE DIATESSARON COMMENTARY*

Carmel McCarthy

It is only in recent decades, and with good reason, that Ephrem of Nisibis has been re-established as one of the great theologian-poets in the Christian tradition.1 The belatedness of this recognition is due in part to the inaccessibility of his works which were written in Syriac, and which, until recently, were poorly served by modern editions and translations. But it is perhaps due even more to the fact that, for too long, Church historians have tended to look at the Church through Western eyes, focusing only on its Graeco-Roman origins. While it is true that most of the outstanding figures and literature of early Christian history are associated in some way with the area surrounding the Mediterranean seaboard—the great centres of Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria and Antioch—it is nonetheless important to remember that another great Christian tradition existed alongside that of the Mediterranean, rooted in those ancient lands dominated by the mighty rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. Syriac Christianity—Its Distinctive Flavour

To assume that the early Christian tradition was limited to its Greek and Latin expression would be to distort historical reality, and to weaken * This article has also been published in T. Finan and V. Twomey (eds.), Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995), pp. 143-62. 1. Brock characterizes Ephrem as 'the finest poet in any language of the patristic period' in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1987), p. xv, while R. Murray evaluates him as 'the greatest poet of the patristic age, and perhaps, the only theologian-poet to rank beside Dante', in Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 31.

188

Targumic and Cognate Studies

greatly our understanding of the roots of Christian theology and spirituality. In the third and fourth centuries, and possibly even earlier,2 there existed in the regions of Mesopotamia and Syria a distinctive, independent branch of Christianity, ascetic in outlook and strongly influenced by Jewish ways of thought. The language of this community was Syriac, a form of Aramaic not far removed from that spoken in first-century Palestine, and their concern was with the meditative, poetic and ascetical dimensions of the Christian experience rather than with its intellectual formulation. Its thought patterns and modes of expression were distinctively Semitic and in close continuity with the spiritual and cultural context from which the gospel emerged. The two major authors of the fourth century, Aphrahat and Ephrem, attest this Semitic form of Christianity, to be distinguished in many respects from the Christianity of the Greek and Latin-speaking world of the Mediterranean seaboard. Perhaps the simplest way of distinguishing this form of Christianity might be to characterize its approach as being primarily symbolic and synthetic, whereas the Greek approach is more philosophical and analytical in character. It would have been only from the fifth century onwards, in the aftermath of the Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian controversies, that the Syriac-speaking churches would have been rapidly exposed to hellenization, with the result that no subsequent authors would have escaped from Greek influence of one kind or another. Yet one must not imagine too sharp a divide between the Semitic approach and that of Ephrem's contemporaries who wrote in Greek and Latin. When it is remembered that, by the fourth century CE, Hellenistic cultures would have been present in the Middle East for over half a millennium, and that in the third and fourth centuries Syriac was the third international language of the Church, one could expect that no Syriac writer of Ephrem's time would have been totally unhellenized, nor would any Greek Christian writer of that time be totally unsemitized. As Sebastian Brock puts it, 'it was simply a matter of degree'.3 2. Cf. L.W. Barnard, 'The Origins and Emergence of the Church in Edessa during the First Two Centuries AD', VC 22 (1968), pp. 161-75, who argues that the history of the church in Edessa can be pushed back into the first century, and that it was strongly influenced by an early Jewish-Christian gospel tradition. Murray argues that the Christianity of Aphrahat and Ephrem had as its main base a breakaway movement from the Jewish community in Adiabene (cf. Symbols, pp. 7-8). 3. The Luminous Eye. The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Studies Series, 2nd edn, 1992), p. 143.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

189

It is therefore important to reserve the term Syriac Orient for specifying that earliest flowering of Syriac-speaking Christianity as yet essentially uninfluenced by either Greek or Latin thought forms. Brock is quite adamant in insisting that to the familiar pair of Greek East and Latin West there should be added a third component of Christian tradition, the Syriac Orient.4 But he immediately adds that none of these three traditions was totally isolated from the others, for not only do they have common roots in the gospel message, but throughout their existence they have always interacted with one another, directly and indirectly, and often in unexpected ways.5 Ephrem, Theologian and Poet Ephrem's exegetical style is a testimony to how much both he and the Church for which he wrote were at home in the scriptures. In his Diatessaron commentary the gospel text as he encounters it in that gospel harmony is his starting point, but he displays great freedom and at times unpredictability in what he chooses to comment on. Sometimes he quotes a lot of gospel text with brief comment. At other times he takes off and develops his reflections and theology at length, with little or no gospel text serving as the immediate basis. He has the freedom of a bird to move at will over the vast range of scripture, and select whatever text pleases him in the execution of his task. In this sense his commentary is deeply biblical. To illustrate a particular point he can sometimes call up a wide range of texts from both Old and New Testaments, in the form of testimonia, or proof texts. At another time he will interweave scriptural events by way of allusion and typology rather

4. Brock, The Syriac Fathers, p. xxxiii. 5. In a paper presented to the International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford 1987, 'From Ephrem to Romanes', Studia Patristica 20 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), pp. 139-51, Brock has examined this interaction in the area of poetry, by taking Ephrem and Romanes as representatives of Syria's two great literary traditions, Syriac and Greek, and, within the framework of the fourth century to the first half of the sixth century, has focused on 'the possibility (I would say probability) of the transmission of literary motifs in the other direction, from Syriac to Greek' (p. 144). Cf. also W.L. Petersen, 'The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem', Studia Patristica 18.4 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press/Leuven: Peeters, 1990), pp. 274-81, who argues in favour of a Syriac original for Romanos's compositions.

190

Targumic and Cognate Studies

than by direct quote, thereby demonstrating the particularly Semitic nature of his thought patterns and language. At one level it can be argued that Ephrem has a very coherent theological vision, with certain key concepts and themes recurring again and again. Yet, from another point of view, because his approach is not expressed in any systematic or logical (Western) form, it is essentially dynamic and fluid.6 Hence the title of this study! There are two concepts in particular, however, which are fundamental to Ephrem's theological framework, and which intertwine in both predictable and unpredictable ways. These are his uses of symbolism and typology. Through the centrality of these concepts Ephrem's theology is profoundly sacramental in character. Everything in the created world has the potential to act as a witness and pointer to the Creator. Everything is imbued with a hidden power or meaning (hayla kasyd), and it requires the eye of faith to penetrate into the inner spiritual reality. It is worth noting in passing that by developing this positive linkage between the outer material world and inner spiritual reality, Ephrem is very far from those Christian writers who, under Neoplatonic influence, tended to devalue the material world. God's Self-Disclosure Another way of understanding the coherence of Ephrem's use of symbol and typology would be to note how, for him, the fundamental distance between God the Creator and his creation is in fact impassable as far as any creature is concerned, and that any statement about God would be impossible had not God himself taken the initiative and bridged the chasm.7 From Ephrem's perspective God's mode of revelation is essentially threefold. He has revealed himself in the first instance by means of types and symbols which are operative in both nature and scripture. An excerpt from his fifth poem on Paradise sums up succinctly what Ephrem has to say about these two main vehicles for communication through symbols. Scripture (ktabd)) and nature (kyana)) indeed constitute God's witnesses:

6. Cf. Brock, The Luminous Eye, p. 21. 7. Cf. S.P. Brock, Hymns on Paradise: St Ephrem the Syrian (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1990), p. 41.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

191

In his book Moses described the creation of the natural world, so that both Nature and Scripture might bear witness to the Creator: Nature, through man's use of it, Scripture, through his reading it; they are the witnesses which reach everywhere, they are to be found at all times, present at every hour, confuting the unbeliever who defames the Creator.8

Further illustrations from the Diatessaron commentary of how nature and scripture bear witness to the Creator and become symbols of the hidden power within will be discussed later. God has revealed himself, in the second instance, by allowing himself, the indescribable, to be described in scripture in human terms and language, or, to use Ephrem's terms, by his 'putting on names'.9 Finally, the climax of God's selfrevelation takes place in God's 'putting on the flesh', or 'putting on the body' in the supreme mystery of the Incarnation. In this threefold process of revelation the use of symbol and type is both crucial and extremely rich and varied. Two extracts from Ephrem's poetry confirm how central this approach is to his theological vision, and can also serve as a point of entry into his use of symbolism and typology in the Diatessaron commentary: In every place, if you look, his symbol is there, and when you read, you will find his types. For by him were created all creatures, and he engraved his symbols upon his possessions. When he created the world, he gazed at it and adorned it with his images. Streams of his symbols opened, flowed and poured forth his symbols on his members.10 8. Cf. Hymns on Paradise, no. 5 (translation: Brock, p. 102). 9. This 'incarnation' of God into human language is most fully described by Ephrem in Hymn 31 in the collection On Faith, which begins with the lines: 'Let us give thanks to God, who clothed himself in the names of the body's various parts: Scripture refers to his ears, to teach us that he listens to us...' (translation of Brock, Hymns on Paradise, p. 41). 10. On Virginity 20, 12, translated by K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns

192

Targumic and Cognate Studies

In fact Ephrem at times felt almost overwhelmed with the superabundance of symbols. In musing on the episode in Judges where Samson finds that a swarm of bees has taken up residence in the carcass of the lion he had killed, Ephrem wrote: Was that a symbol? This Jesus has made so many symbols for us! I am sinking amid the waves of his symbols! He has pictured for us the raising of the dead by every kind of symbol and type.11

Symbolism and Typology in Ephrem It comes as no surprise therefore to find that the most distinctive and pervasive characteristic of Ephrem's literary style in the commentary is this frequent use of symbolism and typology. He uses a variety of different terms in this regard, often interchangeably, but the central one is raza which can be translated as either 'mystery' or 'symbol'. The word raza is of Persian origin, and is first attested in biblical literature in Dan. 2.18, where its meaning in that context is 'secret'. It occurs also in the Qumran writings, and is probably the Semitic word underlying Paul's use of mysterionin Rom. 16.25 and elsewhere. By Ephrem's time raza had taken on a wider variety of meanings, and when he uses it in the plural it refers to the liturgical 'mysteries' or 'sacraments'. As a typological term raza in the sense of 'symbol' draws attention to the link or connection between two different modes of reality. It is crucial to remember that for the early Syriac Fathers, and Ephrem in particular, their use of symbol was stronger and more dynamic than modern usage.12 For them a symbol actually participated in some mysterious way with the spiritual reality it was pointing towards. This is worth keeping in mind when Ephrem is using symbols from the material world, given the view of certain early Christian writers influenced by Neoplatonism. Side by side with raza are two other Syriac words that frequently occur in Ephrem in an almost interchangeable sense: tupsa and yuqna, both instantly recognizable as Greek loan-words for tupos and eikon.13 (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989), pp. 348-49. 11. Carmina Nisibena 39, 17. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 292. 12. Cf. Brock, Hymns on Paradise, p. 42.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

193

Generally speaking, types for Ephrem are to be found in scripture, while symbols and images are in nature, but he is by no means consistent in this usage.14 His developed theory of typology, with its levels of mystery/symbol and inner truth (shrara) fits well with that of the early Fathers in general. His use of shrara corresponds fairly closely to that of aletheia in the fourth Gospel,15 while his third level, that of eschatological fulfilment, is also quite traditional. It was common enough practice in both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic circles to picture the eschatological Paradise in the imagery of the first. Types and symbols therefore are a means of expressing relationships and links, of disclosing, in so far as that is possible, what is mysterious and hidden. Operating in several different ways, they bring out hidden connections full of meaning between the Old Testament and the New, between this world and the heavenly, between the New Testament and the sacraments, between the sacraments and the eschaton.16 In each case they 'reveal' something of what is otherwise 'hidden', they uncover some aspect of the inner truth or shrara which is present in creation and scripture. Although the Diatessaron commentary is essentially a prose work, Ephrem's poetic genius expresses itself in many forms of rhythmic balancing between personalities, institutions and events in salvation history.17 Since examples of his symbolic imagery occur on practically every page it is necessary to be selective, and focus more especially on two frequently recurring typologies in the commentary, that of the First Adam/Second Adam typology which played a very prominent role, not only in Ephrem,18 but in early Syriac Christianity as a whole, and secondly, the theme of the election of the Gentiles in place of the former Israel, 'the Nation and the Nations'.19 13. Cf. T.B. Mansour, 'Etude de la terminologie symbolique chez Saint Ephrem', Parole de I'Orient 14 (1987), pp. 221-62. 14. Cf. McVey, Hymns, p. 349, n. 279. 15. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 292, who mentions the works of Melito and Origen as sources for this approach also. 16. Cf. Brock, Hymns on Paradise, p. 42. 17. Cf. L. Leloir, Ephrem de Nisibe. Commentaire de I'evangile concordant ou Diatessaron (SC, 121; Paris: Cerf, 1966), p. 31. 18. Cf. L. Leloir, Doctrines et methodes de S. Ephrem d'apres son commentaire de I'evangile concordant(CSCO, 220; Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1961), pp. 42-44.

194

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Incarnational Typology: First Adam/Second Adam Ephrem's favourite term for the Incarnation is that God in Christ 'put on a body', a phrase already deeply rooted in the early Syriac tradition as a whole. It is to be found in the Acts of Judas Thomas and in Aphrahat, and occurs in the Diatessaron commentary with regular frequency, especially in the first chapter which begins with theological reflections on the prologue of the fourth Gospel: Why did our Lord clothe himself with our flesh? So that this flesh might experience victory, and that [humanity] might know and understand the gifts [of God]. For, if God had been victorious without the flesh, what praise could one render him?...Thus, the Word came and clothed itself with flesh, so that what cannot be grasped might be grasped through that which can be grasped, and that, through that which cannot be grasped, the flesh would raise itself up against those who grasp it.20

By means of the clothing imagery, that of the putting on and taking off of clothing, Ephrem develops for his readers a cohesive image of salvation history, in which the Second Eve and the Second Adam reverse the effects of the Fall which had been brought about by the selfwill of the First Eve and the First Adam. The eschatological Paradise is far more glorious than the original Paradise. At baptism, understood as the re-entry to Paradise, the Christian puts on 'the robe of glory' with which Adam and Eve had been clothed in Paradise before they were stripped naked as a result of their self-will. Hymn 23,13 from the Nativity cycle illustrates the clothing imagery very effectively: All these changes did the Merciful One effect, stripping off his glory and putting on a body; for he had devised a way to reclothe Adam in that glory which Adam had stripped off. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, corresponding to Adam's leaves, he put on clothes instead of Adam's skins; He was baptized for Adam's sin, 19. Cf. Murray, Symbols, pp. 41-68, for the origins of this theme in early Judaeo-Christian circles. 20. I, §1. For the translation here and elsewhere from the commentary, cf. C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (JSSSup; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

195

He was embalmed for Adam's death, He rose and raised up Adam in his glory. Blessed is he who descended, put on Adam, and ascended.

Ephrem makes use of this First Adam-Eve/Second Adam-Eve typology in a different way in II, §2 to highlight the virginal conception of Jesus, using very skilfully balanced contrasts: [Mary] gave birth without [the assistance of] a man. Just as in the beginning Eve was born of Adam without intercourse, so too [in the case of] Joseph and Mary, his virgin and spouse. Eve gave birth to the murderer,21 but Mary gave birth to the Life-Giver.22 The former gave birth to him who shed the blood of his brother, but the latter to him whose blood was shed by his brothers. The former saw him who was trembling and fleeing23 because of the curse of the earth, the latter [saw] him who bore the curse and nailed it on his cross.24 The virgin's conception teaches that he, who begot Adam without intercourse from the virgin earth, also fashioned the Second Adam without intercourse in the virgin's womb. Whereas the First [Adam] returned back into the womb of his mother,25 [it was] by means of the Second [Adam], who did not return back into the womb of his mother, that the former, who had been buried in the womb of his mother, was brought back [from it].

In the section commenting on the Temptations the contrast between Adam and Christ is done through the Semitic imagery of 'corporate personalities'. This is prefaced by an extended review of Christ's life showing how at each stage of his life he overcame Satan personified in the form of Death: Take note therefore how the Living One sought to refute death in every kind of way. He was an embryo, and while in the womb [death] was not able to destroy him. [He was] an infant and while growing up, it was not able to disfigure him. [He was] a child and during his education it was not able to confuse him. [He was] a young man, and with its lustful desires it was not able to lead him into error. [He was] instructed, and with its wiles, it was not able to overpower him. [He was] a teacher, and because of his intelligence, it was not able to refute him. [He was] vigilant, and with its commands, it was not able to turn him aside [from his purpose].

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Gen. 4.1 records the birth of Cain, who later murdered Abel. This is one of the words Syriac typically uses for saviour. Cf. Gen. 4.10-14. Col. 2.14. That is, the earth.

196

Targumic and Cognate Studies [He was] strong, and in killing him, it was not able to frighten him. [He was] a corpse, and in the custody of the tomb, it was not able to hold him. He was not ill, because he was a healer. He did not go astray, because he was a shepherd. He did not commit error, because he was a teacher. He did not stumble, because he was the light. This is the perfect way that the Christ opened up for his Church, from the beginning through conception until the completion of the resurrection.

Ephrem then shows how Christ, by overcoming Satan's wiles in his own incarnate body, wins victory for the Church, which in a mysterious corporate sense is his body. Christ thereby reverses the lot of humanity, condemned to death through the First Adam: If the Church therefore is his body, as Paul his witness has said,26 then believe that his Church has journeyed through all this without corruption. Just as, by the condemnation of the one body of Adam, all bodies died and continue to die,27 so too, through the victory of this one body of the Messiah his entire Church lived and continues to live. So, just as [it was] because these bodies themselves have sinned and are themselves dying, ^o that the earth, their mother, was also accursed, so too, because of this body, which is the Church without corruption,29 its earth is blessed from the beginning. The earth is the body of Mary, the temple in whom it was sown.30

The earth, which is now blessed because of Christ's victory for his Church, is in fact Mary's body, Christ's temple, and she is called blessed precisely in contrast to the earth which was cursed. Although not explicit, there is a hint at the end of the passage that Mary, the new Eve, is the mother of all the redeemed and sinless, by virtue of Christ's sinlessness.31 Apart from other brief references in the main body of the commentary it is in the context of the Passion that the First Adam/Second Adam typology is most developed. In reflecting on the agony in the garden,

26. Cf. Eph. 1.23. 27. Cf. Rom. 5.12-21. 28. Cf. Gen. 3.17-19. 29. Cf. Eph. 5.25-27. 30. Cf. IV, §§14-15. 31. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 84. After commenting on the greetings of Gabriel and Elizabeth, Ephrem ends the passage with a traditional contrast between Eve and Mary: 'because the'first mother was cursed, this second mother was therefore addressed with blessed names' (IV, §15).

