‘I 111: SAMAKI’I‘AN ‘I‘AII(iI1M
translates ~XIV, ‘to embrace’, as WWAl. The verb IuVl means ‘to explore’.” Its
use suggests a well-known Jewish midrash: ?Wl~iXXWK K13ll Kh 11-3
PYlll> 1V;7T ‘pK ]?Fl K&l 723K, 15 i7lliT1, ‘ s i n c e (Laban) d i d
not see his (Jacob’s) purse (o~o@+tn), he embraced him thinking: perhaps
denarii does he bear in his bossom’ (Genesis Rabba 70:13, pp. 812-13).
Nimrod is another unpopular figure. Gen 10%9 narrates: ‘andCush became to
be father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty masn; he was a mighty
hunter before the LORD , therefore it is said: Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before
the LORD'. The Samaritan Chronicles depict this person in very unpleasant terms.
According to The BookofAsatir,” he was awicked king of Erekh who foresaw the
birh of an offshot of Arpakhshad who would destroy all the idols. He tried to
prevent Arpakhshad’s sons from giving birth by separating the males from the
females but Terakh escaped and thus Abraham was born. Nimrod cast Abraham
into a burning furnace, etc. Such a villain was not sufficiently defamed by the Joly
Script, according to later views. Furthermore, in biblical times hunting was not as
discrageful a profession as it probably was in later days, as an annotation
found in the interlinear space of MS M attests, which renders VY, ‘hunt’, as
DUK, ‘robbery’ (Gen 25:27).78 This attitude towards hunting is manifested
again by the meaningless vocables used by MS A for ‘T’Y in Gen 27: YllbV
(~.19);~lllY~Y9(25);n19Y13Y(30);~17Y(33).
Alltheselexicalmonstrositiesare
intended to blurr Isaac’s greediness for the detested hunt. In view of this
attitude, a hunter (whose name, ‘IllT3, suggests ‘Iln, ‘rebellion’) cannot be
connected with the following wording: ‘;7 7395 for, as we have seen above, only
a righteous person ‘walks before God’. It was therefore only natural that MS C
would substitute ‘TV by ‘KYY, ‘rebe1’.79 Thus the shame of Nimrod was
established for eternity.
For the sake of harmonization, the role of Hobab, Moses’ relative, has been
diminished. This honourable Midianite accompanied the children of Israel
during their wandering across the desert exploring for them the wilderness as an
experienced scout. On the eve of their installment in the Promised Land, Moses
gratefully mentions Hobab’s assistance and asks him to share Israel’s fate:
n717Y5 u5 nm 7x133 mm ny7 13 5y ‘3 unK mm w 5~ ‘do
not leave us, I pray you, for you know how we are to encamp in the wilderness
THE SAMAKITANTAKCiUM
and you will serve as eyes for us’ (Num 10:31). This important function of
Hobab, as formulated by Moses, contradicts the role of ‘the ark of the covenant
of the LORD ' which ‘went before them . . . to search out a resting place’ (v. 33)
and also the role of God’s guidance (cf. Exod 13:21; Num 14:14). Consequently, the Samaritan Targum in all its manuscripts translates WW’;,, ‘as eyes’, as
if it was D~~~Y~, ‘as poor men’: t3QlY5, ‘in need’, in line with the generosity
expressed by the following verse: UXWIl ‘WY ‘;7 X’)v XUK KlXl XD;7
15, ‘whatever good the LORD will do to us, the same will we do to YOU’.~’
PRESERVINGTHEHONOUROFISRAEL
The harmonization sought by the Samaritan Targum is by no means limited to
the character and behaviour of the personages of the Pentateuch. In fact it is
practised throughout the Holy Script. Thus, the allegoric description of Israel in
Bileam’s prophecy arouses horror: WltV W%ll t371 t’jlU ?3K’ ‘1Y 23uI~ K5,
‘it does not lie down till it devores the prey and drinks the blood of the slain’
(Num 23:24). It is unconceivable that a righteous people about which the same
prophecy says: ai)Yla ]lK WXl K5, ‘(God) has not beheld iniquity in Jacob’
(v. 21), would violate the commandment formulated in Deut 12:16 n’1;7 77
1hKll K5, ‘only you shall not eat the blood’. Therefore the MSS A, B, E, J and
N rendered WlW as W, the imperfect of the verb 7x3, ‘to draw’, ‘to make to
flOW’,8l thus giving an entirely different meaning to the passage: ‘and shed the
blood of the slain’.
It is important to emphasize the fact that the Samaritan Targum is based on
the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, but was amended to incorporate and reflect
the Samaritan tradition which differs in many cases from the Jewish masoretic
text. Some of these differences are of a hermeneutic nature as are their translation into Aramaic. For example in Gen 49:5 Jacob characterises his sons
Simeon and Levi as revengers who retaliate against Shechem, the raper of their
sister, Dina: tlVlll3n tOAl h8* This is rendered by J and other manuscripts
as: 11’)31’i)3 1iXf 1133DK, ‘they put an end to the wrong deeds (of Shechem)
by their covenants’ (proposed to the people of Shechem, Gen 34).‘” This
interpretation was made possible by the verb 152, the third person plural of the
perfect of 353 ‘to put an end to’ and by the interpretation of WVlll3)3 as the
” Ben-Jjayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition 2, 460. Cf. Num 13:2 lyn?, ‘that they may search’,
rendered by MS A as ~lWW1.
” Ben Jjayyim, ‘Book of Asatir’, 117ff. A similar aggada exists in Jewish sources. See Genesis
Rahba 38:12, p. 363.