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

197

Ephrem contrasts the 'members' of Adam and of Christ (understood as 'corporate personalities') as follows: Every human person carrying the visible sign of the First Adam in his body became food for death, but everyone who carried the sign of the Second Adam in himself became lord and destroyer of death. The one, in tasting [the fruit], loosened his will and submitted it to his body. He weakened it so that it became food for death. But the other, through the energy of his will, hardened his body so that it would resist the mouth of death.32

Jesus' surrender to the Father's will contrasts with Adam 'who resisted the will of the Creator and followed the will of his enemy'.33 Our Lord, he tells us, 'sweated to heal Adam who was sick' and 'remained in prayer in this garden, to bring [Adam] back into his own garden again.'34 A focal text for Ephrem's symbolic theology is Jn 19.34, the piercing of Christ's side, for through it he illustrates a host of interrelated typologies.35 The lance and the side of Christ bring to mind the cherub's sword,36 and the First Adam's side/rib which gave birth to Eve in a mysterious way. The side of Christ also points forward to the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, as well as to the mysterious birth of the Church. In a marvellously crafted lyrical outburst which interweaves all these themes in typical allusive fashion Ephrem proclaims: I have run towards all your members, I have received all [possible] gifts from them, and, through the side pierced by a lance, I have entered into Paradise enclosed by a lance.37 Let us enter through the pierced side, since it was through the rib that was extracted [from Adam] that we were robbed of the promise.38 Because of the fire that burned in Adam—it burned in him because of his rib—it was because of this that the side of

32. Cf. XX, §8. 33. XX, §9. 34. Cf. XX, §11. 35. Cf. R. Murray, 'The Lance which Re-opened Paradise: A Mysterious Reading in the Early Syriac Fathers', Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973), pp. 224-34. 36. Although Gen. 3.24 speaks of a sword, and Jn 9.34 of a lance, Syriac writers frequently use the same word for both to bring out the typology more effectively. 37. Cf. Gen. 3.24. 38. Cf. Gen. 2.21-22.

198

Targumic and Cognate Studies the Second Adam was pierced, and there issued forth from it a stream of water to extinguish the fire of the First Adam.39

Then, on a more sober note he continues his commentary, first on the significance of the blood that flowed forth, and then on the water, after which he sums up Jn. 19.34 as follows: There came forth blood and water, which is his Church, and it is built on him, just as [in the case of] Adam, whose wife was taken from his side. Adam's rib is his wife, and the blood of our Lord is his Church. From Adam's rib there was death, but from our Lord's rib, life. 40

One final passage from the Diatessaron commentary illustrates yet again how skilfully Ephrem grafts a number of allusions into one central typology. Since Christ's body is compared with the fruit of the tree in this passage it is possible to see the Church as an antitype of the garden, even if only implicitly: Just as it was said to Adam, The day on which you eat of it you will die,41—he did not die however on the day when he ate it, but [instead] received a pledge of his death through his being stripped of his glory, chased from Paradise and haunted daily by [the prospect of] death,—so too, in like manner, with regard to life in Christ, we eat his body instead of the fruit of the tree, and we have his altar in place of the garden of Eden. The curse is washed away by his innocent blood, and in the hope of the resurrection we await the life that is to come.42 Already we walk in a new life, for these [the body of Christ and his altar] are the pledges of it for us.43

The Nation and the Nations This contrast between the two Adams which Ephrem loves to develop is matched in frequency by another key typology in his writings, that of 'the Nation and the Nations'.44 The replacement of God's chosen people by a new people, the Gentiles, is a theme which has an understandably high profile in early Judaeo-Christian circles. In Robert Murray's view, 39. XXI, §10. 40. XXI, §11. 41. Gen. 2.17. 42. Cf. Rom. 8.23-25. 43. Cf. XXI, §25. 44. Syriac uses the same word 'arnma in the singular for God's chosen people, and camme (plural) for the Gentiles.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

199

the calling of the Gentiles constitutes (together with the person of Christ and his death on the cross) one of the three main themes of typological exegesis of the fourth-century Syriac Fathers.45 Two traditional techniques or literary forms in particular feature in the development of this theme: typological parallels, of which there are no shortage in Ephrem, and lists of testimonia. The fact that Ephrem occasionally uses testimonia or chains of proof texts illustrates how he, along with other fourth-century Syriac Fathers, and some Greek and Latin Fathers, are all heirs to a tradition already attested in both the New Testament and Qumran. The Diatessaron commentary on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem contains a special kind of typological comparison reflecting a tradition of oral teaching not unlike the Good Friday Improperia.46 Elements from Ezek. 16.9-13 are contrasted with details in the Passion in short rhythmic phrases. The passage is lengthy but worthy of being quoted in full: Untie the donkey and bring it to me.41 He began with a manger and finished with a donkey, in Bethlehem with a manger, in Jerusalem with a donkey. This is like, Rejoice Daughter of Zion, for behold your king is coming to you, just and lowly, and seated on a donkey.4^8 But [the daughter of Zion] saw him and was troubled. She looked at him and became sad. He, the Merciful One, and the Son of the Merciful One, had spread his benevolence over her like a father, but she conducted herself as perversely towards him as she had done towards the One who had sent him. Not being able to abuse the Father, she displayed her hatred against his Only-Begotten. [The daughter of Zion] repaid him with evil for the immensity of his grace. The Father had washed her from her blood, but she defiled his Son with her spitting.49 The Father had clothed her with fine linen and purple, but she clothed him with garments of mockery.5 0 He had placed a crown of glory on her head, but she plaited a crown of thorns for him.51 He had nourished her with choicest food and honey, but she gave him gall.52 He had given her pure wine, but she offered him vinegar [soaked] in a

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 41. Cf. XVIII, §1. Mk 11.2; Mt. 21.2. Zech. 9.9. Cf. Ezek. 16.9; Mt. 26.67. Cf. Ezek. 16.10, 13; Mt. 27.28. Cf. Ezek. 16.12; Mt. 27.29. Cf. Ezek. 16.13; Mt. 27.34.

200

Targumic and Cognate Studies sponge.53 The One who had introduced her into cities, she drove out into the desert. The One who had put shoes on her feet, she made hasten barefoot towards Golgotha.54 The One who had girded her loins with sapphire, she pierced in the side with a lance.55 When she had outraged the servants [of God] and killed the prophets, she was led into captivity to Babylon, and when the time of her punishment was completed, her return [from captivity] took place. But, now that she has stretched forth her hands against the Son and crucified the Son of the living [God], her house has been uprooted and her altar overturned, just as the prophet had said, The holy city shall be destroyed?** together with the king who is to come. And she will lie there in ruins until the completion of judgements.

Thus, for Ephrem the coming of Christ revealed God's hidden plan for the salvation of the nations, but it also brought a tragic catastrophe for the 'former nation'. This theme of catastrophe, and of the Jewish people's replacement by a new people, the Gentiles, runs like a connecting thread through the entire gospel commentary. It is often embedded in rather bitter anti-Jewish invective. Indeed it is no secret that Ephrem was very anti-Jewish in his writings, and seldom lost an opportunity to express this bias.57 His comments on Jesus' parable about the unclean spirit in Mt. 12.43-45 illustrate these various points with great ingenuity. After explaining the text's primary meaning as a warning not to let faith die after initial conversion (XI, §5), Ephrem then expands in allegorical fashion as follows: When the unclean spirit goes out of a person.5^ [The Lord] was comparing Israel to a madman possessed by a spirit, and himself to the likeness of a physican...Because he poured out his grace among them, idolatry fled before him, and their paganism took off into the Gentiles. And it was as if they, when the time was fulfilled, were healed of the

53. Cf.Jn 19.29. 54. Cf. Ezek. 16.10; Mt. 27.33. 55. Cf. Ezek. 16.10-11; Jn 19.34. 56. Cf. Dan. 8.11-12:9.26-27; 11.31-39. 57. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 68: 'It must be confessed with sorrow that Ephrem hated the Jews. It is sad that the man who could write the magisterial Commentary on Genesis, with the command it shows of the tradition which still to a great extent united Christians and Jews, could sink to writing Carmina Nisibena 67.' 58. Mt. 12.43.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

201

illness of error. Their idolatry betook itself far from the rays of the LifeGiver, and through the constraint of his miracles the people's paganism deserted them.59

However, this unclean spirit of idolatry could find no rest among the Gentiles, because these had heard God's voice. For this Ephrem gives a short testimony series of passages from Isaiah, followed by the conclusion of the allegory: the evil spirit returned to the Jews, and God gave them over to their enemies: For the Gentiles also heard the voice of him who said, All who are thirsty, come to the waters',and also,The Gentiles will hope in him,and, 7 have given you as a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles. Because the desert of the Gentiles had become pools of water,63 the [evil spirit] did not find rest among the Gentiles. Wherefore, 7 will go back to my former housed this [spirit] and its seven companions, and so it entered and took up residence among this people, according to the number of days of the week, and did away with all its religious observance... [The evil spirit] rejected them again in the days of our Lord, for it found them full of envy toward their Saviour. But this [time] their evil deed was worse than the former one. They requited the prophets with slaughter, and hung Christ on the cross. Consequently they were thrown away like a vessel for which there was no use.65

It is in the commentary on the Passion that the tragedy of the Jews and their replacement by the Gentiles reaches its climax. Simon of Cyrene is seen as representing the Gentiles, while the Jews, through placing the cross on Simon,66 symbolize their voluntary rejection of Christ: After he had taken the wood of his cross and had set out, they found and stopped a man of Cyrene, that is, from among the Gentiles, and placed the wood of the cross on him.67 It was only right that they should have given the wood of the cross voluntarily to the Gentiles, [since] in their rebellion, [the Jews] had rejected the coming of him who was bringing all 59. XI, §6. 60. Isa. 55.1. 61. Isa. 11.10. 62. Isa. 42.6; cf. Isa. 49.6. 63. Cf. Ps. 107.35. 64. Mt. 12.44. 65. XI, §§7-8. 66. In the gospel narrative it is the soldiers who do this, cf. Mt. 27.32 and parallels. 67. Cf. Mt. 27.32; Mk 15.21; Lk. 23.26; Jn 19.17.

202

Targumic and Cognate Studies blessings. In rejecting it themselves, in their jealousy, they cast it away to the Gentiles. They rejected it in their jealousy and the Gentiles received it, to their [even greater] jealousy. For [the Lord] approved the welcoming Gentiles, thus provoking jealousy amongst their contemporaries through [the Gentiles'] acceptance.68

This relentless censure of the Jews reaches a dramatic finale in his commentary on the rending of the Temple curtain: The curtain was torn.69 [This was] to show that [the Lord] had taken the kingdom away from them and had given it to a people who would bear fruit.70 Alternatively, he was indicating, through the similitude of the torn curtain, that the temple would be destroyed because his Spirit had gone forth from it. Since the high priest had wrongfully torn his robe, the Spirit tore the curtain to proclaim the audacity of the pride [of the Jews], by means of an action on the level of created beings.71

Further Symbolic Themes and Allusions There are numerous other examples which show the extent to which Ephrem's mode of theological discussion is essentially couched in symbolic and typological dress. For instance, in contrasting the angel's annunciation to Zechariah with that to Mary in I, § 11 of the commentary, Ephrem develops a number of insights. Zechariah goes to the angel because his child is destined to be inferior to the angel, whereas it is the angel who comes to Mary, since her child will be the angel's Lord. Moreover, the angel did not go to Elizabeth, since Zechariah is the true father of John. Gabriel did not go to Joseph, however, since Mary alone gave birth to her first-born. In III, §17 Ephrem uses the theme of being espoused near a well of water to draw together three separate Old Testament betrothals72 as types of the Lord's betrothal to his Church through his baptism in the Jordan waters. In commenting on the Sermon on the Mount in VI it is not surprising to find Ephrem focusing at length on the Antitheses and related texts73 68. XX, §20. 69. Mk 15.38. 70. Cf. Mt. 21.43. 71. XX, §4. 72. The betrothals of Rebecca (Gen. 24.1-67), Rachel (Gen. 29.1-21) and Zipporah (Exod. 2.16-21). 73. Cf. Mt. 5.20-48 ('You have heard it said...but I say to you'). Cf. S.P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit. Eighteen Poems of Saint Ephrem (San Bernardino, CA:

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

203

since these already belong to this central Semitic mode of expression through parallelism.74 Although the paragraphs devoted to the Antitheses are of varying length, they constitute the longest single section of his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,75 and develop in depth a central theme in Ephrem's writings, the creative tension between God's grace and his righteousness or justice.76 In the development of this theme Ephrem uses a variety of images and concepts which he places in parallelism with each other. An extract from §llb illustrates this point particularly well: When justice had reached its perfection, then grace put forth its perfection. An eye for an eye is the perfection of justice but, Whoever strikes you on the cheek, turn the other to him, is the consummation of grace. While both continually have their tastes, he proposed them to us through the two [successive] Testaments. The first [Testament] had the killing of animals for expiation, because justice did not permit that one should die in place of another. The second [Testament] was established through the blood of a man, who through his grace gave himself on behalf of all. One therefore was the beginning, and the other the completion.

In the strictly analytical sense philosophical reflections will not be found in Ephrem, yet his recurrent wrestling with the reasons why the Jews rejected their Lord reflects how concerned he was also with the question of freedom and free will. In analysing the text of Mt. 11.11, 'The least of these [latter] who preach the kingdom of heaven is greater than [John]', in IX, §§16-17, Ephrem concludes that John the Baptist's greatness was conferred on him and was not the result of free will, whereas, in the case of ordinary human beings, the role of their free response, their free will, is highlighted.77 The mystery of human freedom Borgo Press, 2nd enlarged edn, 1984), pp. 10-13 for an examination of Ephrem's creative use of typological exegesis in his extended meditations on scripture. 74. Cf. C. McCarthy, 'Gospel Exegesis from a Semitic Church: Ephrem's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount', in Tradition of the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (ed. G.J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO, 109; Freiburg and Gottingen: Universitatsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 103-23, especially pp. 114-17. 75. §§4-15. 76. Brock holds that this is one of the many Jewish traditions, found only outside the Bible in post-biblical literature, not attested in any other Christian source apart from Ephrem and some other early Christian Syriac writers. Cf. Brock, The Luminous Eye, p. 20. 77. Cf. VI, §§5, 7; X, §2; XI, §12; XIII, §7.

204

Targumic and Cognate Studies

and free will is illustrated too in the number of times Ephrem returns to grapple with why Judas should have betrayed the Lord.78 Ephrem frequently develops more than one interpretation for a given text, particularly texts that seem contradictory or ambivalent to him. A good illustration of this occurs in VIII, §14 where he quotes Mt. 10.34: 'Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth', and then immediately asks how this can be reconciled with Col. 1.20, 'He came to reconcile those things which are in heaven and those which are on earth'. His answer is nuanced. He begins by quoting two other passages from the Pauline letters which state that Christ did bring peace,79 but then shows how different faith responses to Christ resulted in various kinds of divisions.80 There are interesting variations offered in XIV, §7 as to why Peter wanted to build three tents on the occasion of the Transfiguration. Similarly, in reflecting on Gethsemane, Ephrem suggests many different reasons as to why Jesus should have been fearful and sorrowful, to the point of asking that the chalice of suffering be removed from him (XX, §§1-7). Poetic Imagery and Metaphors Although the Diatessaron commentary is essentially a prose work, it is rich in poetic imagery and metaphors. Of Jesus' birth Ephrem writes: 'At his radiant birth therefore a radiant star appeared, and at his dark death there appeared a dark gloom' (II, §24). His description of the awe and amazement experienced by the angels in heaven at the sight of Jesus eating with sinners is eloquent: 'Angels stand and tremble, while tax collectors recline and enjoy themselves; the watchers tremble at his greatness, while sinners eat with him' (V, §17b). There are some beautiful reflections on the richness of God's word in I, §§18-19:

78. Cf. IX, §14; X, §§5-6; XIV, §12; XVII, §§7, 13; XX, §§12, 18-19; and particularly Ephrem's discussion of the text, 'It would have been better for him if he had never been born' (Mt. 26.24) in XIX, §lf. 79. Eph. 2.14 and Gal. 6.16. 80. There is a lengthy discussion in XV, §§9-11 on how Jesus could say 'No one is good except God' to the rich man (Mk 10.18), but elsewhere refer to himself as 'the good shepherd' (Jn. 10.11). In XVIII, §15, he explores the seeming contradiction in how Jesus could say in Mt. 24.36, 'Not even the Son knows the day or the hour', in view of the intimate knowledge between Father and Son expressed in Mt. 11.27, 'No one knows the Father except the Son'.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

205

Who is capable of comprehending the immensity of the possibilities of one of your utterances? What we leave behind us in [your utterance] is far greater than what we take from it...Many are the perspectives of his word, just as many are the perspectives of those who study it...His utterance is a tree of life, which offers you blessed fruit from every side...The thirsty one rejoices because he can drink, but is not upset if unable to render the source dry. The well can conquer your thirst, but your thirst cannot conquer the fountain,

While best appreciated in their original Syriac formulations, Ephrem's puns and word-plays testify to a richly fertile, and at times playful, imagination. In commenting on Zechariah's disbelief in I, §13, he notes that '[God] who can close an open mouth can open a closed womb.' In VII, §18 the woman who was a sinner 'could scoff at the cunning thoughts of him who had been scoffing at her tears', while at the same time the Lord 'was judging the secret [thoughts] of one who thought that he [the Lord] did not even know those that were manifest' (VII, §10). At the well in Samaria Jesus 'asked for water, that he might give water, under the pretext of water' (XII, §16). In VII, §7 Ephrem describes the woman who had a haemorrhage as 'she who had wearied physicians and she whom the physicians had wearied.' The force of the interplay between the images of sleeping and waking in VI, §25 in relation to Jesus' calming of the storm is difficult to capture fully in translation: 'He that was sleeping was awakened, and cast the sea into a sleep, so that by the wakefulness of the sea which was [now] sleeping, he might show forth the wakefulness of his divinity which never sleeps.' After commenting on the Lord's recommendation to cut off one's hand or foot if it offends,81 Ephrem wryly observes in VI, §7 that 'Herod's right hand was Herodias, and instead of cutting it off and casting this unclean hand away, he cut off and cast away a holy head.'82 Pharaoh drowned in the waters in which he himself had drowned the infants (IV, §12). Pithy admonitions and observations are plentiful. In VI, §18a he advises: 'Nourish your soul with the fear of God, and God will nourish your body.' Elsewhere, in that same paragraph, he notes that 'Anxiety tortures the soul, and the money that one accumulates injures oneself.' In XV, §12 there is an economy of words in the statement that 'Not [all] who are living are alive, nor are [all] those who are buried dead', as also in XXI, §15: 'He died to our world in his body, that we might live 81. Mt. 18.8. 82. The beheading of John the Baptist, cf. Mt. 14.3-11.