‘” A trace of a lost manuscript, preserved in Hamelits, has the same word. See Ben-Hayyim,
l‘iterary and Oral Tradition, 2, 572.
” The same meaning was attributed to 7% by Pseudo-Yonatan 71113 TX& playing on Nimrod’s
name. The verb ;TYY also means ‘to rob’, ‘to oppress’. e.g. Lcv S:21 5712, ‘(taken away) by force’, is
rendcrcd by the Samaritan Targum as lWYYI1.
8o The Jewish targumim treat Hobab with a similar tendency. Onkelos says: K’IQYllK’T Jll1Jl
~1~Y~XllWl rU?, ‘you saw the miracles made to us with your eyes’; Pseudo-Yonatan: lW;Tl
KWY ll>X 1% San, ‘you were dear to us as the pupil of our eye’; Codex Neofiti 15 ‘l;Tnl
XllTX?, ‘you shall be our witness’.
R’ Cf. Syriac ‘IX (Brockelmann, Lexicon, 413a).
” As against the masoretic text: n;Ivnvn unn h, ‘weapons of violence are their swords’ (Cf.
King James’ Version: ‘instruments of cruelty are in their habitations’).
“’ A slightly different sense is given by the reading of MSS C and N: 1113K’i), ‘of their covenant’. M
and B read Jl;TvsYpa, probably intending the sense ‘their cutting off’. Cf. Scptuagint ad /oc. See
Ben-Ijayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition 3a, 33. Abu Sa‘id’s version is Kn3;1Y’UKpD. ‘their
decision’.
20X
209
‘1‘111: SAhIAI<I’I‘AN
‘I‘Ali(illM
plural of lll3)3, a derivative of m3, ‘to make a covenant’. Consequently, in
verse 7 Jacob does not curse them, as it does according to the masoretic text:
DQK llYK, ‘cursed be their anger’. On the contrary, he praises them: y”7K
DQK , ‘their anger is mighty’. This is translated by MS J: llTx7 tJ>Wvt3. A’s version
is slightly different: ]ltn ]Qll.
SAMARITAN READING OF THE HEBREW TEXT
However, these differences between the two traditions which gave birth to the
translations illustrated above are not always immediately visible. Numerous
textual peculiarities which are in many cases interpretative are revealed in the
Samaritan traditional pronunciation, but hidden by the consonantal writing of
their Pentateuch. Only the knowledge of the Samaritan tradition of the reading
of the Tora can reveal these peculiarities and explain the apparently ‘unskilled’
translations. It is therefore with the reading of the Tora that the targum has to
b e confronted.84 For example in Gen 37:3 5ZJ 7DlS nK XIK ?KVLPl
15 K1;7 WIi7T 12 9 1~22, ‘Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his
children because he was the son of his old age’, is rendered by MS J as: . . .
Yl5 Kl;T ;7233ll72 Kh (B, C and E have similar translations).85 ;Inall 13 is
based on the interpretation of Dvji?t as ‘elders’, i.e. ‘sages’ (plural of lpt),
according to the pronunciation of the word in the Samaritan tradition: zaqlnam .%
Another paraphrastic translation resting on the Samaritan particular reading
of the Hebrew text is in Gen 49: 14 D’ll%U13;7 1’3 YX t!T1 llnll 13WW . The
masoretic vocalization Dl1 and t!‘n13Wn points to the possible meaning of
‘Issachar is a strong ass crouching down among the sheepfolds’. Yet, the
Samaritan interpretation of these two words is different. The first is pronounced girarn, i.e. ‘strangers’, the second ammu$itam, i.e. ‘nations’, ‘languages’;87 consequently, the verse is translated by MSS B, J and M as: 13Wv
;7DX 1’2 Y31 13’mln llXI3n. C, E and V have a synonym for the latter:
;7UW5.88 Thus, Issachar is characterized as a tribe which, like an ass, ‘bears’
the strangers and lives between the nations. This calls to mind a Jewish midrash
that describes Issachar as tl?l5 ilnn, a tribe of renowned scholars whose
‘l‘tit: SAMAKI’I‘AN ‘I‘AR<illM
wisdom produced the admiration of many gentiles who came to his land and
became proselytes - Wl1 (Genesis Rabba 98:12, p. 1263).
Occasionally phonetic changes led to different approaches to the contents of
a passage and produced a particular translation, an example of which is the
interchange of the palatal consonants k and g which gave birth to forms as
IlsQlq, YXY, mW, etc.89 In Gen 42:9-16, Joseph’s charge against his
brothers, MK &Ala, ‘you are spies’, could be pronounced either amrugg&m, ‘spies’ or amrukk&m, ‘gossipers’, ‘calumniators’. This somewhat
less grave charge was probably more acceptable to the scribe of MS A whose
version is @QU, ‘slanderers’ (v. 9),90 T’Y23W13, ‘defamers’ (v. 11).91 Only in v.
16 does A have Ts’llllW, ‘spies’.92 In the interlinear space and in the margin of
MS M a later hand noted: @aXI, ‘liars’ (v. 9, 11).93 The old manuscripts have
T%n (J), ‘@5K (C, M), 17WlWu1 (V), all of them having the meaning
‘spies’, in keeping with the version amrugg&m.