206

Targumic and Cognate Studies

to his world in his body.' Indeed there is a touch of humour in XIX, §13: 'Our Lord's words, As I have loved you, can be explained, Let us die for each other; but we do not even want to live for one another!' Occasionally he includes extended reflections which are more spiritual in nature, such as those contained in VII, §§3-12. In this section he has been commenting on the woman who had a haemorrhage and who touched Jesus' cloak from behind.83 He then develops a keenly argued reflection on various kinds of touching and their spiritual benefits. Other extended reflections occur in VIII, §§3-4 in the context of the peace greeting84 and in X, §8 in relation to the sinful woman.85 Reading through Ephrem's commentary one comes across a number of interesting and sometimes unusual observations. In his pen-portrait of Simon Peter in IV, §20 we learn that Peter was timid, because he was frightened at the voice of a young servant girl, and poor, because he was not able to pay his own tax, and stupid, because he did not know how to take flight after denying the Lord. In VI, §24a, the motive Ephrem attributes to the rich man in his aspirations to follow Jesus is that 'one who performs such deeds must possess much money'! In commenting on the phrase, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?', he observes in a practical vein that things sold in bulk like vegetables are of lesser value. In the early Christian centuries Edessa was a centre with a certain reputation for healing and medicinal skills.86 Disease and illness were a source of constant anxiety and preoccupation in the ancient Near East, and the search for cures and healers is a theme recurring in the literature from these times.87 Syrian Christians it seems devoted much of their energies to medicine, and in later centuries they were to become renowned for their role as the transmitters of Greek medical science to the East, and for their status as physicians at the Persian court.88 Edessa's many springs and their healing properties were well known. It is interesting therefore to note how the theme of healing is a frequent one for Ephrem, in which he often contrasts the divine healing powers of the 83. Mk 5.24-34. 84. Lk. 10.5. 85. Lk. 7.36-50. 86. Cf. J.B. Segal, Edessa, The Blessed City (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), pp. 71-72. 87. The Abgar-Addai legend has the search for healing at its centre. 88. Cf. M.W. Dols, 'Syriac into Arabic: The Transmission of Greek Medicine', Aram 1 (1989), pp. 45-52.

MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions

207

Lord with the rather weak ones of human physicians.89 Another characteristic trait of Ephrem is his keen eye for nature and his readiness to see therein the reflection of the Creator.90 In commenting on the miracle at Cana in V, §§11-12, he points out that the Lord, in creating the wine, did not go outside of creation, but instead transformed the original creation 'to make it known that he was its Lord'. The imagery he uses in describing nature testifies to his alert powers of observation, particularly in relation to birds,91 and natural phenomena such as lightning and wind.92 Linked with Ephrem's approach to nature is his insistence on trusting in divine providence. The Lord, he says, wanted his disciples 'not to be dragged down by the anxiety of the world, but rather to rely on the heavenly bread, and to reflect on what is above rather than on what is on earth' (VI, §18a). In conclusion therefore, just as one will have difficulty in finding a fully systematized theology in Ephrem, so too one will look in vain for a fully developed set of hermeneutical principles.93 To illustrate the richness of his approach, and the fact that for him the scriptures are like an everflowing fountain whose wellsprings of meaning can never be exhausted, one could do no better to conclude than by letting him speak for himself: If there were [only] one meaning for the words [of Scripture], the first interpreter would find it, and all other listeners would have neither the toil of seeking nor the pleasure of finding. But every word of our Lord has its own image, and each image has many members, and each member possesses its own species and form. Each person hears in accordance with his capacity, and it is interpreted in accordance with what has been given him.94

89. Cf. V, §23; VI, §14; VII, §§2, 7, 12, 16-17, 19, 21; X, §7a; XIII, §§2-3. 90. For a fuller treatment of the relation between the Bible and nature in Ephrem's exegesis, see for example, P. Yousif, 'Symbolisme christologique dans la Bible et dans la Nature chez saint Ephrem de Nisibe (De Virginitate VIII-XI et les textes paralleles)', Parole de I'Orient 8 (1977-78), pp. 5-66. 91. Cf. IV, §8c; VI, §§17a, 18a; VIII, §§6, 12; XI, §13; and XII, §16. 92. Cf. I, §32 and X, §13. 93. In his article, 'Exegetical Principles of St Ephraem of Nisibis', Studio. Patristica 18.4 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press/Leuven: Peelers, 1990), pp. 296-302, P. Yousif has set about presenting 'the general shape of Ephraem's exegetical principles in a short, comprehensive and logical way' (p. 301), using the Diatessaron commentary as the most important source, but making reference also to the other extant biblical commentaries of Ephrem (cf. p. 296). 94. VII, §22.

LA PRIERE DE NABONIDE (4Q242)

Emile Puech, CNRS

Depuis la publication des quatre fragments du manuscrit 4Q242 assembles et presentes par J.T. Milik,1 un nombre imposant d'etudes leur a ete consacre.2 Par chance, le fg. 1 a conserve le debut du manuscrit 1. J.T. Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide et autres ecrits d'un cycle de Daniel. Fragments arameens de Qumran 4', RB 63 (1956), pp. 407-11 et 415, addendum ou 1'editeur signale un petit fragment au joint direct avec le fg. 2. 2. E. Vogt, 'Precatio regis Nabonid in pia narratione iudaica (4Q)', Bib 37 (1956), pp. 632-34; D.N. Freedman, The Prayer of Nabonidus', BASOR 145 (1957), pp. 31s; H.M.I. Gevarjahu, 'The Prayer of Nabonidus of the Manuscripts of the Desert of Judah', (civrit) dans J. Liver (ed.), Studies on the Manuscripts of the Desert of Judah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957), pp. 12-23; J.D. Amusin, 'Das Qumran-Fragment des "Gebetes" des babylonischen Konigs Nabonid', Vestnik drevnehistorii66(\958),pp. 104-17; A. Dupont-Sommer, 'Remarques linguistiques sur un fragment arameen de QoumrSn (Priere de Nabonide)', Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d'Etudes chamito-semitiques 8 (1958-60), pp. 48-56; idem, Les ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1959), pp. 36-41; idem, 'Exorcismes et guerisons dans les ecrits de Qoumran', dans J.A. Emerton (ed.), Oxford Congress Volume (VTSup, 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 246-61, spec, pp. 253ss; R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid. Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzahlung (Sitzungsberichte der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, phil.- hist. Klasse, 107/3; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962); J. Carmignac, 'Priere de Nabonide', dans J. Carmignac, E. Cothenet et H. Lignee, Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotes, II (Paris: Letouzey, 1963), pp. 289-94; G. Fohrer, '4QOrNab, HQtgJob und die Hioblegende', ZAW 15 (1963), pp. 93-97; W. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel (Mainz: Griinwald, 1964), pp. 68-76; S. Segert, 'Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu einigen aramaischen Texten von Qumran', Archiv Orientalni 33 (1965), pp. 190-206; M. Delcor, 'Le Testament de Job, la Priere de Nabonide et les traditions targumiques', dans S. Wagner (ed.), Bibel und Qumran: Festschrift Hans Bardtke zum 22.9.1966 (Leipzig: Evangelische Haupt-Bibel Gesellschaft, 1968), pp. 57-74; M. McNamara, 'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel', ITQ 37 (1970), pp. 131-49; D.S. Attema, 'Het Gebet van Nabonidus', dans Schrift en Uitleg. Studies...aangeboden aan Prof. Dr.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

209

portant le litre de la composition: 'Paroles de la priere qu'a price Nabonide', titre auquel on peut comparer celui de la priere d'Esdras: 'Commencement des paroles de la priere d'Esdras avant qu'il soit enleve, et il dit' (4 Esd. 8.20).3 Mais la lecture et 1'interpretation des huit premieres lignes de la premiere colonne partiellement conservees et constituant 1'essentiel des restes du manuscrit, sont loin de faire 1'unanimite des auteurs, tant s'en faut. II en est de meme de 1'histoire de la composition et de ses rapports avec la litterature danielique a laquelle McNamara a consacre une etude penetrante.4 Dans ces lignes en hommage au savant aramai'sant, nous nous proposons de faire le point du dechiffrement et de tenter une reconstitution des lignes conservees afin de permettre des conclusions aussi assurees que possible. L'ecriture de type semi-cursif appartient au groupe d'ecriture hasmoneenne tardive qu'on date au mieux vers 50 av. J.C. ou meme dans le deuxieme quart du premier siecle, elle est quelque peu plus evoluee que celle de 4QDnc.5 Excepte les premiers mots ou les parties W.H. Gispen (Kampen: Kok, 1970), pp. 7-20; A. Mertens, Das Buck Daniel im LichtederTexte vom Toten Meer (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1971), pp. 34-42; B. Jongeling, C.J. Labuschagne et A.S. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, with Translations and Annotations (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 121-31; W. Kirchschlager, 'Exorzismus in Qumran', Kairos 18 (1976), pp. 135-53, spec. pp. 144-48; A.S. van der Woude, 'Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonid', dans M. Delcor (ed.), Qumran. Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu (BETL, 46; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), pp. 121-29; P. Grelot, 'La Priere de Nabonide (4QOrNab). Nouvel essai de restauration', RevQ 9 (1978), pp. 483-95; J.A. Fitzmyer et D.J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (BibOr, 34; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), pp. 2-5 et 191-93; F. Garcia Martinez, '4QOrNab. Nueva sintesis', Sefarad 40 (1980), pp. 5-25 (revue et corrigee en 'The Prayer of Nabonidus. A New Synthesis', dans Qumran and Apocalyptic [Leiden: Brill, 1992], pp. 116-36); P.M. Cross, 'Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus', IEJ 34 (1984), pp. 260-64; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 223-24, et II (1994), p. 104; J.J. Collins, 'Nabonidus (Prayer of)', dans The Anchor Bible Dictionary IV (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 976-77. 3. Titre atteste dans les versions latine, syriaque et ethiopienne. Voir encore 2 Chron. 33.18-19 qui fait allusion a la priere du roi Manasse et a son exaucement, a ses peches et son impiete,..., consignes dans les dires des/de ses voyants (avec les LXX et un manuscrit hebreu ou hwzyw, preferable a 'Hozai' du TM que traduit la Bible de Jerusalem). 4. 'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel'. 5. Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide', p. 407, la qualifiait deja d'ecriture de transition hasmoneenne-herodienne, dans la seconde moitie du premier siecle avant J.C., mais Jongeling et al, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, p. 123, datent le manuscrit du debut

210

Targumic and Cognate Studies

du cuir retreci du fg. 4,1'ecriture du scribe est plus reguliere qu'on ne le soupc,onne parfois. Elle devrait done permettre, malgre les nombreuses cassures, d'apprecier au mieux les dimensions des lacunes et, partant, de tenter une reconstruction des lignes qui respecte au mieux la main du scribe. Par ailleurs, cette reconstitution devrait autoriser quelque appreciation des hypotheses formulees par 1'acceptation ou le rejet des propositions deja avancees6 et aura pour elle, a defaut de certitude absolue, au moins un argument de vraisemblance. De fait, un paleographe de metier a propose une solution7 qui n'a cependant pas re9U I'assentiment escompte.8 Le present essai trouvera-t-il meilleur accueil?

Figure 1. 4QPrNab, fgg. 1-3 de notre ere, ce qui nous paratt beaucoup trop tard. Cross qui, depuis, a propose un classement des ecritures d'apres I'etude de 1'evolution graphique du trace des lettres ou ductus, date ce manuscrit vers 75-50, dans le deuxieme quart du ler s. av. J.C. ('Fragments of the Prayers of Nabonidus', p. 260). 6. La necessite d'un tel projet de maquette a ete soulignee par Grelot qui ajoutait aussitot: 'Mais cette ecriture, tres personnelle, est passablement irreguliere, tant par la largeur des lettres que pour leur espacement. En consequence, la maquette donnerait une simple idee des possibilites existantes, mais elle ne permettrait pas de resoudre a coup sur toutes les questions pendantes' ('La Priere de Nabonide', p. 485), remarque reprise par Garcia Martinez ('The Prayer of Nabonidus', p. 118). Mais la reconstruction proposee par Grelot montre que cet auteur a dessine un projet de maquette, ce qui ne semble pas le cas de Garcia Martinez. 7. Cross, 'Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus'. 8. Voir Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of Nabonidus', spec. pp. 118 ss.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

211

Figure 2.4QprNab, fg. 4 Texte (voir figure 1) fgg. 1-3:

[mn DTD Rin "D ton ]«^Q ^[3 ']i [<«]D>{I}^Q -a; '^ "i KT.MX -'» [RD'to R;riD3 ';3; n:Ri ]]QTG K[n^]s a;ns3 KO'to K;nD3 ['^3 KH'PR uno Km1? n;]s 'ID[ -n ]pi IQD ^LD rnn >TO

1

2 3

[-IQKI 'Qip b^ «n^3 -;3 ]]Q mn' Kim 112 rft pnc; 'Rom

4

[n;» nnro n;iD(i) s'aa/K'^y Kn^]^ CD^ i[n]~n ip- Tiyzb aroi -inn [n;«i K^U KH^K cansn JiQ'nnt KD'K]3 s;nc?3 rnn DTD [N^TIS NDn; ]«ami KSOD -n^t cip n]'in «^Q WDD ]-;D [nn jin^D/'^p^ H iio]n J-H^R -i ~i[30 n-in ] -i |Q «son «;3K «y« [lirrojip C^D nm[b ]mn i^]3i«

5 6 7 8 9a

]imQip ]a ]|imQ[ni ]n-[u3 pnc

9

fg. 4 (voir figure 2) nobns ]ion IDUQ[

Tn]"pD C'PD i[^]ns n;riQ[D3i Knib: ';3 ]Q 'mm in IT:] ] rftrr R"? 'on~i i^"iy/i[ ](?)nL? nn;« «m RQD[

1

2 3 4

Traduction: fgg- 1-3: 1 Paroles de la pr[i]ere qu'a price Nabunay, l[<e>] roi d[e Bajbylone, le [grand] roi [lor[lorsqu'ilfutfrappe] 2 de 1'ulcere malin, sur 1'ordre de D[ie]u a Teyman. [Moi, Nabunay, de I'ulcere malin] 3 j'ai ete frappe sept annees durant. Et com[me] j[e] devins semblable [a une bete, Dieu ecouta ma voix (?) ] 4 et mon peche II le pardonna. Un devin—et c'etait un juif d'ent[re les membres de la deportation—vint chez moi et dit:] 5 'Fais savoir par ecrit de rendre gloire et gra[ndeu]r au nom du D[ieu Tres-Haut (Ides deux).' (Et?) Ainsij'ecrivis: 'Moi-meme, 6 j'avais ete frappe d'un ulcere m[alin] a Teyman, [sur 1'ordre du Dieu

212

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Tres-Haut, et moi,] 1 sept annees durant, je priais [devant] les dieux d'argent et d'or, [de bronze, defer,] 8 de bois, de pierre, d'argile, parce que [je penjsais qu'ils etai(ent] des dieux [qui, ma priere(l},] 9 entend(r)aient.J ] J'[ai implore] leur [miseri]corde[ devant eux. 9a , [et...

fg.4: 1... pour] les servir, j'ai consulte (comme interprete des songes) 2[un devin, unjuifd'entre les membres de la deportation, et en comme] cadeau il apporta la paix [de ma] tranquifllite... 3 ... ]et arriverent soudain mes amis, je n'ai pas pu [... 4 ... ] comme toi, tu lui/leur (?) ressembles! [ Commentaire Fragmentss 1-3, 1.1: Le nom du roi, Nabonide—akkadien Nabuna'id (Nabu est exalte)—est orthographie nbny, Nabunay, forme hypocoristique de type gentilice, bien connue en arameen.9 Apres le kaf final a large tete le scribe semble avoir ecrit dalet de la particule dy a une distance comparable a celle de 1'exemple precedent: est encore discernable la haste verticale de la lettre et la tete a sa gauche formant un angle bien visible. Le module est en tout comparable a celui de la 1. 5. II ne peut en aucun cas s'agir du ductus d'un alef,10 ni de bet ou kaf medial.11 II s'ensuit que ne sont recevables ni la lecture 3[twr wbjbl, ni 3[r™ dy bjbl, ni bbl d'une part, ni davantage 1'interpretation du trace comme une simple tache, d'autre part. Peut-on rendre compte des 9. Voir G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramdisch... (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 2eme edn, 1905), pp. 178-80, mais la forme ne peut resulter 'd'une banale confusion entre dalet etyod (NBND devenant NBNY)', comme le propose Carmignac, Les textes de Qumran, p. 293, n. 2, qu'accepterait aussi Garcia Martinez, 'The Prayer of Nabonidus' (p. 121). 10. Lecture pointee de 1'editeur Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide', p. 408, mlk 3[twr wbjbl, suivi par Vogt, Meyer, Kirchschlager par ex., ou differemment completee Y^° dy bjbl, par Dupont-Sommer (1958-60), p. 48, suivi par Jongeling et al., Grelot, Fitzmyer-Harrington, van der Woude (p. 122), Garcia Martinez (1992). 11. Lecture proposee par Cross (p. 262): The blot.. .has a head which could be the beginning of a bet, medial kaf, or possibly dalet.' Beyer (p. 223), lit bet: mlk bbl sans plus!

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

213

restes visibles? II semble que la tache ovoi'de a droite de la haste du dalet soit une trainee involontaire d'encre non sechee, de preference a une correction maladroite de la lettre en alef}22 Reste la lecture qui seule semble s'imposer, dalet de la particule genitivale, d[y. Sur le fg. 2 est encore visible la tete du deuxieme bet de b]bl,13 ce qui permet une restauration plus precise de 1'espace dans la lacune. Si on accepte le placement des fragments 2 et 3 a une distance assez rapprochee a gauche comme le suggere la restauration des 11. 6-8, on obtient alor 1'espace attendu pour la lettre yod de d[y b]bl. En consequence, il n'est ni necessaire, ni recommande de lire un barbouillage dans la lettre qui suit mlk. La lecture mlk d[y b]bl qui a 1'evidence semble s'imposer, suppose une correction supralineaire du alefde 1'etat emphatique.14 II est probable que le scribe a quelque peu retouche le kaf final en medial en ajoutant une base horizontale qui semble couper la trainee en question. On obtient alors la lecture nbny mlk[<:>>] d[y b]bl, 'Nabunay, l[<e>] roi de Babylone', formule connue deja en Esd. 5.13, comparee a mlk bbl, qui etait la premiere intention du scribe attestee en Esd. 5.12 et Dan 7.1, pour traduire le babylonien llNa-bi-um-na-a-id $ar babilikl^5 mais inconnu comme 'roi d'Assur et de Babylone'. La restauration mlk3[ rb3 est assuree, equivalent de Sarru rabu. Pour la longueur des lignes nous suivrions la proposition de Cross avec probablement le pronom: kdy hwy kty$ hwh.l(> -1. 2: 1'expression Shn3 fryS3 correspond precisement a 1'hebreu Shyn rc de Deut. 28.35 et Job 2.7, maladie de la peau qu'on traduit

12. D'une part, les contours de cette tache ovoi'de manquent de definition et, d'autre part, la correction en alefpar une haste oblique aurait oblitere la partie inferieure de la tete du dalet a gauche de la haste, ce qui n'est manifestement pas le cas d'apres les reproductions. Seule 1'observation de 1'original, fragment absent du Musee Rockfeller a Jerusalem, pourrait confirmer ou infirmer cette remarque. 13. Contrairement au dessin de Cross qui comble ainsi indument la lacune & droite en espa?ant le trace des deux bet. 14. II est tout de meme surprenant de remarquer que la trainee d'encre involontaire affectant la droite de la haste du dalet s'inscrit dans I'axe de la haste oblique du alef supralineaire. Cette trainee semble provenir de la correction faite sitot apres la faute, un doigt ayant frotte 1'encre encore fraiche, elle confirmerait la correction. 15. Voir S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Koniginschriften (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912), pp. 218, 224, 226, 230, 234, 250, 252, 262, 294, 296. 16. La restauration de Beyer est nettement insuffisante.

214

argumicndCognate Studies

generalement par 'inflammation, ulcere'.17 L'ecriture bptgm 3[ avec un mem medial releve d'une habitude de certains scribes qumraniens dans ces cas construits (non observe a la 1. 5) ou avec des prepositions. Etant donne 1'espacement requis par la ligne precedente, I'alefduu fg. 2,2 doit etre 1'emphatique du nomen rectum 3[lh]3, lu par 1'editeur mais sans possibilite de qualificatif cly]3.™Dans ce cas, la reponse est donnee a la question de savoir si le roi a ete frappe a Teyman ou s'il est alle y resider en raison de sa maladie.19 Le toponyme, connu par des inscriptions arameennes, de 1'epoque perse sous la forme tym3, mais aussi en hebreu Isa. 21.14; Jer. 25.23; 1 Chron. 1.30; Gen. 25.15, ou tm\ Job 6.19, reprend la forme te-ma-3a/-a ou te-e-me des inscriptions cuneiformes. La forme tymn du manuscrit avec la terminaison -an du locatif est bien connue de 1'hebreu et des LXX, ©ocificcv, dont derive la forme gentilice tymny(3)) et te-ma-na-a-a (des 1'epoque d'Adadnirari II).20 De preference a mdynt3 bShn3 b3y$3], nous suivrions Grelot pour la fin de la ligne et lirions pour 1'espace et le sens, 3nh nbny b$hn3 b3y$3], d'apres Dan. 4.1 comme introduction au recit autobiographique.21 -1. 3: tandis que les Annales babyloniennes precisent que Nabonide s'absenta de Babylone pendant au moins dix ans (de 553-43), le manuscrit qumranien reduit a sept ans la presence de Nabonide a Teyman. II ne faut pas y voir une precision historique en estimant que pendant les trois annees de difference, il sejourna ailleurs, a Dedan,...ou Harran, mais seulement une duree symbolique sur le chiffre sept exprimant une unite complete. Dan. 4.13, 20, 22, 29 connait aussi une 17. Dans le Larousse medical, on lit: Tulcere de la peau siege sur un fond inflammatoire. Le derme et I'hypoderme sont enflammes entramant un etat infectieux.. .Les ulceres phagedeniques creusent profondement la peau...' 18. Comme le proposent la grande majorite des auteurs d'apres Dan. 3.26, 32; 5.18, 21, a 1'exception de Grelot, W wSr]3, Cross 3[1h]3, Beyer, ou Amusin, >[lh SmyJ3, Gevarjahu, Jongeling et al., 3[lh 3lhy]3. 19. Voir Grelot, p. 486. 20. II parait douteux cependant qu'on puisse en deduire que tymn est la forme la plus ancienne du toponyme, comme le pense Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of Nabonidus' (p. 122), a la suite de J. Levy, 'The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the time of Nabonidus', HUCA 19 (1945-46), pp. 40589, spec. 443-45. Voir encore a ce propos les formes tym3 sur les steles de Teima (CIS II 113 [5e s.] etc. et tymn sur un bassin (2e s., anthroponyme?), A.J. Jaussen et R. Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arable (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), II, p. 222, n° 336. 21. Grelot (p. 486), suivi par Cross (p. 263) et Garcia Martinez (1992), p. 122.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

215

tradition de 'sept temps/periodes (cdnyny comme duree du retrait de la royaute a Nabuchodonosor. Mais on sait aussi qu'en Daniel la moitie d'une periode est composee de 1 + 2 + 1/2, soit trois annees et demie (Dan. 7.25) ou cdnyn equivaut a Snyn, alors que la stele de Nabonide a Harran precise qu' 'a la fin des dix ans vint le moment (adanu) ou furent accomplis les jours qu'avait predits Nannar...' 22 Au bord de la cassure, la lecture wmn est certaine: tete aussi large que la base et depart du trait oblique du mem.23 L'espacement des deux fragments n'autorise pas les restaurations habituellement suggerees, wmn pn^y)3,24[krsyy]25 [Ihywt3]26 6 [btr dnh].21 La restauration qui parait s'imposer pour 1'espace et le sens nous semble etre wmn [ dy ]$wy y[nh,2S en donnant a la conjonction le sens usuel de 'apres que, depuis que, du fait que' ou meme 'comme' ou une nuance temporelle pourrait se meler au sens causal qu'elle a a la 1. 8. Comme 1'a releve Grelot, le verbe $wy ne peut etre que le participe passif pe'al ou le parfait pecil ou le parfait pacel 3e l serait orthographie $w3.29 personne, non le participe present pefalqui Dans notre hypothese, seul le sens passif (participe pefall ou parfait pecil) est a retenir.30 Le passage est comparable a Dan. 4.20-22; 5.21: 'etre

22. C.J. Gadd, 'The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus', Anatolian Studies 8 (1958), pp. 35-92, H2 A I 26, II11, III 4-5 (pp. 58-63 et 88). 23. Une lecture wkn est totalement exclue, malgre Jongeling et al, p. 127: le kaf medial a toujours une tete tres reduite et ne peut done etre pris en consideration. La lecture wbq[r (Gevarjahu, Amusin) est elle aussi inacceptable: bet autant que qofsont impossibles, de meme wpn[! (pour 'npyl),let[mon] vi[sage (?)', Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 337 (pe exclu et nun final). 24. Milik, Vogt, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez. 25. Meyer. 26. Jongeling et al. 27. Grelot. 28. Cross et Beyer, mais ce dernier comprend uman [di ], au lieu de umin [ di ], et complete ensuite *[gry], 'Aber derjenige [welcher] bestimmt hat [meinen Lohn]', restauration trop courte et non sans difficultes, ainsi que 1'hypothese de van der Woude, wmn [hd hwyn ]$wy >[nh, 'und irgendeinem Tier glich ich', p. 124. 29. Voir Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid, pp. 22s. 30. Avec Cross, p. 263, nous restaurons ensuite Ihyw3, Ihywt3 ou cm hyw3, comparer Dan. 4.21 (ketib) Sewi, (qere) Sawwi. Grelot a retenu le parfait pacel a cause de la restauration >l[h3 comme sujet du verbe en lisant lamed la trace a lire certainement nun final de tymn (p. 486, n. 6). Vu la cassure, la haste du lamed aurait du etre entierement visible, ainsi que le pied de la lettre, alors que le nun convient parfaitement.

216

Targumic and Cognate Studies

semblable a une bete'.31 II ne s'ensuit pas que le roi a ete transforme en une bete, la metaphore souligne simplement la condition du roi qui a fui au desert comme une bete dans son repaire (comparer Dan. 4.22-33).32 La restauration de la fin de la ligne doit s'accorder avec 1'interpretation delal.4. -1. 4: les auteurs ont diversement compris 1'expression whfy $bq mais le sens obvie ne peut etre que 'et mon(/es) peche(s) (II) a pardonne', ainsi qu'il a deja ete souligne, comparer 1 IQtgJob col. 38.2 (= Job. 42.9) w$bq Ihwn hfyhwn bdylh, 'et II leur pardonna leurs fautes a cause de lui (Job)'.33 Une question annexe se pose: faut-il relier Ih, ou Ih gzr au verbe precedent? Plusieurs auteurs ont opte pour cette solution en faisant de Ih un datif ethique et de gzr le sujet du verbe. Mais quoi qu'on en ait dit, il en resulte alors une conception theologique nouvelle, inconnue de la Bible et du judai'sme ancien: un homme (devin, ou exorciste pour certains) pardonnerait les peches,34 ce que des auteurs 31. On ne peut retenir le sens de 'etre relegue' (Milik), ni de 'to be banished' (Garcia Martinez [1992], p. 124), qui pense trouver un excellent parallele a Beth Shearim, catacombe 13,2, mais Swy n'y a pas le sens de 'to be set' propose par 1'editeur avec hesitation. II s'agit d'un participe passif, non d'une forme intensive. 32. Voir P. Grelot, 'Nabuchodonosor change en bete', VT44 (1994), pp. 10-17. S'agit-il ici d'une exclusion volontaire ou forcee de la societe des hommes? La mention de Shn3 fryS3 ne laisserait-elle pas comprendre que cette souillure permanente ecarte de la presence des dieux et de la vie sociale et politique? Cela pourrait servir d'argument dans la version arameenne de 4QPrNab, bien que le roi continue a prier les dieux et qu'il ait des contacts sociaux a Teyman. La version babylonienne ne donne pas d'explication par la maladie mais penche pour un retrait volontaire de la part du roi ou 1'aspect religieux prime sur le politique et le militaire. 33. Le sens 'accorder' attribue a ce verbe par 1'editeur qui relie \vhfya un mot precedent et corrige Ih en ly, a ete a bon droit refute, voir Dupont-Sommer (GLECS, p. 49 et VTSup, pp. 258ss.), et celui de 'pardonner, remettre une faute' a ete generalement accepte par la suite. 34. Dupont-Sommer, suivi par Carmignac (pp. 293-94), Fitzmyer-Harrington et Garcia Martinez (1992), p. 125-26. L'appel fait a un parallele en CD xiii 10 n'est pas convaincant, car il s'agit tout autant d'une citation d' Isa. 58.6 d'une part et, d'autre part, 1'intendant peut 'delier les chaines', en ce sens qu'il peut assouplir ou supprimer les regies que la congregation s'est elle-meme fixee. En Dan. 4.24, Daniel exhorte le roi a se convertir en rompant avec sa vie de peche par la pratique de la justice, whtyk bsdqh prq, mais il n'est pas 1'instrument du pardon des peches. Dans le passage de 1'Epitre de Jacques 5.14, 16 auquel certains font appel, c'est le Seigneur qui pardonne les peches, non un homme. 'La priere de la foi sauvera le malade, et le Seigneur le relevera. S'il a commis des peches, ils lui seront pardonnes.'

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

217

refusent a bon droit dans ce passage.35 En effet, il ne suffit pas de dire que la guerison suppose le pardon des peches, cause de la maladie, car c'est toujours Dieu qui pardonne d'une part et, d'autre part, il est difficile de trouver un parallele en Me 2.5-7; Mt. 9.2 et Luc 5.20, puisque, dans les Evangiles, Jesus pardonne les peches en sa qualite de Messie—Fils de Dieu, a 1'egal du Pere, non en tant que simple exorciste juif. Le contexte demande que 3lh3 'Dieu', de preference a cly3'le TresHaut', soit present a la fin de la ligne 3, certainement comme sujet de $bq mais aussi en parallele a un autre verbe.36 Pour comprendre le passage, ne devrait-on pas s'inspirer du targum de Job 42.9 en HQtgJob col. 38.2: w$mc 3lh3 bqlh dy 3ywb w$bq Ihwn hfyhwn bdylh wtb 3lh313ywb brhmyn wyhb //i...'Et Dieu ecouta la priere de Job et il leur pardonna leurs peches a cause de lui, et Dieu se tourna vers Job dans (sa) misericorde et lui donna...'37 Au lieu de wslyt qdm ou mieux /lh33 fly3],3*8 on pourrait alors proposer tb ly 3lh3 brhmyn] w/zPy-./Dieu se tourna vers moi dans (sa) misericorde] et ma/es faute(s) il pardonna', ou mieux sans doute $mc 3lh3 bqly (ou bslty)] ] w/zfy...'Dieu entendit ma priere] et ma/es faute(s) il pardonna' ,39 Dans ce cas, la coupure devrait 35. Voir Meyer, p. 24, qui introduit le nom de Dieu a la fin de la 1. 3 comme sujet du verbe, Jongeling et a/., van der Woude (p. 124) et Grelot (1978), pp. 248s. Milik et Beyer coupent apres whfyet evitent la difficulte mais en edulcorant le sens du passage. 36. Voir Grelot (1978), pp. 488s. En effet, la restauration de la 1. 3 proposee par Dupont-Sommer (1959), 'Mais je priai le Dieux Tres-Haut] ^et...' reprise par Jongeling et alii, van der Woude, Fitzmyer-Harrington mais avec Dieu comme sujet de Sbq au lieu de gzr (Dupont-Sommer et d'autres) semble gauche, car le complement d'un verbe devient le sujet du suivant sans autre precision. Aussi Grelot ) /et de V/. a-t-il propose d'en faire le sujet a la fois de Swy (pacel) 37. J.P.M. van der Ploeg et A.S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrdn (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 86s. Noter que Job. 42.7-9 s'adresse a Eliphaz de Teyman. 38. Propose d'abord par Dupont-Sommer, 'Remarques linguistiques', p. 49, et assez souvent retenu par la suite, a 1'exception de Grelot et de Beyer. 39. La formule Smc bql- est tres frequente en ouest-semitique si bien que la precision bslty en tete du recit n'est pas indispensable d'une part. D'autre part, est-il indispensable que la fin de la ligne renferme 1'idee d'une supplication, wbcyt/wslyt Mh3, cly}]] motivant le pardon-reponse de Dieu, voir Dan. 4.31? II est tout a fait normal et attendu que le roi invoque son dieu, surtout dans un etat de detresse, cela va sans dire, alors que la reponse divine n'est pas automatique et peut se faire attendre, comparer les nombreuses steles qui se finissent par ky $mc qly/h, sans qu'il ait etc auparavant explicitement question de priere au dieu.