Shin (S) and sin (S) merged in Samaritan Hebrew resulting in S. Consequently
in Num 5:12 1llWK fiUWn 93 W’K W’K. ‘if a man’s wife goes astray (is
faithless)‘, was pronounced tisti and attributed accordingly to the post biblical
root fi!JW, ‘to act foolishly’ and translated as ;7UnWll by MSS A, B, N and V (cf.
w. 19,20,29). However, this phonetic shift probably took place at a relatively
late date, since MS J, the oldest version, has ‘13bn which attests to a stage of
Samaritan Hebrew when W still had its peculiar phonetic status, equating
Aramaic D (s). The same is true for MSS C and E in all these instances, and partly
in M and N.
The loss of the guttural consonants in Samaritan Hebrew produced the fusion
of different roots in many instances, as in the case of Gen X3:12 ;7lW i7llXnl
;1JTY e ;1llv;7 Ill53 ?t’tK lnK5 ;731?2, ‘Sarah laughed to herself saying,
after I have grown old shall I have pleasure (rejuvenation)‘. The Samaritan
pronunciation of i7iWlT is wte@aq which can be taken as i7YYll1, ‘she cried’,
‘she sobbed’, etc., as indeed was A’s interpretation, judging by its rendering:
3lW ll1lDpl ‘Sarah reproached’. It is a bitter reproach that she uttered ‘within
herself, according to this interpretation.94 Similarly, a peculiar interpretation
from the loss of uyin in Gen 49:7 where Jacob speaks about Simeon and Levi:
DlllaYl, ‘and their wrath’, according to the masoretic text. The Samaritan
tradition which does not discern between uyin and h&attributes the pronuncia-
An immense contribution to the understanding of the Samaritan Targum has recently been made
by Ben-uayyim who published the traditional reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch in phonetic
transliteration in Literary and Oral Tradition 4 :1979).
“’ Cf. Onkelos: 3li7 Kl3 UWl 13 ?K, ‘for he is his wise son’.
M Contrary to the masoretic vocalization Ill>X, ‘the old age’. Cf. Gen 21:2 Etl& FtlW 7%1
Vli)f7 13, ‘Sarah bore Abraham a son in his old age’. In this case both traditions agree; the
Samaritan reading alzdqcino is translated 7nlSD5, in similarity with Onkelos: lfilnS&.
” Cognate of ;IDW, ‘lip’, ‘language’. The Samaritan pronunciation does not distinguish betweenshin
and sin, both being pronounced as S. See below.
“” 79313 can also be considered as a result of the attribution of nllll)W)3 to q VtttQWn, for no
guttural consonant exists in Samaritan pronunciation in such conditions.
89 The masoretic text has nV31’1, lXY, llVU, respectively. Cf. Ben-Ijayyim, Literary and Ora1
Tradition 5, p. 23.
y” Cf. Syriac%, ‘to defile’ (Brockelmann, Lexicon, 285b). Seealso Ps 119:691pW15Y 15%J, ‘(the
godless) besmear me with lies’.
.
” Cf. Hebrew ;IY)3W, ‘blemish’, ‘disgrace’ (Jastrow, Dictionary, 1600b).
” Cf. Deut 1:22 ll%lll, ‘and they may explore (the land)‘; C 117IlVl.
y3 Cf. Syriac 517, ‘to lie’ (Brockelmann, Lexicon 141b).
u4 Kohn, Samaritanische Studien, 80-N.
210
211
THE SAMARITAN TAR<;IIM
tion wciharLttimma
pp7i .Ys
to IXllXll, ‘their company’. This is translated accordingly
Not only phonetic changed produced interpretative translations. As we have
seen above, the Samaritan Pentateuch often differs from the masoretic text in
morphology giving rise to peculiar interpretations. A most interesting passage
in this respect is Gen 30:3, where Rachel, having seen that she is childless, asked
Jacob to ‘go unto’ Bilhah, her maid, so that: ,313 5Y *nl, ‘she may bear
upon my knees’. So far the masoretic tradition. The Samaritan Pentateuch,
though identical in orthography, has the pronunciation birruki which means
‘my blessing’.% Indeed, this nominal form im lies a different interpretation
which is expressed clearly by MS A: SnaX 5Y ‘IPnl, ‘she will bear according to
my blessing’. MSS B, E and M have similar readings: Qlllr 5Y. The same
grammatical form with the same interpretation is found in Gen 48: 12, where the
masoretic text has 1913 PYIJ MK qD1’ KYl?, ‘Joseph removed them (his
sons) from his (father’s) knees’. The Samaritan again has 13173, pointing to
Jacob’s blessing (cf. v. 19ff.). Accordingly, MSS B and. M have Fl3113. However, MSS C and J do not follow the Samaritan text which in these cases is
probably the result of a hermeneutic evolution and thus render 9373, 1313
respectively, in accordance with the masoretic text.97 Given the age of the
version that is contained in these manuscripts, it is evident that in the remote
past the Samaritans shared the reading represented by the masoretic text,lfl>
and, naturally, its interpretation: ‘knee’.%
An intriguing instance of divergent traditions within the Samaritan Targum
concerns one of the most important principles of Samaritanism, as expressed by
the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, namely in Exod 20:24 nnllK ll>Tg
i~n~i~i 7-5~ ~72~ mw mv (!I mm im nipa3 . . . + mum,
‘an altar of earth you shall make for me . . . m
* every place where I recorded my
name there I will come to you and I will bless you’. The perfect ‘nl>TK,
&ikarti, means, according to the Samaritan dogma, that God has already
chosen His holy place as specified in the Samaritan version of Deut 27:4-6
nxn nv nmi . . . n’rv in . . . fi5K;1 P’JaK;7 nK inyn
ni5y l*y m5mi . . . , ‘you shall set up these stones . . . on Mount
Garizim . . , and there shall you build an altar . . . and you shall offer burnt
offerings’. The masoretic text has in Exodus ‘13W IlK 13TK 1WK alan 533,
etc., ‘in all places where I will record my name’, for the holy place has not yet
been chosen. In any event, it is by no means mount Garizim; in Deut it has
%Y 1;7, ‘Mount Ebal’. This crucial difference between Samaritanism and
Judaism is expressed in Deut 12: 5, 11, 14, etc., where the Samaritan text has
invariably lna 1WK ali7n;-r, ‘the place which the LORD chose’, whereas the
iX17 means ‘to stick’, ‘to be attached’, hence ni)Yt means ‘company’.