218

Targumic and Cognate Studies

se faire apres Ih, a comprendre comme pronom accusatif de rappel reprenant le complement d'objet direct place en tete de la phrase.40 Cette solution parait bien preferable a celle qui ferait commencer une proposition nominale par Ih gzr sans le verbe hwh,41 et a celle qui corrigerait Ih en ly ou qui le comprendrait comme datif ethique ainsi qu'on 1'a deja signale. A son encontre, on ne peut invoquer une hypothetique interpretation de Faction du gzr qui depend avant tout de presupposes et non du texte preserve. Dans ce cas, hfy serait a lire au singulier comme le qere et probablement aussi le ketib en Dan. 4.24. Ainsi la phrase suivante commence tout normalement avec gzr, en construction parataxique comme a la 1. 2 [3nh nbny..., immediatement suivie d'une incise, phrase nominale coordonnee precisant 1'identite du gzr. L'incise ne fait pas de difficulte vu les paralleles en Dan. 2.25; 5.13 et 6.14,42 mais 1'espace des fragments n'autorise pas la restitution de gbr entre whw3 et yhwdy. Le gentilice y remplace la construction genitivale dy yhwd dans les trois exemples de Daniel, et le pronom whw3 doit remplacer gbr dy de Dan. 2.25, dny}l dy de Dan. 6.14, et 5.13 renforce encore la construction par 3nth (hw3)...43 Reste a preciser le sens de gzr que 1'editeur a rendu par 'devin', sens qui a ete conteste pour celui d"exorciste'.44 Mais ou est-il question d'exorcismes ou de guerison par 1'intermediate d'un tiers dans les mots preserves du manuscrit? Ces lignes different considerablement du passage parfois invoque de IQApGen. col. 20.28-29 ou Pharaon demande a Abraham de prier pour lui et sa maison, ce que ce dernier fit en lui imposant les mains et le mal fut ecarte et 1'esprit malin chasse. En 40. Ainsi que 1'a explique Grelot (1978), pp. 488-89, suivi par Cross (qui hesite toutefois entre un casus pendens et le participe passif suivi du /-, quoique $bq puisse difficilement etre analyse comme un participe passif Sbyq). Jongeling et al., p. 263 et van der Woude (pp. 124-25) ne retiennent pas 1'explication par le datif ethique ni par le pronom de rappel qui supposerait, selon eux, la forme Ihfy Sbq Ih, mais autant la particule est necessaire pour le pronom de rappel, autant elle est facultative pour 1'accusatif place en tete. 41. Avec Grelot (1978, p. 489), malgre Jongeling et al. (p. 128) et van der Woude (pp. 124-25). 42. Une lecture yhwdy b[3dyn (Beyer [p. 223]) est totalement exclue, le mem de m[n est certain, tete et base. 43. C'est aussi la solution de Cross (p. 262), mais avec une autre explication. 44. Dupont-Sommer (1958-60; 1960), accepte en particulier par Carmignac, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez (1992 [pp. 125-26]), qui en font le sujet de Sbq hty.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

219

4QPrNab, il n'est nullement question de Tune ou 1'autre de ces interventions. II est simplement question de 'pardon du peche' de Nabonide, certainement par Dieu. Enfin, dans les listes de Dan. 2.27; 4.4; 5.7 et 11 enumerant les sages (hkymy3), enchanteurs (3Spy3\ magiciens (hrtmy3), chaldeens (ksdy3), les gzry* viennent toujours en dernier et le mot n'est pas traduit en grec mais simplement translittere, ya£apr|voi, que Ton traduit habituellement et a juste litre par 'devin', 'un determineur de sorts', celui qui donne son avis au roi.45 Ce sens premier convient parfaitement au passage de 4QPrNab comme introduction a la 1. 5. L'espace suggere de completer ainsi la phrase commencee par gzr - xx th3 cly w3mr] oul fl qdmy w3mr], 'un devin—xx—vint chez moi et dit]', comparer Dan. 4.4: cllyn (absolu) NN, et 4.5: cl qdmy dny>l mais dans ce dernier passage le roi a expressement donne 1'ordre de faire entrer les sages...46 -1. 5: la principale difficulte de cette ligne reside dans 1'analyse des formes des deux verbes coordonnes, hhwy wktb + infinitif: deux parfaits a la 3e pers. ou deux imperatifs?47 La reconstruction proposee a opte pour des imperatifs48 au lieu de parfaits.49 Le hafell de hwy signifie 'notifier, faire savoir' et, en parallele a wktb 'et ecris', signifie 'fais savoir par ecrit'. Ces deux verbes suivis non d'une subordonnee mais d'un infinitif pecal, lmcbd + accusatif + /- (substantif), litteralement au sens de 'pour rendre, servir x a y', n'exigent plus d'etre suivis d'un complement d'objet, ni d'un complement d'attribution designant les personnes auxquelles le message s'adresserait et qui devraient executer 1'ordre royal.50 Le devin demande simplement au roi Nabonide de faire 45. Avec Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al, van der Woude, Grelot, Cross, Beyer. Rien dans ce passage ne suggere qu'on ait affaire a des 'conjurateurs, exorcistes'. Le sens 'exorciste' aurait etc connu du grec. La stele de Harran H 2 A III 1-2 connait les baru-devin et Sa '//w-oniromancien. 46. Cette lecture de la 1. 4 ne permet pas de completer bbbl whw3 >mr ly] (Garcia Martinez [1992], p. 126), ni meme bbbl }mr ly] un peu trop court. Par ailleurs, le devin doit venir en presence du roi (comp. whw* >mr ly de van der Woude). 47. La lecture hhwy est certaine malgre Beyer qui lit hw[y]ny, nun est impossible (tete de waw). 48. Avec Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338, Carmignac, Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot (1978), p. 490 (sans exclure 1'autre possibilite), FitzmyerHarrington, Cross, Garcia Martinez. 49. Milik, Meyer. 50. Ce genre de remarque a etc finement formule par Grelot([1978], p. 490), mais il n'y a pas necessairement dans cette ligne un ordre royal que les sujets

220

Targumic and Cognate Studies

connaitre par ecrit son salut pour la gloire et 1'honneur du nom du Dieu qui en est 1'auteur.51 II s'agit done avant tout d'un recit des merveilles de salut, du type des steles royales a la gloire d'un dieu auquel on doit comparer le contenu de Dan. 3.32: 'les signes et les prodiges qu'a fait pour moi le Dieu Tres-Haut, il m'a plu de les faire connaitre'. Etant donne 1'espacement des fgg., la seule lecture possible est yqr wrfbjw l$m 3[lh3,52 qu'on doit a peu pres certainement completer par c ly> dans la bouche du devin juif, cette fois probablement a identifier a Daniel, comp. Dan. 5.18, ou bien lire 3[lh My3, comp. Dan. 2.37,44,..., dont la signification serait identique.53 La fin de la ligne peut se completer wkn ktbt kdy, 'et ainsi j'ecrivis lorsque]'54 ou}nh'...moi]\55 preferable a w3rw/ w3lw 3nh nbny] ou a h3 3nh nbny].566 On pourrait proposer wkn ou (w)kdnh ktbt 3nh]... -1. 6: la restauration b[3y$3] comble parfaitement la premiere lacune.57 devraient executer sans condition, comme 1'entendent plusieurs auteurs, Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot, Beyer. 51. Voir en ce sens Dupont-Sommer ([1959], p. 338), Carmignac, FitzmyerHarrington, Cross, Garcia Martinez. 52. Avec Cross. Mais la trace d'encre sur le fg. 2 a droite de ISm est celle d'un triangle (= tete du waw), non celle d'un petit trait droit (pour tete de re$), confirmant encore une fois 1'espacement propose. II est done exclu de lire yqr wr[bw(t) whdjr, Milik, Meyer, Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338 (Carmignac: deux mots), Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez (1992), en s'inspirant de Dan. 5.18 qui contient 4 substantifs et dans 1'ordre suivant: mlkwt3 wrbwf \vyqr3 whdrh. 53. On ne peut lire ici 3[lh3 sans autre qualificatif comme le propose Beyer. 54. Avec Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Garcia Martinez. 55. Avec Cross. Fitzmyer-Harrington proposent wkn ktbt, certainement trop court. Dupont-Sommer (1959), 'et j'ecrivis ceci' (wktbt dnh?), est aussi trop court. La proposition de Grelot, w3nth kdy, trop courte, poursuit le discours du devin. La restauration de Beyer est beaucoup trop courte. 56. En s'inspirant de 1'emploi des particules en Dan. 2.31; 4.7, 10; 7.8 (2x) (w3lw); 7.2, 5, 6, 7, 13 (w3rw) ou 2.43; 3.25 (h3) qui ouvriraient trop rapidement le discours direct. 57. Proposition de Milik avant la decouverte du petit fragment jointif au fg. 2, et acceptee par Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338, qui s'en tient a ce seul mot pour la 1.6, alors qu'il proposait une distance plus grande entre les fragments aux 11. 1-5. II y a l une impossibilite qu'avait vue Carmignac (p. 294) proposant peut-etrewSryt...], mais que n'ont pas remarquee Fitzmyer-Harrington. Les autres auteurs lisent wSryt (Grelot, Garcia Martinez) mais ce mot est trop long pour 1'espace aux 11. 1-5, ou laissent un espace non comble (Jongeling et al., van der Woude). Seuls Cross et

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

221

La fin de la ligne doit se completer [bptgm W c/y, ou 3lh $my>, voir 1. 2, mais cette fois avec le qualificatif exige par 1'intervention du devin juif a la 1. 5.58 Un mot est encore necessaire pour completer la ligne, probablement w3nh], au sens fort, 'et moi = alors que moi' reprenant ^/idelal. 5.59 -1. 7: la restauration de la fin de la ligne qui assure la largeur originelle de la colonne est certaine,60 voir Dan. 5.23 wPlhy ksp3 wdhb3 nhP przP x3 3 3 w bn et dans un ordre different, Dan. 5.4 Plhy dhb3 wksp3 nhS przP X3 3 w bn3, chaque fois cependant sans hsp3 (voir 2.33 et 45) mais avec la coordination dans w3bn3. La premiere lacune dont la dimension est connue ne peut contenir qu'un seul mot, plus probablement qdm (Dan. 6.II), 6 1 preferable a I k l , redondant et tautologique devant une enumeration.62 -1. 8: la restauration de la lacune ne peut etre que [ hwyt sb]r dans le style des 11. 6-8.63 -1. 9: cette ligne dont il ne reste que des traces de lettres lues Jmyhwn par Milik, porte une longue correction supralineaire qui va du fg. 1 et court sur toute la largeur du fg. 3. Milik a propose de lire en 9a: 3w.[—] d..$lm[-]..[. Nous proposerions de lire 3wb[, puis sur le fg. 3 ]dbh Beyer a sa fa9on ont tenu compte d'une distance fixe pour 1'ensemble des lignes du fg.2. 58. La restitution de Dupont-Sommer (1959) '[et mon visage (?) n'etait plus semblable a celui des fils d'homme (?)]' ne s'accorde pas avec la sequence mais elle a etc en partie retenue par Fitzmyer-Harrington, et elle est aussi trop courte. 59. Jongeling et al., et van der Woude ne completent pas, Grelot supplee w'nth selon la logique de la restauration de la 1. 5. Cross, suivi par Garcia Martinez, supplee w'nh, qui semble preferable a (k)dy (Carmignac) qui laisserait supposer que Nabonide n'aurait prie ses dieux que durant ces sept annees! 60. Malgre Beyer qui estime la ligne complete avec le fg. 3. 61. Avec Cross et Beyer, au lieu de qdm kl de Grelot et de Garcia Martinez. 62. Malgre Dupont-Sommer, suivi par Fitzmyer-Harrington, et cette fois encore trop court pour 1'espace suppose aux 11. 1-5. C'est pourquoi Jongeling et al. et va der Woude ont supplee wSbht Iplhy, d'apres Dan. 5.4 (et 23), mais Grelot a justement fait remarquer qu'on peut difficilement mettre en parallele une conjugaison periphrastique msl3 hwyt et un verbe au parfait wSbfit. 63. Avec Dupont-Sommer (?), Meyer (p. 27), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Cross, Garcia Martinez (qui n'observe pas cette fois la grandeur de la lacune supposee aux lignes precedentes), mais hwyt msb]r (Jongeling et al.} est trop long. Ayant choisi une plus grande distance, Grelot y introduit [hwyt }nth sb]r en poursuivant le discours du devin. La restauration de Beyer [}sb]r est trop courte et totalement inadaptee aux ecarts retenus pour d'autres lignes.

222

Targumic and Cognate Studies

$lm[?]qd[.M Ces restes peuvent se completer ainsi: >wb[d/lw—IJdbh Sim qdfmyhwn. L'espace entre les fragments suggere la presence d'un mot assez court comme twryn 'des taureaux' ou plus difficilement 3mr 'un agneau'. Dans ce cas on proposerait de completer les restes des 11. 8dy klhwn ou mieux dy bqly /bmsly hww 9$mcyn bc]yt[ rhjmyhwn [mn qdmyhwn. Le mot rhmyn se construit normalement avec bch qui, lui, regit la construction mn qdm + divinite, Dan. 2.18 avec rhmyn, voir qdm +, 6.12, mn (kl) -, 6.8. En Dan. 5.23 11 est dit des divinites 'qu'elles ne voient pas, n'entendent pas et ne comprennent pas'. Or nous avons deja propose de lire $mf + divinite + b-qly/msly a la fin de la 1. 3. II pourrait y avoir un rappel de cette formule soit en reprenant 1'ensemble des divinites avec dy klhwn et $mc a 1'absolu ($mcyn)'qui tous entend(r)aient', soit en lisant dy bqly/msly...'qui i ma priere entend(r)aient'. Une restauration a 1'inaccompli yhwwn au lieu du parfait hww ajouterait une nuance modale 'parce que je pensais qu'ils etaient des dieux qui entendraient ma priere'. La correction supralineaire semble faire allusion a des sacrifices offerts precisement a ces divinites pour qu'elles entendent et exaucent la priere du roi pour sa 'guerison'. On ne peut pas s'empecher de comparer Job 42.8 ou Dieu demande a Eliphaz en holocauste 1'offrande de sept taureaux et de sept beliers! Le verbe 3wb[dw devrait etre la forme hofal,construit avec /-, au sens de 'on a detruit (par le feu), ont ete immoles', comp. Dan. 5.11 (mais dans ce cas pas en sacrifice) ou mieux 3wb[lw, 'on amefna', comparer Job 42.8 qhw lkm...wlkw... Le sacrifice dbh Sim, 'sacrifice de salut (par le feu)', est bien connu des Semites de 1'ouest, en particulier de la religion Israelite.65 La demande des faveurs divines suppose un culte au temple royal de Teyman ou etaient deposees les statues des dieux.66 L'erreur du 64. Du bet on voit encore le trait a droite de la base. Sur le fg. 3, restes du bet (haste assez courte) apres le dalet deja lu, et tete de het, espace, Sin probable avec depart du trait courbe et du trait median, lamed, mem final, espacement apparemment sans restes d'ecriture, partie de la tete de qofou samek et reste de trait droit ( (alef, dalet, zairi). 65. Voir par exemple R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de I'Ancien Testament, II (Paris: Cerf, 1967), pp. 294, 307, 324, ou Les sacrifices de I'Ancien Testament (Cahiers de la RB, 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964), pp. 44-48. Au dire des historiens, Nabonide serait d'origine ouest-semitique, honorant particulierement le dieu Sin de Harran, y compris a Teyman, lieu de culte de ce dieu. L'emploi de dbh Sim au singulier se lit en Amos 5.22, et est traduit acorripiov par les LXX. 66. II est certain que Nabonide a construit une residence palatiale et au moins un

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

223

copiste s'expliquerait par une faute du meme au meme, ici par homeoteleuton avec qdmyhwn qui devrait done etre le dernier mot de la correction supralineaire. On est ainsi assure de n'avoir affaire qu'a une copie de la Priere de Nabonide. La largeur ainsi obtenue pour la premiere colonne mesure environ 12 cm de marge a marge, avec de courts depassements a gauche, ce qui est la dimension la plus frequente des colonnes dans les manuscrits qumraniens. Cette solution qui tient compte des fragments et du contenu devrait s'imposer. Fragment 4. Par la qualite legerement differente du cuir, le fg. 4 appartiendrait a une autre feuille du rouleau, la deuxieme(?).67 II se place dans la partie gauche d'une colonne (1. 1), vraisemblablement la partie superieure (a la hauteur des lignes 7-8 ?) mais son appartenance au rouleau ne peut etre mise en doute. -1. 1: cette ligne comporte deux difficultes: le sens de 3hlmt et la lecture du premier mot. Les auteurs suivent generalement 1'editeur, 7w/br.68 Mais sans parler des difficultes grammaticales, cette lecture est peu assuree. Le cuir retreci par le haut a quelque peu deforme les lettres (voir le sommet de la haste du lamed de la 1. 2) a lire en toute certitude ]mcbd, fam touchant la base du bet, restes du mem et dalet, comparer lmcbd en col. 1. 5, la cassure est en biseau. Le sens de yhlmt depend du contexte,69 mais dans les restes preserves, il n'est nulle part question de 'guerison', simplement degzr qui n'est pas un exorciste mais un 'devin', interprete des songes, voir Dan. 4.4:... wgzry3 whim3 >mr, chapitre parallele ou le songe et son interpretation tiennent une place centrale. Sans doute, la col i 2-3 et 6 connait 1'expression bShn3 b3yS3 kty$ hwyt, mais rien ne permet de 1'entrevoir dans ces lignes lacuneuses.70 Dans le temple a Teyman pendant son long sejour de 10 ans, voir Gadd, 'The Harran Inscriptions', p. 80. 67. Milik (p. 408), 'done a la col IV au moins', de meme van der Woude. 68. Ou lisent m]lbr, Jongeling et al, voir Grelot ([1978], p. 493), ou ]gbr, Beyer, lecture totalement a exclure. 69. Soil 'avoir un songe' de him I (Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot [?], soit 'etre raffermi' de him II (Dupont-Sommer [1959], p. 338, Carmignac, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez [1992], p. 128) selon le sens que Ton veut imposer a cette ligne. 70. IQApGen xx 16-25 connait 1'emploi de rwh mktS, rwh fry?, mais aussi 1'appel aux 'sages, magiciens et guerisseurs ('sy3) pour le guerir (I'sywth)' (11. 1920), vocabulaire absent des lignes preservees de 4QPrNab.

224

Targumic and Cognate Studies

doute et sans la mention de 'guerisseur', n'est-il pas preferable d'opter pour 'la consultation de I'interprete des songes', voir encore Jer. 29.8 et targum?71 Avec la lecture ]mcbd, hmwn pourrait renvoyer aux dieux. -1. 2: la lecture de 1'editeur Jmnh 3h[l]p Sim $l[wtya etc remise en cause par Beyer mais sans appui paleographique.72 La lecture Jmnh parait exclue, la sequence nh est precedee d'un taw certain et tres probablement d'un mem medial allonge (comp. i 2). Puis nous preferons de beaucoup lire 3h[l]k [?]$lm $l[wty. Le mot 3hlk etait-il suivi de [1]Sim, comp. 1 Sam. 20.13; 2 Rois 5.19? Malgre le rapetissement de 1'espace par la deformation du cuir, il ne semble pas qu'il y ait place pour un lamed, a moins d'une lettre tres reduite. On a done affaire a un hafel l de hlk. Nous completerions ainsi pour le sens et 1'espace 2[gzr hd yhwdy mn bny glwf wbkjmtnh 3h[l]k Sim $l[wty, 'un devin, un juif d'entre les membres de la deportation, et en comme] cadeau, il appo[r]ta le salut de [ma] tranqui[llite.' -1. 3: la lecture de 1'editeur ]..nw n'est pas assuree d'apres les reproductions, seule la planche publiee par Meyer (face a la p. 16) laisse voir la cassure entre le 'nun' et une haste de lettre. En fait, 1'etude des photographies et de 1'original a la binoculaire demande de lire sade le soi-distant 'nun', une partie de la tete a droite est encore visible. La haste precedant la cassure porte sur la droite la trace d'un trait oblique pres de la cassure du fragment et est encore visible le bas d'une haste a quelque 4 mm a droite, soit J...sw, a lire surement Jw/yrsw,fal'ncertain vu la hauteur du trait sur la haste d'un re$ (dalet ou het, lettre a tete a gauche). La racine frs n'est pas encore attestee, a notre connaissance, en arameen ancien, mais elle est connue en hebreu, syriaque et arabe, au sens de 'trembler (de terreur, de peur)' en hebreu et en arabe, et au sens de 'arriver inopinement ou meme violemment' en syriaque.73 Ce sens

71. II n'est pas ininteressant de noter la part que tient le 'reve' et son interpretation dans les transmission et connaissance des ordres divins dans les recits des steles de Nabonide, H 2 I 11, III 3 (Gadd, The Harran Inscriptions', pp. 57 et 63), tout comme en Dan. 4 qui lui est parallele. 72. Beyer lit et comprend ainsi: 3hlmt [w'mr ly h}] 3nth }rz \v[l]3lm Sl[m. Mais aucune des nouvelles lectures n'est paleographiquement acceptable, en particulier les sequences 3nt et ri w[l]c. 73. Voir R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901), col. 2996s., pe'al: accidit inopinato (traduit ETII^EVtotal de Sir. 29.27), advenit,..., parfois violenter (part, passif), d'ou en fran?ais 'survenir, arriver subitement, a 1'improviste'.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

225

convient parfaitement dans un passage, avec 'mes amis', rhmy, au lieu de 'mes entrailles'.74 -1. 4: la lecture de 1'editeur ne fait pas de difficulte, sauf que nous prefererions lire he dans lh[ a l.[ pour ld[nyl,15a 5comprendre 'lui' ou 'leur' (lh[mwn ?). Le singulier pourrait rappeler le sujet principal du reve a quoi 1'interprete comparerait le roi, et le pluriel pourrait faire allusion a d'autres realties.76 -1. 5: nous lisons ].l[?]..[, lamed sous Yalefdeee ynth. La relation du fg. 4 a la col. i n'est pas claire, mais sur plusieurs colonnes disparues devaient etre poursuivis le recit traitant de 1'impuissance des dieux adores par Nabonide, celui d'un songe du roi qui 1'avait trouble, celui de la presence a Teyman et de la maladie, de 1'inefficacite des magiciens, de la convocation du devin juif et de 1'interpretation du songe, le recit de la 'guerison' par le Dieu Tres-Haut et de la confession du Dieu unique. Le fragment 4 semble se situer au niveau de la venue du devin juif et de 1'interpretation. Le rapprochement de ces lignes avec le recit du songe de Nabuchodonosor en Dan. 3.31-4.34 a ete souligne a bon droit avec le changement du nom du roi. Le Nabonide historique de la chute de Baby lone devient Nabuchodonosor de la chute de Jerusalem, le recit de Texil' de sept ans et non de la presence de dix ans a Teyman se deroule cette fois a Babylone ou sont exiles sous Nabuchodonosor les juifs parmi lesquels se trouve le meilleur interprete des songes, Daniel. La maladie, un ulcere malin rappelant une des plaies d'Egypte (Ex. 9.8-11) et une espece de folie,77 est re"duite a une sorte de folie en Dan. 4, mais 1'une et 1'autre doivent amener a la confession du Dieu Tres-Haut et de sa toutepuissance. 74. Meyer explicitait 1'hypothese de Milik 'se sont remuees' en lisant >annu de nn. Mais la lecture de Beyer est impensable ].[w]nw. Le choix entre 'mes amis' et 'mes entrailles' (Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der Woude) etait delicat dans la lecture precedente. 75. Milik (p. 410), Dupont-Sommer ([1959], p. 338), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez ([1992], p. 132). 76. Voir Milik (p. 410, n. 7): des etres angeliques. Cf. Job 7.2. 77. La stele de Harran H 2 A I 21-22 et 30 rapporte que les sujets du roi furent punis de leur impiete envers Sin par la fievre et la famine mais que les dieux avaient veille sur la sante et la vie du roi a Teyman (lieu de culte de Sin) mais de la part du parti des pretres de Marduk, retraite au desert et culte sont compris comme une folie sacrilege du roi.

3

226

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Malgre la proximite de presentation, le passage de Daniel depend ties vraisemblablement de 4QPrNab.78 Une meme dependance semble verifiee pour Dan. 2-6 comme 1'a justement souligne McNamara etudiant la figure du Nabonide historique, 1'edification de la statue a son dieu Sin et la figure de Nabuchodonosor dans le livre de Daniel.79 Mais dans ce genre de recit a la fois edifiant et apologetique, la guerison rapportee au dieu Sin dans les re"cit babyloniens est attribute a la reconnaissance-confession du Dieu Tres-Haut qui a pardonne la faute du roi, grace a 1'intervention d'un exile, undevin juif qui sert de 'revelateur' de la toute-puissance du Dieu Unique. Dans 1'un et 1'autre cas, il s'agit d'une transformation juive d'une meme source babylonienne. Mais dans les passages preserves de 4QPrNab, il n'est nullement question d'exorciste, ce que le sens du mot gzr ne favorise pas, et le contexte ne 1'exige pas davantage. II n'y a done pas la un trait de la doctrine essenienne,80 alors que 1'ecrit presente toutes les caracteristiques d'un ecrit pre-qumranien et meme pre-danielique. Par sa critique de 1'idolatrie et la gloire a rendre au nom du Dieu TresHaut, cette 'Priere' rapporte avant tout une histoire de confession au Dieu unique qui seul peut pardonner la faute du coupable, fut-il le 'roi des quatres coins du monde'. Et 1'instruction de mise par ecrit de cette confession royale avait pour but, dans 1'intention du devin juif, de provoquer 1'adhesion des sujets du royaume. L'historiette favorable aux Juifs a Teyman sous Nabonide est devenue avec Daniel une historiette 78. Comme 1'avait deja souligne Milik, suivi par Meyer (pp. 34ss.), Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot ([1978], p. 494), Beyer, malgre I'opinion contraire de Dupont-Sommer ([1959]; [1960], pp. 260-61), ou celle en faveur d'une source commune (Carmignac,. p. 339), Garcia Martinez ([1992],p. 290). 79. McNamara (p. 136) estime, avec d'autres, que la statue du dieu a ete inauguree avant le sejour a Teyman et non apres. La presence de Juifs a Teyman qui lui parait hautement probable ou celle des exiles en Babylonie aurait favorise ce genre de recit favorable a Nabonide, recit plus tard attribue a Nabuchodonosor depeint sous un jour lui aussi favorable et necessairement anterieur & 1'epoque maccabeenne et au regne de 1'impie Antiochus IV Epiphane, de m6me Grelot ([1978], pp. 494-95). 80. Malgre Dupont-Sommer, Les ecrits esseniens, pp. 338-41, 'Exorcismes et guerisons', pp. 260s. Cette histoire de confession theologique plus que de guerison ne contribue en rien a renforcer la these de 1'origine essenienne de la litterature de Qumran. A ce propos, on ne peut davantage s'appuyer sur une etymologic plus que discutable du mot 'essenien' = guerisseur = therapeute, comme certains le proposent encore a la suite de G. Vermes, voir par exemple Carmignac, Les textes de Qumran, p. 291; Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of Nabonidus', p. 136.

PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)

227

favorable aux Juifs exiles a Babylone par Nabuchodonosor. Meme incomplet, ce manuscrit se revele important, on le voit, pour la connaissance des traditions arameennes pre-danieliques qu'a particulierement etudiees le professeur McNamara. Post-scriptum. Depuis la soumission de cette note, P. Grelot me fait remarquer dans une lettre qu'apres Ihwy3 (1.3) il serait aussi bien de preciser 1'idee d'une supplication a Dieu, par exemple: frdyn Mh* bcyt ou slyt], 'alors je priai Dieu] et mon peche, il le remit'... 'II me semble meme que votre suggestion pour la 1. 3, avec comparaison du roi a une bete, preparerait la legende de "Nabuchodonosor change en bete" (au point de vue psychologique!). J'accepterais ici votre suggestion qui m'obligerait a modifier completement mon hypothese precedente avec Swwy aupa'tr. Si ma remarque (n. 39) etait insuffisante comme indication d'une priere a Dieu et de son exaucement, ce qui est le plus important, J'accepterais alors pour la longeur 3dyn Plh3 bfyt].Mais Swy peut toujours etre analyse comme parfait pefill(ou meme part, passif pe'al). Dans le cas contraire, retenir en partie la phraseologie de Grelot wmn[ y dy] $wy 3[lh} 3npwhy cly wV ly], 'Et parce [que] D[ieu] dirigea [sa face vers moi, il me guerit] et mon peche...' Le sens general n'est rien modifie.

This page intentionally left blank

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WORKS OF MARTIN MCNAMARA IN TARGUMIC AND BIBLICAL STUDIES

7957 'De populi Aramaeorum primordiis',VerfoMm Domini 35 (1957), pp. 129-42.

1960 0 'Second Peter. A Reconsideration', Scripture 12 (1960), pp. 13-19. 7967 Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1961). 7962 'The Emmanuel Prophecy and its Context', Scripture 14 (1962), pp. 118-25.

1963 3 'The Emmanuel Prophecy and its Context', Scripture 15 (1963), pp. 19-23; 80-88. 7965 'Novum Testamentum et Targum palaestinense ad Pentateuchum', Verbum Domini 43 (1965), pp. 288-300. 7966 The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966). 'The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study', Scripture 18 (1966), pp. 47-56 (= Irish Ecclesiastical Record 109 [1968], pp. 158-65). 'The Jerusalem Bible', Doctrine and Life 16 (1966), pp. 689-91. 'Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch', Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), pp. 1-15. 'Targumic Studies', CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 1-19. 7967 'The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel', Scripture 19 (1967), pp. 65-73. 'Daniel, Book of, New Catholic Encyclopedia 4 (1967), pp. 633-36.

230

Targumic and Cognate Studies

'Jewish Liturgy and the New Testament', The Bible Today 33 (1967), pp. 2324-32. Targums' [sub Bible, IV, 11], New Catholic Encyclopedia 2 (1967), pp. 431-33.

1968 (with Michael Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1.

Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 1. Genesis (Madrid/Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968). 'God's Living Word: The Infancy Narratives and Midrash', Doctrine and Life 18 (1968), pp. 701-705. 'Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 12:42)', The Expository Times 79 (1968), pp. 115-17. 'Seventy Weeks of Years (Dan 9, 24-27)', New Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1968), pp. 141-2. 'Susanna', New Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1968), pp. 825-6, 1 fig. 'Were the Magi Essenes?', Irish Ecclesiastical Record 110 (1968), pp. 305-28.

1969 'Daniel', in New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson, 1969), pp. 650-75. 'Jeremiah', in New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson, 1969), pp. 601-24. 'The Liturgical Assemblies and Religious Worship of the Early Christians', Concilium 2, no. 5 (1969), pp. 12-19. 1970 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 2. Exodo (Madrid/ Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1970). 'Jewish Law and the Gospels', The Bible Today 47 (1970), pp. 3237-43. 'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel', ITQ 37 (1970), pp. 131-49. 7977 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 3. Levitico (Madrid/ Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1971). 7972 Targum and Testament. Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972). 7973 The Age of Transition (Dublin: Veritas, 1973). 'Some Considerations on the Form of Aramaic Spoken in New Testament Palestine in the Light of Early Aramaic Evidence', ITQ 40 (1973), pp. 281-85.

A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

231

1974 (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 4. Numeros (Madrid/Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1974).

7976 'Targums', IDBSup (1976), pp. 856-61 (New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1976). 7977 'The Spoken Aramaic of First Century Palestine', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 2 (1977), pp. 95-138.

1978 I targum e il Nuovo Testamento (Studi Biblici; Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1978) (= Italian translation of Targum and Testament [1972]). The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (second printing, with Supplement containing additions and corrections; AnBib, 27A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978). (with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5. Deuteronomio (Madrid/Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1978). 'to de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en te Arabia (Gal 4, 25a): Paul and Petra', Milltown Studies 2 (1978), pp. 24-41. 7979 'Discernment Criteria in Israel. True and False Prophets', Concilium 119 (1979), pp. 3-13. 'Half a Century of Targum Study', Irish Bible Studies 1 (1979), pp. 157-68. Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), JSNT 5 (1979), pp. 67-73.

1981 'Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim', in R. Fabris (ed.), Problemi e prospettive di Scienze Bibliche (Brescia: Queriniana, 1981), pp. 67-109. 'Some Recent Books on the Targums', Scripture Bulletin 12 (1981), pp. 68-70. 1982

'Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums', Milltown Studies 9 (1982), pp. 59-101 (= English text of 'Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim' [1981]).

1983 Intertestamental Literature (Old Testament Message, 23; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983).

232

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983).

1984 'Review of Some Recent Targum Editions', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984), pp. 39-48. 1986 Les ecrits de la periode intertestamentaire (Montreal: Fides, 1986) (= French translation of Intertestamental Literature [1983]). 'On Englishing the Targums', in D. Munoz Leon (ed.), Salvacion en la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith. En memoria del profesor Alejandro Diez Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986), pp. 447-61. 1987 'Inspiration', in J.A. Komonehak, M. Collins and D. Lane (eds.), The New Dictionary of Theology (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1987), pp. 522-26. 'Some Issues and Recent Writings on Judaism and the New Testament', Irish Biblical Studies 9 (1987), pp. 131-50. 1988 'Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 11 (1988), pp. 6787. 7997 'Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) Numbers Chapter 21', Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Ser. A., 16 (1991), pp. 127-49. 7992 Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992). 'The Language Situation in First Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 15 (1992), pp. 7-36. 7993 'Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers Chapter 24', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 16 (1993), pp. 57-79. 7994 (Editor, with D.R.G. Beattie) The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). (with R. Hayward) Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994).

A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

233

(with R. Hay ward) Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus (The Aramaic Bible, 3; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994). 'The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections in the Aramaic Bible', in D.R.G. Beattie and M. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (1994), pp. 103-15. 7995 Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers (The Aramaic Bible, 4; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995). 'Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine. Some Facts in Quest of a Terminology', Apocrypha6 (1995), pp. 67-104.

INDEXES

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1.2 1.28 2.2-3 2.7 2.8 2.17 2.21-22 2.23 2.25 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.14 3.17-19 3.20 3.34 4.1 4.10-14 4.17 4.21 4.22 4.23 5.3 5.28-29 6.3 6.8 7.11 8.2 8.4 8.21 9.21-24 9.24 9.25 9.26-27

32 35 33 33 34 198 197 34 35 35, 36 36 37 35, 36 196 36 197 36, 37, 195 195 38 39 39 38 37 39 32 40,53 32 32 40 40 70 70 70 70, 75

9.26 9.27 10.21 10.21 (V) 10.25 11.8 11.9 11.10-11 11.10 11.18-26 11.28 14.16 14.18-24 14.18

70 40,70 69 69 41 41 41 78 78 41 42 79 67 43, 67, 72 151 15.9-18 44 16.11 16.14 45 16.15 45,46 44 17.1-10 17.5 46, 47, 49,50 17.15 47 17.17 47,48 17.19 47,48 19.19(LXX) 53,59 19.20 48 19.22 48 19.37 49 49 19.38 47, 48 21.6 21.17 45,46 202 24.1-67 24.62 68 214 25.15 25.17 45

25.27 26.12 29.1-21 29.20 29.31 29.35 30.2 30.6 30.22 31.21 32.24-31 34.7 35.9-12 36.12 36.33 39.21 46.17 47.25 (V) 49 49.1 49.17-18 49.17 49.18

41 143 202 55 36 125 36 125 36 132 77 109 77 125, 130 109 52 123 54 126 126 137 125, 127 125, 127

Exodus 2.16-21 2.18 2.21 3.1 3.2 3.21 4.17 4.18 6.18 7.8-13 8.16-17

202 90 95 90 22 52 95 90 125, 130 95 95

235

Index of References 174 225 125, 132 95 148 95 52 22 52 125 96 22 125, 126, 133 22 18 90 18.1 22 18.4 129 19.2 129 19.20 33 20.8-11 22.27 (LXX) 59 33 23.12 169 28.30 (P) 33 31.12-17 129 34.2 56 34.6 34.6 (LXX) 59 125 40.10

9.3 9.8-11 9.20 9.23 10.4-5 10.13 11.3 12.8 12.36 13.17 14.21 15.1 17.16

Leviticus

3.1 4.3 4.5 4.10 (P). 4.16 6.16 26.22 26.26 26.31

169 172 172 172 172 172 149 144 142

Numbers

10.9 10.29 11.15 (LXX) 17.1-11 20.8 20.9 20.11 22 22.22 24 24.7

181 90 53 92 97 97 97 97 124 126 124, 135

24.17 27 27.1-11 27.8 36.1-12

126 105 102 102 102

2.15 4.11 9.7-20 9.45

174 90 24 150

1 Samuel Deuteronomy

1.30 2.9 2.15 2.19 5.12-15 7.8 9.9 10.17 13.18 (LXX) 21.15-17 21.17 23.6 25.5-10 28.35 28.38-39 28.39 29,22 30.4 30.11-14 30.11 30.12 30.13 30.14 31.14 31.20-21 32 32.1 32.24 33 33.8 (P) 33.11 33.17 34.1-3 34.1 34.2 34.3