w, As against t173111;1, abbrirrikam, ‘the knees’, Deut 28:35.
” In the second case E joins them as well as V: VXlK, ‘knees’.
‘” The Arabic version of Abu Sa’id is W3111, ‘my blessing’.
212
masoretic text has lllS, ‘will choose’. Yet MS J renders the passage in Exod
20:24 as: ‘)3W llv 13’1K7 ;7lIlKX, ‘in the place where I will record my name’,
etc., in distinct contrast to the other manuscripts which follow the Samaritan
tradition of using the perfect: IllSlK’1. MS A appears to be corrupted: 13Vl7,
unless a ‘neutral’ interpretation intended: ‘where you shall remind my name’.99
Does J’s reading allude to an early stage of development of the Samaritan
Pentateuch when Samaritan dogma did not yet involve the text of the Tora in its
entirety? At the present state of study it is impossible to draw conclusions with
any degree of certainty.lm
SAMARITAN HALAKHA
The existence of a Samaritan halakha is also attested by several manuscripts of
the Samaritan Targum. A good example is Lev 11:40 P>S Xl5323 53K;71
2lYfi 7Y Kn131 lV111. According to the masoretic text this passage means:
‘he who eats of its carcass (the dead animal) shall wash his clothes and be
unclean until the evening’. The Samaritan tradition distinguishes between this
occurence of the verb 53K which is pronounced wakkd, giving it a peculiar
form ,lol and the regular 53K, pronounced akal. lo2 This peculiar form is bound to
have a peculiar meaning, for several manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum,
namely MSSA, C, E and J render it as 11171, ‘he that flays’, while V has
53KTl1, ‘he that feeds’, and B: lJll1, ‘he that trades’.lo3 No doubt, an
interdiction to deal with carcasses underlies the peculiar pronunciation revealed by these various translations.lw
Another halakhic translation is A’s rendering fiKX1 of the Hebrew 3iF1 in
Lev 24:ll DWfi I’lK ll~Kl~;-r fiWK;T 12 37?, ‘and the Israelite woman’s son
blasphemed the Name (of God)‘. MSS C and E have Xl1K1, ;T1Kl respectively.
All these are various orthographies of the verb iTX’f, ‘to utter’. B, M and N use
9p On the Jewish-Samaritan dispute regarding the Holy Place see Kohn, Samaritanbche Studien,
84ff.; Kohn, Zur Sprache 19Off.; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge 227.
‘a~ To assume an interpolation of Jewish origin would be to oversimplify the problem. One has to
keep in mind that the passage in question is situated in one of the central parts of the Pentateuch. A
scribe is bound to be alert when he copies a text which has a particular ideological significance, as in
our case, in which the ancestral polemic with Judaism is expressed. It is worth mentioning the quite
unusual orthography of the Hebrew Hiph‘il with the prefix ‘Alef. The whole problem can apparently
be solved by assuming a Hitpe‘el with assimilated t in MS J: lXK’I.The inconvenience of a direct
object after a Hitpe’el is a minor problem since that form functions as an active as well. Cf.
Ben-Hayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 3b, 112; 5,80 and 206 (n. 40).
lo’ Participle of Pi‘el without the regular prefix mem. Cf. Ben-Hayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition,
5, 142 and n. 131.
‘02 Participle of Qal. Cf. Gen. 39: 6;etc.
lo3 Cf. also the translation of similar cases in Lev 14:47; 17:lS; 22:8 where synonyms of 911 occur in
various manuscripts: $U, +p, Y5W (= l+W).
‘04 Cf. Kohn, ‘Samaritanische Pentateuchiibersetzung’ 67ff.: Ben-Hayyim, Lirerur,v and Orul Trudition 3a, 69. Abu Sa‘id’s version has ~Uln~Kl, ‘he that cleans’.
213
‘IIll: SAMAKI’I‘AN ‘I‘Ali<ilJM
the variant T731,“” whereas J has UY?l, ‘he cursed’, (the perfect of the verb
Ul5). J’s translation seems to be based on the interpretation of 3?‘1, wyiqqav,
as the imperfect of Xl?, ‘to curse’. lo6 However, this particular translation of J in
v. 11 does not represent a divergent view concerning the pronunciation of God’s
name, being rather a result of the following %p?, ‘and he cursed’, for in v. 16
J renders ‘;7 tlW aiX1, ‘he that utters God’s name’, as Tl>l.‘@’ The use of the
verb ;7Xn in connection with the interdiction in question reminds of M. Sunhe&in 1O:l where Abba Shaul includes l~nl7nlK=l PV;7 nK ;lal;73, ‘he that
utters the name (of God) by its letters’ among those who ‘have no share in the
world to come’.‘08 At any rate, the Tetragrammaton is substituted in the
traditional Tora reading of the Samaritans by the word ~&%a, ‘the name’, an
Aramaic vocable, parallel to the Hebrew tllvfi used by Jews.
It is probably in connection with the Samaritan’s inclination to avoid any
mention of God’s name that several manuscripts render ?W ?K as ;-hlvn
;7?190 (alternatively ;-tpaP ;T%n, etc.). 3% is the nomen agentis derived
from %, ‘strength’ and means ‘the powerful’. It appears in MS A even when no
connection with ‘ITV exists. Thus, ‘Kl 5K (Gen 16:13), ‘the LORD that sees
me’, is rendered as ;71Tn ;7’7lvn; wa 5K, ‘a jealous God’ (Exod 20:5), as
;1KUi7 ;75l-n , etc. Only in 5 instances out of a possible 40 does A render 5K
by 5K or ;7’7K. Conversely, J has only 7 out of 53 possible instances of filvll.
Being of older vintage, it is undoubtedly less commited to the later efforts to
avoid mentioning God’s name, even indirectly.lm However, %ll with its
variants, %, 5Kln, as epithets of God is of a quite ancient origin: it is attested
under the synonym form ;7llX (i.e. ‘strenght’) in Jewish sources.11o As for
;7?130, the nomen ugentis which translates the Hebrew ‘TW, it originates in the
hermeneutic division of the word into ST’W, ‘he that supplies’.“’ Although it is
used exclusively by MS A”* and totally unknown in J, the expression probably
has old origins, as a Jewish midrash attests: ‘?mnKW K1;7 YK _ “ltu 5K VjK
“I a5lY5, ‘I am El Shadday: It is I who said to the world “day” (enough)’
‘OS Cf. Num 1:17 MnWa lap3 1WK . . . WtU3K~ nK, ‘these men . . . who were expressed by
their names’, is rendered by MSS C, E, M and J as lTlDK’1; B and N have lPX’1.
lo6 In line with Jewish targumim which have t\lnl (Cod. Neofiti [Ml, the Fragmentary Targum and
Pseudo-Yonatan, but not with Onkelos: 1urll)l, ‘expressed’).
lo7 MSS A, C and E differ somewhat: tiP?nl ‘he that enchants’, apparently introducing an explicit
reference to the interdiction to use God’s name for purposes of sorcery and magic. RSV: ‘he who
blasphemes’.
Ius On the whole matter see Kohn, Sumaritunische St&en 75ff. See also Ben-Hayyim, ‘Pronunciation’ 147-54.
‘09 Two of the seven occurrences of ;T%n are cases of God’s self introduction (Gen 31:13; 46:3);
the other of invocation (Gen 33:20; 35:1,3; Exod 15:ll; Num 12:13).
‘lo Urbach, The Sages, 83ff. Cf. Kippenberg, Garizum und Synugoge, 80-96. However, the later
;Th31 7533 (MS V in Gen 43:14; 49:25 and perhaps A in Gen 31:29) is probably due to Arabic
influence. Cf. Saadya’s version as well as Abu Sa‘id’s: 1’IKihK. Is it the same ancient tradition that
produced Jerome’s translation Omnipotens?
“I Kohn, Zur Spruche 179; Kohn ‘Samaritanisch Pentateuchiibersctzung’, 674.
‘I2 Gen 17:l; 28:3; 35:ll; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25.
214
(Genesis Rabba 46:3, p. 460). In the following, the midrash cites Aquila:
UUi7’K (ixavog). ‘I3 MSS C and V occasionally use the variant ;li?Sb for TW. ‘I4
On the other hand there is no difference between the various manuscripts with
regard to the rendering of Bileam’s words who, speaking about his own abilities
says: ;7TtF “1W ;Ttnn, ‘who sees the vision of the Almighty’ (Num 24:4, 16,
according to the masoretic text). The possibility that the villain who sought to
curse the Children of Israel (Num 22ff .) and provoked them to sin (Num 30:s)
could have divine revelations similar to Moses’ was inconceivable to the Samaritans. VW has therefore been interpreted as ;T?W, ‘field’, and translated
accordingly: ?l’lv fiX vTtt13’1, ‘which has visions (in) the fields’. However,
B’s scribe alone has: a130.115
TRANSLATION OF PROPER NAMES
It was not common practice to translate proper names in the Samaritan Targum. Yet, hermeneutically altered names do occur occasionally, for example in
Gen 30:21 MS A has nn>ll for ;11”1, Jacob’s daughter, translating the appelative I?, ‘judgement’. In Exod 1:15, one of the midwives who saved the
children of the Israelites, thereby disobeying Pharaoh’s orders, is named by MS
A filtJY, ‘the beautiful one’. This name is recorded in an interlinear annotation
of MS Mn6 which has also a surname for the second midwife ;719W: ;7llW3,
‘the fair one’ which MS A however failed to adopt in its text. DlITK [YlK] in
Num 2O:lS is rendered by MS A as ;713llK and in v. 23 as ;72311, both in
accordance with the Jewish tradition of associating the name of Edom with the
detested empire of Rome.“’ MS M has many interlinear and marginal annotations containing epithets given to various personages. Thus, for example,
Reuben is surnamed ~K~13ll, ‘sinner’ in view of his misconduct with Bilhah
(narrated in Gen 35:22); Jehuda is called ;7’1U, ‘ruler’ (according to Gen
49:lO); Issachar is l-l)& ‘converter’ (cf. ibid., v. 14); Dan is 1’11)3 and llWb,
‘judge’ (ibid., v. 16); Asher is n>Wn, ‘praised’ (ibid., v. 20), etc. All these
epithets are annotated in the list of the heads of the tribes given in Num 15-14.
CONCLUSION
The sketch given in the above lines does not intend to draw definitive conclu‘I3 Cf. the Septuagint translation of Job 21:15. The Arabic versions of Saadya and Ah S’id
represent the same tradition rendering “11u as %K35K, ‘the supplier’.
‘I4 Marginal and interlinear annotation of MS M render ?W as ;i?J’D, ‘breast fccdcr’, a midrashic interpretation of the word as derived from D”1W ‘breast’ (the Samaritan pronunciation
makes no distinction in structure between -fW - Siddi and 131’110 - Siddam).
‘Is Cf. Saadya’s translation: %K3bJK lUK3n.
“’ As well as in the Samaritan Glossary Humelits (Ben-ljayyim, Literary and Ord Trrdition. 2.
568).
“’ Kohn. ‘Samaritanische Pentateuchiibersetzung’, 675. Cf. Jastrow,
215
Dictionury. 16a.
‘I‘llI< SAM/ZIII’I‘AN ‘l‘Ali~;~JM
sions regarding the hermeneutical approach of the hands that composed, redacted and copied the Samaritan Targum, from its inception to its present
variated forms. Such a conclusion has to emanate from an extensive study
taking into consideration the other products of the Samaritan spiritual activity:
Memar Marka, the liturgy of the Samaritans, their Chronicles and, obviously,
their Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch. This study is, for the time being, a
desideratum.
Bibliography
EDITIONS
The first edition of the Samaritan Targum ever made is that of MORINUS, Biblia
Polyglotta (1645)) which reproduces a Vatican manuscript, namely Vat. Sam. 2.
It was reproduced with unnecessary emendations in WALTON, Biblia Sacra
Polyglotta (1657). The same manuscript was published in Hebrew characters:
BR~LL, Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch (1873-76). The first critical
edition based on several manuscripts is: PETERMANN - VOLLERS , Pentateuchus
Samaritanus (1872-91). A recent critical edition is: TAL, The Samaritan Targum
of the Pentateuch (1980-1983) with an introduction.
STUDIES
The most important studies concerning the Samaritan Targum are the essays of
KOHN: Sumaritunische Studien (1868), Zur Sprache (1876) and his severe criticism of Petermann-Voller’s edition: ‘Die samaritanische Pentateuch-ijbersetzung’ (1893). A very important study concerning the problematic of the manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum is: G O L D B E R G, Dus sumaritanische
Pentateuchtargum (1935). Very instructive for the lexicography of the targum
are the rich notes of BEN-HAYYIM in his edition of the medieval Samaritan
Glossary, namely Humelits: Literary and Oral Tradition 2. A modern grammar
of Samaritan Aramaic largely based on the material of the targum is: MACUCH ,
Grammatik des sumaritanischen Aramiiisch (1982). So far, no dictionary of the
Samaritan Aramaic has been published. The Samaritan material of CASTELLUS,
Lexicon Heptuglotton (1686)) is obsolete. A dictionary is being prepared by A.
Tal.
Bible Codex, Prophets with Targum Onkelos and Arabic Translation in Hebrew Characters of
Saadya Gaon, Isa 37:37-38:2, 12th-13th c. (JTS 240, EMC 73, f. 8b).
Courtesy of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York (Enelow Memorial Collection).
Cf. A. Dfz Macho, Textus 1 (1960) 132-43; idem, Manuscritos hebreos 175-77. 253-W
216
JflWISIl ARAMAI~“I‘RANSf.A'I‘IONS
Japhet’ being Greek: see Gen 10:2, where Javan (= Greece) is put among the
sons of Japhet, and compare B. T. Megilla 9b (parallel: Genesis Rabba 36:8, p.
342), where ‘the words of Japhet’ mean Greek. If this interpretation of P. T.
Megillu 71c is correct, then the Bavli parallel becomes problematic, for it is
obvious in context that it refers to an Arumaic version. The simplest solution is
to suppose that the Babylonians misunderstood the logion of R. Yirmeyahu,
and took it as conveying information about their own anonymous Aramaic
translation of the Tora.2
Compared to the Palestinian targumim, Onk has come down to us as a highly
unified, stable tradition. It even has its own masora, which includes a list of
readings where the tradition of Nehardea differs from that of Sura. All the
evidence points to some sort of official recension of the text in Babylonia in the
talmudic period. Already among the Geonim Onk was received as being of the
highest sanctity. There are, nonetheless, significant divergences between its
MSS. The aim of the text-critic must be to recover the Babylonian form of the
targum. This may be possible through Yemenite MSS which preserve strongly
the Babylonian tradition. Of these MSS 131 (EMC 952), 133a (ENA 1705), 152 (ENA
SO), and 153 (EMC 48) of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New
York, and Ms. Ebr. 448 of the Vatican Library are particularly important.
THEPENTATEUCH: PALESTINIANTARGUMIM
NEOFITI 1. In 1956 A. Dfez Macho discovered a copy of the Palestinian Targum
of the Pentateuch (Codex Neofiti 1 [ = Neofl) in the Vatican Library, where it
had lain largely unnoticed because it had been miscatalogued as Targum
0nkelos.3 The text, written by three main hands, is virtually complete. A
colophon states that it was copied at Rome in (5)2&l A.M. = 1504 C.E. for Giles
of Viterbo. It is possible to trace this recension back much earlier for it has been
shown to agree significantly with the Palestinian Targum quotations in earlier
Jewish writings (e.g. the Arukh of Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome, d. 1106), where
these cannot be paralleled in other extant texts of the Palestinian Targum. On
the whole the translation is restrained and sober, the aggada being less extensive than that in either the Fragmentary Targum or Pseudo-Yonatan. Neof is
richly supplied with glosses, both marginal and interlinear, in about ten different hands. These are, in the main, alternative Palestinian Targum readings.
Different sources were drawn upon. Note, e.g. Gen 10:4 where there are two
variants, the second of which is introduced by L”’ = lashon ‘aher, ‘another
’ The rabbinic traditions are discussed by Friedmann, Onkelos undAkylas, and Silverstone, Aquila
and Onkelos, but see especially Barthelemy, Les devanciers, 148-56.
’ Diez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’.
4 See Speier, ‘Relationship’.
218
JEWISlI ARAMAI<“rRANSLA’I’IONS
reading’. The glosses sometimes agree with Pseudo-Yonatan, sometimes with
the Fragmentary Targum, sometimes with the Cairo Geniza fragments, and
sometimes with Onk. A number of them are textually unique.
P S E U D O - Y O N A T A N . The title of this work found in the e&o princeps, viz.
‘Targum of Yonatan ben Uzziel’, is a misnomer which came about through a
false resolution of the abbreviation T”Y as Turgum Yehonatun instead of
Turgum Yerushalmi. The mistaken ascription of this targum to the supposed
author of the Babylonian Targum to the Prophets may go back to Menahem b.
Benjamin Recanati in the 14th century. The work is, in fact, a recension of the
Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, which, save for a few verses, is
complete.
Pseudo-Yonatan (= Ps-Y) is the most paraphrastic of all the Pentateuchal
targumim: it is estimated to be about twice the length of the original Hebrew
text. It is a highly mixed tradition, an amalgam of interpretations from widely
different periods. It has been argued that it contains at once some of the earliest
and some of the latest dateable targumic material. Some of its aggadic traditions
are not attested elsewhere in rabbinic literature. In its final state the collection
has been worked over with some care, and in many ways Ps-Y is the most
literary of the Palestinian targumim. That its final redaction cannot have been
earlier than the 7th cent. C.E. may be deduced from its rendering of Gen 21:2l:
Hebrew text
And he (Ishmael) dwelt in the wilderness of
Paran: his mother took for him a wife out of the
landof Egypt.
Pseudo-Yonatan
And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and he
took as wife ‘Adisha [v.l. IJadisha; Ginsburger
proposes ‘Ayesha] and he divorced her; and his
mother took for him Fatima as wife from the
land of Egypt.
The same aggada is found in more expanded form in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 30.
The names of the two wives of Ishmael (the supposed progenitor of the Arabs)
correspond to those of a wife and daughter of Muhammad: Fatima was the
daughter of Muhammad by his first wife Khadijah; ‘Adisha/Hadisha may be
Khadijah, or, if we read ‘Ayesha with Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 30 (as Ginsburger
suggested), the reference could be to another wife, ‘Ayisha. Counterbalancing
such late elements, however, are early ones, and there is sufficient evidence of
internal contradiction, reworking and glossing in this targum for us to see that in
its present state it is the culmination of a very long process of evolution. There
are two witnesses to the text: (1) the editioprinceps in Hamishah humshe Torah
published by Asher Forins, Venice 1590-91 (on which see M. Steinschneider,
Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berlin 1852-60, no.
295); and (2) Ms. Add. 27.031, British Library, London, which bears the
signature of the censor Dominic0 Gierosolomitano and the date 1598. The
disagreements between these two texts establish their independence; their large
219
JkiWISH AKAMAI<"I‘KANSI.A'I‘IONS
JEWIS AKAMAIC TKANSLA'I-IONS
measure of agreement indicates that they are derived from a common
archetype.
There are four other MSS, which cannot be related stemmatically to the
Bomberg group, though they show all the characteristics of the FT. These should
be regarded as four further recensions of F T. The MSS are:
(1) P’ = HCbr. 110, fols 1-16, Bibliothkque Nationale, Paris (15th/16th cent.):
589 verses of the Pentateuch;
J
(2) = MS 605 (ENA 2587), fols 6-7, Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
New York (14th/15th cent.): Exod 14:1, 13, 14, 29-31; 15:1-2; 17:15-16;
19: 1-8;
B
= Or. 10794 (Gaster collection), fol. 8, British Library, London (?
(3)
12th/13th cent.): Deut 1:l - 5:9;
(4) C = T-S AS 72.75,76,77, University Library, Cambridge (9th/lOth - mid
11th cent.): Deut 23:15 - 28:5; 32:35 - 33:9.
There are, then, in all some five different recensions of the targum-type known
as the Fragmentary Targum.
Why did the FT text-form evolve? Why should anyone make such a collection
of Palestinian Targum fragments? It is hard to say. Some have seen ET as a set of
variant readings intended to supplement a complete text of the Palestinian
Targum. In support of this idea it should be noted that if the marginal glosses of
Neofiti 1 were collected and published separately they would constitute a kind
of R. On the other hand, it is arguable that, like the targumic Toseftot (on
which see below), the collection was made to supplement Onk. Both the
Toseftot and the FT may have arisen at a time when Onk was becoming the
dominant targum in the west. Since Onk is, on the whole, a non-aggadic
targum, the need was felt to preserve the aggadic material of the Palestinian
Targum. The Toseftot may be rather random Palestinian traditions known to
scribes who copied Onk. FT, however, looks like something more systematic: it
has probably not arisen through collecting traditions from different sources, but
by deliberate abridgement of complete recensions of the Palestinian Targum.
Complete Palestinian targumim were collated against Onk, and the non-aggadic passages removed. This view gains support from the fact that the verses which
are not represented by any of the recensions of FT are usually rendered more or
less literally in at least one of the complete recensions of the Palestinian
Targum.
GENIZA
FRAGMENTS. 7 MSS recovered from the Cairo Geniza containing
extensive passages from the Palestinian Targum appear to be remnants of once
complete targumim to whole books of the Pentateuch, or even to the whole
Pentateuch. One MS (Kahle D) still preserves parts of Genesis, Exodus and
Deuteronomy. Some MSS give the full text of the original, Hebrew and targum
alternating, verse by verse. Others present only abbreviated Hebrew lemmata.
The significance of this difference (which extends to other targum MSS) is not
obvious. The Cairo Geniza fragments (= CG) are the earliest extant witnesses to
the text of the Palestinian Targum, the oldest of them (Kahle A) dating from the
8th/9th cent., at the latest. The texts show all the characteristic features of the
Palestinian Targum, aggadic passages alternating with sections of more or less
literal translation. The MSS do not agree precisely with any of the other recensions of the Pal. Targ., nor even with each other, in the few instances where they
overlap. This is eloquent testimony to the extreme fluidity of the text of the Pal.
Targ.
CAIRO
FRAGMENTARY TARGUM. The e&o princeps of the Fragmentary Targum (= m)
was published under the title ‘Targum Yerushalmi’ in the first edition of
Bomberg’s Biblia Rabbinica, Venice 1516-17 [= Bomb 11. Five MSS closely
related to the Bomberg text are now known:
(1) V = Ebr. 440, fols 198-227, Vatican Library (13th cent.);
(2) N = Solger 2,2”, fols 119-47, Stadtbibliothek, Niirnberg (1291 c.E.);
(3) L = B. H. fol. 1, Universittitsbibliothek, Leipzig (13th/14th cent.);
(4) M = MS 3 of the Giinzburg Collection, Moscow (16th cent.);
(5) S = MS 264 of the Sassoon Collection (17th cent.).
Klein has demonstrated the inter-relationship of these various textwitnesses.
Bomb 1 and M are both transcriptions of N. S is copied from Bomb 1, or
possibly from the second edition of the Biblia Rubbirzicu, Venice 1524-5 I=
Bomb 21. V and L are both independent of N, and of each other. V contains 908
verses of the Pentateuch (taken from all five books), N 833 verses, and L 293
verses. Though V, N and L differ in length, it appears from their overlaps that
they constitute a single recension of FT and, presumably, ultimately go back to a
common archetype. FT as represented by these MSS has three distinguishing
features: first, it is a Palestinian Targum, in western Aramaic; second it covers
only selected verses of the Pentateuch (hence its name); third, although it
contains numerous aggadic expansions, it also contains a significant number of
verses where the translation is literal.
’ Klein, ‘Extant Sources’.
220
TOSEFTOT. Here and there in the MSS of Onk aggadic passages are to be
found under the rubric ‘Tosefta’ or ‘Tosefta Yerushalmi’. These passages are
clearly interpolations, derived from the Palestinian Targum, which were meant
to embellish the literal version of Onk. The Toseftot may be inserted into the
text of Onk at the appropriate place, or written in the margin, or gathered
together at the end of the main text. Separate collections of Toseftot are also
attested. The Toseftot differ from FT in two respects:
(1) they are always expansive, whereas FT contains a significant number of
verses which are translated literally; and
(2) while FT’S western Aramaic dialect has been preserved more or less intact,
TARGUMIC
221
JtIWtStt AKAMAIC‘ ‘I‘IIANSLA’I‘IONS
dialect of the Toseftot has been deliberately corrected (with varying
degrees of consistency and success) to conform to the dialect of Onk. This
linguistic recasting is a feature not only of the Toseftot inserted into the
Onk M S S, but also of the separate collections of Toseftot as well, thus
showing that the latter too were intended to supplement Onk. Where the
Toseftot overlap with other Pal. Targ. texts they often prove to represent
independent recensions of the Pal. Targ.
the
FESTIVAL
COLLECTIONS. Some MSS contain collections of targumim covering the
Tora lections for the festivals and special Sabbaths. The nature of this type of
text is well illustrated by Bodleian MS Heb. e 43, fols 57-67 (= Kahle F), the
colophon of which states: ‘This is the notebook (diftar) of Jacob, son of
Semah . . . It contains the targum of the additional readings (musufim) for all
the Festivals, and the targum for Hanukka’ (fol57r). The relationship between
these Festival Collections and the complete Palestinian targumim such as Neof
is analogous to the relationship between the homiletic midrashim (e.g. Pesiktu
de-Rav Kuhunu) and the straightforward exgetical midrashim (e.g. Mekhiltu
de-R. Ytihmuef). The Festival Collections differ from each other both as to
content and as to textual reading. There is nothing to suggest that they go back
to a common archetype, or archetypes, or that there was any attempt to
produce a standard collection.
POEMS. The character of these Aramaic compositions is well illustrated by the poem ‘Bezel Moshe, which gives, in the form of an alphabetic acrostic,
a dramatic version of Moses’ encounter with the Red Sea during the Exodus
from Egypt. Though not strictly a targum, there is evidence connecting the
poem to the targum of the Tora reading for the 7th day of Passover (Exod