175 49 174 49 33 55 129 142 60 102 102 152 102 213 148 148 150 125 128 128 128 125, 128 129 125 127 127 125 149 126 169 124, 125, 136 125 131 125 125 125 44 147 170

Judges

1.17

2.35 2.35 (P) 2.36 (P) 10.8 12 (P) 12.2 12.7 (P) 12.14 (P) 12.15 (P) 12.16 (P) 12.24 (P) 13 13.4-15 13.7 13.9 13.11-12 13.14 (P) 13.20 14.16 (P) 16.6 (P) 16.7 (P) 20.13 20.19 (P) 24.13-14 25.28 27.7 (P) 28.4 28.5-6 28.6 (P) 29.3 (P) 31.1 31.8

36 36 170 170, 174 172 173 172, 168, 175 173 175 174 174 175, 175 170 170 170 168 170 171 39 167, 166, 166 224 167 174 173 165 170 170 169 165 170 170

2 Samuel

Joshua

10.1 10.11 19,18

1 Sam. 1.6 1.11 2.27-36 2.35-36 (P)

146

1.6 1.21 6.2 (P) 6.17-18 6.18 (P) 20.10-23

170 170 167 168 167 123

173

173 170

176

168 167

236

Targumic and Cognate Studies

20.18-19 21.12 24.25

167 170 168

/ Kings 11.38 18.24

173 169

2 Kings 4.8 5.19 18

170 224 137

/ Chronicles 214 1.30 176 5.2 169 21.26 2 Chronicles 56 30.9 209 33.18-19 Ezra 16.9 16.10-11 16.10 16.12 16.13

199 200 199, 200 199 199

Nehemiah 5.19 8.8 9.7 13.31

181 41 47 181

Esther 2.9 (LXX) 2.15 2.15 (P) 2.17 3.2 (P) 5.2 5.2 (V)

60 52 59 52,58 59 52 54

Job

1.2-4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.7 2.9 (LXX) 2.10

101 100 100 132 213 100 108, 109

3.10-11 6.19 7.2 10.18 14.1 15.14 2.10 (LXX) 22.9 24.3 24.21 25.4 29.13 31.1 31.9-12 31.9 39.6 42.7-9 42.8 42.9 42.15 Psalms 1 16 103.4 (LXX) 11 1.4 (LXX) 18 24.8 25.6 38.1 43.1 (P) 45.3 (P) 51 51.3 54 56 59 60 63 66.12 68.3 69.17 76.3 77.9-10 84.11 (LXX) 84.12 (P) 86.15 103.4 103.8 104.30 105.32-34 107.26

101 214 225 101 101 101 109 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 150 217 222 216, 217 101, 104, 107

60 59 16 142 56,58 181 60 53 16 56,58 16 16 16 16 16 170 149 56,58 72 58 59 53 56,58 56,58 56,58 32 148 32

107.35 110 110.4 111.4 112.4 114.3 115.12 142 145.17 (P) 145.8

201 44 67 56, 181 56 94 181 16 60 56, 58

Proverbs 5.19 (P) 10.7 11.16 (P) 13.15 (P) 17.8 22.1 (P)

53 180 53 53 52 53

Song of Songs 21 1-6 26 1.1-2.6 22 1.3-4 2.7-15 26 26 2.16-3.1 1 26 4-6 4.6 17 5.2 17 7-8 21, 23 24 8.1 8.5-14 26 26 7.1-9 7.10-8.4 26 Isaiah 1.21 5.10 9.5 10.21 11.10 13.19-22 21.14 30.30 34.11-17 34.11 40.1 42.6 43.2 49.6 51.8 54.7 (LXX) 55.1

44 143 142 142 201 149 214 147 149 32 40 201 170 201 149 60 201

237

Index of References 58.6 60.1 63.7 63.7 (LXX) 66.14 Jeremiah 16.5 4.23 5.6 8.17 13.26-27 16.5 17.6 18.11 25.23 26.18 26.24 29.8 31.1 (P) 34.18 49.35 50.39-40

216 32 56, 58 60 175 56 32 149 149 151 58 150 33 214 149 175 224 53 151 150 149

Lamentations 56,58 3.32 Etekiel 1 113 12.9 16.37-38 23.10 23.29 26.13 34.2 39.3 Daniel 1.9 2-6 2.18 2.25 2.27 2.31 2.33 2.37 2.44

111 151 151 151 148 116 151 56, 58 226 192, 222 218 219 220 221 220 220

2.45 3.26 3.31-4.34 3.32 4 224 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.10 4.13 4.20-22 4.20 4.21 4.22-33 4.22 4.24 4.29 4.31 5.4 5.7 5.11 5.13 5.18 5.21 5.23 6.8 6.11 6.12 6.14 7.1 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.13 7.25 8.11-12 9.26-27 11.31-39 Hosea 1.5 2.5 2.21 5.12

221 214 225 214, 220 214 219, 223 219 220 220 214 215 214 215 216 214 216, 218 214 217 221 219 219, 222 218 214, 220 214, 215 221, 222 222 221 222 218 213 220 220 220 220 220 220 215 200 200 200

150 151 56,58 149

8.14 9.6 13.7-8

149 150 149

Joel 2.13

56

Amos 1.4 1.7 5.21-22 5.22 (LXX) 9.1-4

149 149 142 222 149

Jonah 4.2 4.7

56 148

Micah 3.12 6.15

149 143

Nahum 1.14 2.14 3.4 3.5 3.13 3.15

145, 146 148 53 151 149 149

Zephaniah 2.9 2.13-15 3.17

150 149 142

Haggai 1.6

143

Zechariah 4.7 (P) 6.13 7.9 7.9. 9.9 12.10 (P)

53 173 58 56 199 53

238

Targumic and Cognate Studies APOCRYPHA

1 Esdras 5.12 5.13 4 Esdras 8.20 Tobit 1.22

213 213

5.9 13.4 13.10

155 155 155

209

13.13 14.6

156 155

Wisdom of Solomon 76 18..24 Ecclesiasticus 29.27 224 75 49.16 50.1 75

155 NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 1.26.24 5.20-48 9.2 10.34 11.11 11.27 12.43-45 12.43 12.44 14.3-11 17.15 18.8 21.2 21.43 24.36 26.67 27.23 27.28 27.29 27.32 27.34 Mark 2.5-7 5.24-34 10.18 11.2 15.21 15.38

204 202 217 204 203 204 200 200 201 205 170 205 199 202 204 199 200 199 199 201 199 217 206 204 199 201 202

Luke 1.66 5.20 7.36-50 8.14 10.5 23.26 John 8.44 10.11 19.17 19.29 19.34

Acts 2 41 9.10 11.21 13.14 13.22 Romans 5.12-21 8.23-25 1-.6-8 16.25

175 217 206 154 206 201

37 204 201 200 197, 198, 200

160 175 171 171 196 198 129 192

2 Corinthians 22 2.15 Galatians 6.16

204

Ephesians 1.23 2.14 5.25-27

196 204 196

Colossians 1.20 2.14

204 195

Hebrews 4.1-11 7 44 7.1-3 7.2 7.4

33 67 73 79

James 5.14 5.16

216 216

Revelation 3.20

17

7.37 8.15-21 8.18 8.19 10.14 11.15 13.25-27

75 69 74 74, 76 69,74 78 79

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Apocr. Gen. 13 22

44 44

Jub. 3.26-27 4.25-26

74 74

4.33 6.1-3 7.11 7.12 7.16 7.20 7.34

69,78 74 70 74 75 75 75

Index of References 19.27 21.7-10 32.1-17 45.16

75 74 77 74

Ps. Philo, Bib. Ant. 8.8 108 29.1-2 105

239 T. Job 1.6

25.10 26.6 46.1 47.3

Ps. Philo, LAB 19.11 1 96

106, 108 109 109 109 105 105

QUMRAN llQtgJob col. 38.2

IQApGen xx 16-25 223 col. 20-28-29 218 IQapGen 22.13

73

4Q200 4.4

156

4Q306 1.13

154

4QPrNab Frag. 1 1-3, 1.1 1-3 Frag. 2

Frag. 3

213

Frag. 4

211

6.12 6.13

216, 217

212 210,211

213

4QTob ar A 1.17 1.19

1.20 1.22 2 2.1 3.15 6.15 6.16 7.3 13.13

157 157, 158, 158 161 158, 157, 158 157 157 158,

4QTobarC 14.2 14.3

160 158

CDxiii 10

216

9.26 10.21 11.28 14.18 14.19 18.3 21.21 22.19 24.62 25.22 27.29 29.35 30.6 31.21 31.23 35.11

70 69 81 72 70,79 53 124 69,78 69,78 69, 78 97 125 125 125,132 132 77

6.15 6.18 7.1 160 160 158

160

4QTobarA,B 2.2 159 4QTobarB 5.21 6.11

7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.9 8.21 13.13

161 157-59, 161 161 160 158, 160, 161 158, 160 157, 160 157 159 157 160 156

160 160

TARGUMIM Targum Onqelos Genesis 9.26 70 9.27 71 10.2121 69 14.18 72 14.20 79 34.7 110 43.14 55 43.30 55 Exodus 4.20 14.21 17.9

95 97 95

Leviticus 20.17-18

110

Numbers 10.9

181

Deuteronomy 13.14 55 13.18 55 Targum PseudoJonathan Genesis 4.15 94,99 6.18 53 8.1 32

Targumic and Cognate Studies

240 36.12 38.6 38.24 38.25 43.14 43.30 46.17 49.17 49.18 Exodus 1 88 1.15 1.17 1.18 2.5-10 2.18 2.21

4.20 6.18 7.11 9.20 12.36 13.17 14.21 15.25 17.9 17.16 28.30 33.4 33.6 40.10 Leviticus 4.3 Numbers 12.1 12.8 20.8-9 20.8 22.28 24

125, 130 73 73 125 55 55 123, 125, 130 125 125, 127

81 124 89 90 90 81,83, 84, 86, 90, 92-94, 97,99 92-95, 99 125, 137 124 125, 132 53 125 92, 93, 95, 97, 99 94 95 134, 135 94 93 93 125 137 87 87 96,99 94 91, 92, 99 135

24.7 24.22 25.13 31.8 Deuteronomy 9.19 13.14 30.4 31.14 32.1 33.11

124, 125, 135 125 137 94

33.17 34.1-3 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.12

94 55 125, 137 125 125 124, 125 136, 137 125 131 125 125 125 132 93,99

Daniel 1.6

125

Targum Neofiti Genesis 8.1 32 9.26 70 9.27 71 10.21 69 14.18 72 14.19 79 14.20 79 15.2 103 24.62 78 25.22 68,78 25.27 79 38.25 125 39.21 57 43.14 56 43.30 56 49.17 125 49.18 125 Exodus 3.12 4.20 12.36 14.21 17.9 17.16

57 95 57 97 95 125, 133

33.4 33.6 Numbers 24.7 Deuteronomy 13.18 30.11-14 30.12 30.13 32.1 33.17

93 93

124, 125 135 56 129 129, 130 125, 130 125 125

Fragmentary Targums Genesis 56 6.8 78 10.9 72 14.18 78 25.22 53 30.27 53 34.11 53 39.4 53 49.29 Exodus 12.36 14.21 33.6

53 97 93

Deuteronomy 30.12 129 30.13 129 Targum Jonathan Judges 19.23 110 / Samuel 2.25-36

173

2 Samuel 1.26 3.33. 13.12 13.15

55 110 110 55

7 Kings 8.50

55

241

Index of References 2 Chronicles 30.9

55

Job

1.2-3 1.3 2.9-11 2.9-10 2.10 42.8

101 101-104 107, 110 107 101 110 110

Psalms 45.3 79.8 84.12 106.46

55 54 55 55

Proverbs 3.4 5.19 7.10 10.7 11.16 17.8 20.6 28.23 31.10 31.30

53 55 109 180 53 53 60 53 53 55

Ecclesiastes 9.6 9.11 10.12

55 55 53, 55

Isaiah

9.16 22.20-24 22.21 22.22 22.24 25.12 32.5 47.6 63.5 Jeremiah 3.8 11.16 23.26 31.1

110 173 173 173 173 119 110 55 117 116 115 116 53, 55

Ezekiel 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.7 3.27 4.13 5.8 5.15 6.4 6.5 6.9 6.14 7.2 7.7 7.9 7.10 7.12 7.13 7.21 7.22 7.25 7.26 8.12 8.17 8.18 9.9 11.15 11.16 11.19 12.17 13.3 13.5 14.4-6 14.6 16 16.3 16.4-5 16.6 16.7 16.8-9 16.8 16.10 16.11 16.12-13 16.14 16.15-16 16.20-21 16.20 16.24-25 16.28-29

16.32 112 112 111 112 111 113 113 113 112 112 112 113 113 118 113 118 113 112 113 113 113 113 112 112 113 113 112 113 118 113 110 112, 112 112 113, 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 112, 114 114 112, 1 14 115

117

16.34 16.35 16.38 16.43 16.45 16.46-47 16.58 16.59 16.61 16.63 17 17.4 17.18 17.20 17.22-23 17.23 18.2 18.6 18.15 18.20 18.30 18.31-32 18.31 19 19.10-14 19.10-11 19.12-14 20 20.8 20.11 20.13 20.16 20.21

116 20.25

114 114

20.28 20.36-37 20.39 20.40-41 20.43 21 21.15-17 21.18 21.19-22 21.31-32 21.32 22.2 22.4

112 114, 115 114 114 115 115 114, 115 115 115 115 112, 115 115 119 111 115 119 119 119 117 117 117 117 112 117 118 115 115 115 115 115 1 15 116, 118 115 115 115, 116, 118 112, 115, 116 115 116 115 118 116, 118 116 116 112, 113, 116 116 116 112 117 120

242

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Ezekiel (cont.) 120 22.12 117 22.24 117 22.25-28 117 22.30 116 23 120 23.25 113 23.27 117 24.5 24.6 112, 113, 117 24.8 117 24.11 117 24.12 117 24.14 117 24.25 118, 30.3 116 34 116 34.2-4 116 34.8 116 34.10 116 34.16 116 34.17 116 34.20 116 34.22 34.23-24 117, 118 34.25 117 34.26 34.28 117 111, 34.31 36 118 118 36.18-21

117

119

36.24-25 36.26 36.27 36.31 36.38 37 37.13 37.16 37.19 37.21 37.24 37.27 39.4 39.9 39.16 39.28-29 43.22

118 118 118 118 111, 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 111 111 119 119 117

Hosea 2.11-12 10.1

110 115

Zechariah 1.16 4.7 11.7 12.10 13.1

55 55 116 53, 55, 58 118

Others Pal. Targ. Exod. 32.25 93 Targ. Esth. II Parma 32.35 58 Targ. Sheni 5.8 7.3 8.5

52,53, 58 52, 53, 58 52, 53, 58

Amos

119

117

9.1

115

Micah 5.14

115

Nahum 3.1 3.4 3.6

118 55 116

Targ. Sheni Est. 2.15 53 2.17 53 5.2 53 Targ. Tosefta Exod. 13-155 96

RABBINIC LITERATURE

Yad. 3,5

Mishnah B. Bat.

8.1

102 102 103 102

15

72

Babylonian Talmud b. B. Bat. 104 115b 106, 109 15b 103 50b-52a 104 51a

Sal. 71.1

32

b. Ker. 9a

Sot. 20c

106

b. Meg. 9b

8.2 8.5 9.1

Meg. 1.8

114

41,71, 72

b. Mes. 114.b

111

b. Ned. 32b

73,74

b. Pes. 54a

92

b. Sanh. 106a 38b 58b 69b

106 38 38 69

b. Taan. 2a

119

243

Index of References b. Yarn. 9b

72

Palestinian Talmud y. Meg. 1.9.10 72

1.11

73

y. Sot.

5.6

132

y. Sot.

20c Midrashim ARNA 41

132

91, 92

ARN B

37

91, 92

Ag. Ber.

42

73

Deut. R. 2.377

34

Deut. R. We-zoth ha-Berakah 40a

95

Deut. R., Ekeb 95 17a Ejcod. /?. 1.26 1.31 5.6 8.3 27.3.

84 91 95 93,95 106

14.3 14.4 14.5 14.8 14.9 15.1 18.4 19.1 20.11 22.2-3 22.22 22.7 22.88 23.11 23.33 24.6 225.2 36.8 37.77 37.99 38.13 43.6 43.8 45.8 45.100 46.88 47.1 50.122 51.11 53.8 53.144 61.111 80.4

34 34 34 34 34 34 35 36 36 38 37 38 38 39 39 36 40 72 41 69 44 44, 72 79 45 45 47 47 49 50 48 46 49 108

Num. R.

Mek. Exod. 12.233 16.31 16.32 17.5

114 92 91 96

Yal.

Mek. SbY. Exod. 16.322 92

Gen R.

2.3 2.5 6.4 14.22

32, 33 32 41 34

Midr. Pss. 3 4 114.9

91 91 95

4.8 10.299

73 89

PRE

18 19 40

91 91 91, 98

R. Judah b. Simon, Gen. 30.33 108 R. Judah b. Simon, Prov. 108 27. 1 Sifre Deut. 157 355

132 92

Sifre Num. 64

97

Tanh. B, Tazri 'a 93 10 Tanh. Tazri' a 93 8 Tanh. Wa-Era 95 8 95 9 93 9

173 474

92, 94, 96,98 92, 98 94

Pirke Abot 5,6,9

91

168

244

Targumic and Cognate Studies PHILO

Congr. 93 99

79 79

Leg. All. 3.79

73,75

Quaest. in Exod. 19.6 77

Quaest. in Gen. 2.75-76 75 9.27 75, 76 Sobr. 51-67 51-55 56-58 62

75 75 76 76

63 65 66 67-68

76 76 77 77

Vit. Mos. 2.133-35

76

War 6.437 6.438

72 73,75

JOSEPHUS

2.238-53

Ant.

1.180 1.181 2.233-36

72, 73, 75 79 85

Apion 1.29-36

87 75

OTHER JEWISH AUTHORS

Naveh 24 30 32-33 46 58-60

181 181 181 182 181

62-63 64 65-66 70

181 182 181 181

On Stone Mosaic 75 181 76 181 102 182 103 182 104 182 105 181

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

Ambrose De Sacr. IV.10 V.I

67 67

Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 4.25 67 Cyprian Ep. 63.4

67

II. 1 35 55

Eusebius Praep. Evang. 9.18 87 9.23 87 9.27 87 Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 3.5.3

St. Ephrem Carmina Nisibena 39 192

Dem. 21

Epiphanius Adv. Haer. 2.6

Jerome Ep. 73

79

68 79 68

73.2

79

Quaest. Heb. in Gen. 9.27 72 14.18 79 Justin Martyr Dial, with Trypho 139.2-3 70 Dialogue 19.4

67

70 70

Origen Comm in Joh. 3 67 PL 4 Cols. 387-88

67

245

Index of References Tertullian Adv. Jud. 2

67

Hippolyus Refut. Omn. Haer. 20 68 OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

Aramaic Hamath-Zakir B. 15-18 142 Ashurnerari V with Mati'ilu of Arpad 1.10-29 151 rev. IV. 16 146 Corpus Inscriptionum semiticarum II 1174 128 130 134 1373 1375 1378 1379 1479 1499 1570 1631 3200 3229 338 376 393bis 3973 408 4207 4208 443 493 494 636 750 785

178 179 179 179 178 178 178 178 179 177 178 177 178 178 179 178 178 183 178 183 183 179 178 178 180 178 178

Commentary on Diatessaron I.I 194

Commentary on Diatessaron on Virginity 12 191 191 20 Hymn 23, 13

194

Hymns on Paradise 5 191 202 I, 11 205 I, 13 204 I, 18-19 207 1,32 195 11,2 204 11,24 202 III, 17 203 IV, 4-15 207 IV, 8 207 IV, 11-12 203 IV, lib IV, 12 205 196 IV, 14-15 196 IV, 15 IV, 20 206 204 IX, 14 203 IX, 16-17 204 V, 17 V, 23 207 VI, 18 205 203 VI, 5 VI, 7 203, 205 VI, 14 207 VI, 17 207 VI, 18 207 206 VI, 24 205 VI, 25 VII, 2 207 206 VII, 3-12 VII, 7 205, 207 VII, 10 205 VII, 12 207 VII, 16-17 207 VII, 18 205 VII, 19 207

VII, 21 VII, 22 VIII, 3-4 VIII, 6 VIII, 12 VIII, 14 X,2 X, 5-6 X,7 X, 8 X, 13 XI, 6 XI, 7-8 XI, 12 XI, 13 XII, 16 XIII, 2-3 XIII, 7 XIII, 90 XIV, 7 XIX, 1 XIX, 12 XIX, 13 XV, 9-11 XV, 12 XVII, 7 XVII, 13 XVIII, 1 XVIII, 15 XX, 1-7 XX, 4 XX, 8 XX, 9 XX, 11 XX, 12 XX, 18-19 XX, 20 XXI, 10 XXI, 11 XXI, 15 XXI, 25

207 207 206 207 207 204 203 204 207 206 207 201 201 203 207 205, 207 207 203 207 204 204 204 206 204 205 204 204 199 204 204 202 197 197 197 204 204 202 198 198 205 198

Esarhaddon Accession treaty rev.26-27 147

Targumic and Cognate Studies

246 Succession treaty line 418 152 line 443 147 line 487 152 line 570 148 lines 455-56 147 lines 599-600 147 line 608 149 lines 637-40 152 Treaty with Baal, king of Tyre rev.iv.18 150 Hadad (Zenjirli) 22 143 24 152 MSo.I.1,2 MS 9al MSS9al

170 175, 176 176

NSI 140B

183

PRK Isa. 51.15

94

Panammu 6 144 9 144 Phoenecian Ahiram line 2 152 Phoenician Kilamuwa I line 15 142 lines 16-18 142 Sefire II.A.4-5 I.A.21-24 I.A.21 I.A.23 I.A.26-27 I.A.27-29 I.A.27 I.A.29 I.A.30-33 I.A.35-36

146 143 144 144 147 143 147 148 148 149

I.A.36 I.A.38-39 I.A.39-40 I.A.40-41 I.C.18 I.C.19 I.C.21-25 II.A.2 II.A.9 II.C.2 II.C.4-5 II.C.6 II.C.9

150 150 151 151 141 152 152 144 149 141 142 141 141

Tell Fakhariyah 11-12 141 16-18 142 18-19 143 20-21 143 22 144, 145 23 147 23.37-38 147

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Aberbach, M. 111-14, 118-20 Abou-Assaf, A. 141, 144, 145 Aggoula, B. 184, 185 Albright, W.F. 90 Alexander, P.S. 5, 23, 81, 124 Alon, G. 137 Amusin, J.D. 208, 214, 215 Aptowitzer, V. 104 Astell,A.W. 14 Attema, D.S. 208 Aufrecht, W.E. 91, 141 Aureoli, P. 25, 29 Barnard, L.W. 188 Baron, S.W. 105, 106 Barthelemy, D. 40 Baskin, J.R. 88, 106, 108, 133 Bauckham, R.J. 17 Baumgarten, J.M. 136 Beattie, D.R.G. 23, 100 Ben-Barak, Z. 105 Bernstein, M.J. 76 Beyer, K. 155, 156, 160, 181, 185, 209, 212-15, 218-21, 223, 224, 226 Bickel, G. 146 Blau, L. 94 Boccaccini, G. 121 Boer, P.A.H. de 165, 169 Bordreuil, P. 141 Bowker, J. 34, 37, 41 Braude, W.G. 32,91,94,95 Brightman, T. 16-20 Brock, S.P. 87, 187-89, 190-93, 202, 203 Bronner, L.L. 105 Brown, CA. 105 Buber, S. 95 Budge, E.A.W. 98

Camp, C.V. 107, 108 Carmignac, J. 208, 218-21, 226 Carmona, A.R. 73,74, 79, 119 Cathcart, K.J. 6, 107, 115, 116, 118, 140, 146, 148, 149, 151 Charles, R.H. 74, 75 Chester, A. 93, 122 Chiari, I, da 20 Chilton, B.D. 112, 173, 174 Churgin, P. 119 Clark, EA. 14 Clarke, E.G. 91, 124 Clines, D.J.A. 15, 101 Cocceius, J. 18 Cohen, J. 21 Collins, J.J. 87, 209 Cook, E.M. 6 Cooke, G.A. 177, 183 Cotton, J. 18 Cowley, A. 104 Cross, P.M. 209, 210, 212-15, 218-21 Dahl, NA. 37 Dalman, G. 212 Dan, J. 83 Davenport, J. 18 Davidson, M.J. 68 Degen R. 185 Delcor, M. 208 Dols, M.W. 206 Dommershausen, W. 208 Drijvers, H.J.W. 182, 183, 186 Driver, G.R. 148 Driver, S.R. 163, 164 Dupont-Sommer, A. 147, 208, 212, 215-17, 219-21, 223, 225 Eisenman, R. 155 Eisenstein, J.D. 82 Elbaum, J. 134

248

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Elbaum, Y. 83 Elliger, K. 146 Emerton, J.A. 208 Engammare, M. 14, 20, 25 Englert, D.M.C. 166 Epstein, J.N. 92, 96 Euting, J. 177 Evans, G.R. 25 Fales, P.M. 141 Farr, G. 60 Fassberg, S. 155 Fensham, F.C. 148, 150 Fernandez, M.P. 91, 119, 128 Feuillet, A. 19 Finkelstein, L. 92 Fitzmyer, J.A. 44, 68, 141, 144, 146-49, 151, 152, 155, 209, 212, 215-18, 220, 221, 223, 225 Flusser, D. 82, 83, 85 Fodor, A. 94 Fohrer, G. 208 Freedman, D.N. 208 Frey, J.-B. 181 Friedlander, G. 37, 91, 92, 95, 98, 180 Gadd, CJ. 215, 223 Garrett, S.R. 109, 110 Gaster, M. 82 Geiger, ?.?. 136 Gelston, A. 167 Genot, J. 83 Gevarjahu, H.M.I. 208, 214, 215 Gevirtz, S. 140, 142 Gibson, J.C.L. 142, 143, 147, 149, 151 Ginsburg, C.D. 14, 18, 27 Ginzberg, L. 37, 41, 82, 91, 105, 108 Goldberg, A.M. 37 Goldin, J. 91 Goldschmidt, L. 83, 92, 93, 98 Goodspeed, E.J. 153 Gordon, R.P. 6, 16, 115, 116, 118, 150, 167, 170 Grant, R.M. 154 Greenfield, J.C. 141-45 Grelot, P. 209, 212, 214-20, 223, 226 Gropp, D.M. 141, 144, 147 Grossfeld, B. 5, 72, 87, 95, 96, 110 Griinbaum, M. 96 Gunkel, H. 146

Hadot, J. 34 Hailperin, H. 22 Hamilton, G.J. 141 Hammer, R. 92 Hanhart, R. 155 Harrington, D.J. 209, 212, 215-18, 220, 221, 223, 225 Hastings, J. 106 Hayward, R. 5, 95 Healey, J.F. 6, 101, 107, 179, 180 Heinemann, J. 123 Herde, R. 14 Herr, M.D. 83 Heunisch, C. 18 Hill, C. 18 Hillers, D.R. 140, 148, 149, 151 Hoftijzer, J. 177, 186 Homes, N. 18 Hoonacker, A. van 146 Horst, P.W. van der 109, 182 Horton, F.L. 73, 74, 78 Hiittenmeisetr, F. 182 Jacobson, H. 76 Jastrow, M. 103, 150, 180 Jaussen, A.J. 178, 179, 214 Jean, C.-F. 177 Jellinek, A. 84-86, 88, 92-94, 96 Jongeling, B. 209, 212, 214, 215, 217-21, 223, 225, 226 Jongeling, K. 186 Joosten, J. 166, 167 Josefo, F. 44, 45 Joiion, P. 19, 25, 29 Kafih, J. 23 Kamin, S. 26 Kapstein, I.J-. 94 Kaufman, S.A. 124, 141, 142, 144, 145, 152, 161 Kelper, T.S. 153 Kermode, F. 108 Kirschlager, W. 209, 212 Klein, M.L. 127, 129, 133 Knobel, P.S. 101 Komlos, Y. 96 Kraemer, R.S. 107 Kuhn, K.G. 111 Labuschagne, C.J. 209 Langdon, S. 213

Index of Authors Lauterbach, J. 91, 92, 96 LeDeaut, R. 117, 131 Le Moyne, J. 104 Lehrman, S.M. 84,91,93,95 Leila, A.A. di 75 Leloir, L. 193 Levey, S.H. 131 Levine, E. I l l , 113, 116-20, 131 Levy, B.B. 71, 130 Levy, J. 103,214 Lewis, TJ. 141, 147 Lidzbarski, M. 177, 178 Lim, T.H. 76 Littledale, R.F. 14, 18,27 Littman, E. 177, 179 Loring, R.T. 19 Luria, D. 92, 95, 98 Lyra, N. de 20-25, 29 Macho, A.D. 7, 124, 133 Maher, M. 5, 68, 73, 79, 95, 97, 122, 124, 128, 131, 132 Maloney, E.G. 159 Mandelbaum, B. 94 Mangan, C. 103, 107, 108, 110 Mansour, T.B. 193 Marcus, I. 24 Marks, R.G. 128 Martinez, F.G. 119, 209, 210, 212, 214-16, 218-21, 223, 225, 226 Matter, E.A. 14, 27 Mazar, B. 90 McCarthy, C. 6, 194, 203 McCarthy, D.J. 151 McKane, W. 181 McNamara, M. 8, 23, 28, 67, 95, 96, 100, 103, 122, 124, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138, 152, 176, 177, 208, 209, 226 McVey, K. 191, 193 Melamed, E.Z. 92, 96 Merino, L.D. 5 Mertens, A. 209 Mesnil du Buisson, R. du 182-84, 186 Meyer, R. 208, 212, 215, 217, 219, 220, 223, 225, 226 Milik, J.T. 183, 186, 208, 209, 212, 215-17, 219, 220, 223, 225, 226 Millard, A.R. 141 Montgomery, J. 58 Moule, C.F.D. 154, 160 Miinster, S. 20, 29

Murray, R. 187, 188, 192-94, 196, 197, 199, 200 Naveh, J. 177 Negev, A. 178-80 Neyrand, L. 26, 28 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 109 Noah, M.M. 83 Noth, M. 90 Noy, D. 181 O'Connor, D.J. 108 Ohly, F. 14 Parpola, S. 147-49, 151, 152 Pennacchietti, F.A. 185 Perez de Valencia, J. 20, 29 Peters, C. 165 Petersen, W.L. 189 Petuchowski, J.J. 74 Peuch, E. 6 Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 217 Pope, M.R. 14, 19, 29 Poznanski, S. 106 Puech, E. 142 Quasten, J. 21 Rabinowitz, J. 95 Rajak, T. 87 Reed, W.L. 58, 59 Reeg, G. 182 Ribera, J. 5, 112-15, 118, 119, 121 Riedlinger, H. 14 Robert, A. 19, 25, 29 Robert, J. 117, 131 Rosenthal, F. 152 Rosmarin, A. 93, 96 Sakenfeld, K.D. 59 Saldarini, A.J. 91 Saley, R.J. 166 Saltman, A. 26 Samely, A. 16 Sarfatti 41 Sasson, V. 143 Savignac, R. 178, 179, 214 Schafer, P. 122 Schaffer, A. 141-45 Schechter, S. 91 Schlumberger, D. 183, 184 Schmitt-Korte, K. 179

249

250

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Schwartz, E. 164, 171 Segal, J.B. 206 Segert, S. 208 Shinan, A. 6, 68, 71, 81-89, 92-94, 96, 98, 122, 123, 131 Simon, M. 68 Skehan, P.W. 75 Smith, J.M.P. 145 Smith, R.P. 224 Smolar, L. I l l , 113, 114, 118-20 Sokoloff, M 124, 181 Spittler, R.P. 105 Stemberger, G. 82 Stoebe, H.J. 56 Strack, H.L. 82 Stuhlmueller, C. 8 Syren, R. 127, 136, 137 Teixidor, J. 183 Thackeray, H.St.J. 78 Theodore of Mopsuestia 20, 21, 24 Tiede, D.L. 99 Torrey, C.C. 153, 154, 158-60 Tournay, R. 19 Tov, E. 15 Towner, W.S. 91, 96 Toy, C.H. 181 Trachtenberg, J. 94

Urbach, E.E. 32, 37, 94 Ustinova, Y. 177 Vattioni, F. 184-86 Vaux, R. de 222 Vermes, G. 68, 81, 135 Vogt, E. 208, 212 Vregill, B. de 26, 28 Weitzman, M.P. 167 Wesselius, J.W. 143 Wise, M. 155, 156, 161 Wither, G. 18 Witherington, B. Ill 106, 107 Witte,J. 26,27 Woude, A.S. van der 209, 212, 217-21, 223, 225, 226 Yahalom, Y. 177 Yousif, P. 207 Zeron, A. 137 Ziegler, J. 166 Zunz, L. 83, 180

JOURNAL

FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLDTESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT SERIES

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 86 87

88 89

G.W. Coats (ed.), Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature M.D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor ofBernhard W. Anderson T.H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament D. Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, II E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane G.C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment S.J.L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama E.G. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham J.D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study M. Noth, The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson with an Introduction) P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel C.C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A FormCritical and Theological Study R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study J. Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition T.L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: 1. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W.G.E. Watson) D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J.J. Scullion)

90

M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel 91 F.H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology 92 Y.T. Radday & A. Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible 93 W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative 94 D.J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament 95 R.D. Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories 96 L.A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis 97 P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve 98 K.L. Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing 99 R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs 100 P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History 101 P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age 102 M. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II 103 E.G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages 104 P.R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains 105 P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M.J. Smith) 106 P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World 107 C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law 108 P.M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and Tradition in Ancient Society 109 D. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArchaeological Approach 110 N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites 111 J.G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel 112 L.G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job 113 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law 114 D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs 115 V. Hurowitz, / Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings 116 D.M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton) 117 P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period

118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (trans. I.E. Crowley) D.J.A. Clines & T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead B. Halpern & D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel G.A. Anderson & S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past T.P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah L. Holden, Forms of Deformity M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden

137

H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence 138 R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson 139 J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative 140 W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law 141 G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East 142 F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation 143 D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible 144 P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings 145 C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis 146 G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) 147 T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 148 P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel'

149

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp I.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday J.A. Eager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J.C. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Subversions of Biblical Narratives L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Israel: From Joshua to the Mishnah D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period

176 111 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of The Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythologyy L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament

192 193 194

195

H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea

J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer 196 J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible 197 W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period 198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison 199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators 200 M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son 201 J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith

202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 221 228 229 230

N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible J.M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs P.R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway ? D.J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible M. Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint J.W. Rogerson, M. Davies & M.D. Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium B.J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles Y. Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary- Theoretical Perspective Y. A. Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah J.C. Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women I.E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink J.F.D. Creach, The Choice of Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter G. Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea R.F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book S.B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job P.J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha R.D. Weiss & D.M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders L.L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas V. Fritz & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States S.B. Reid, Jr (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker K.J. Cathcart & M. Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara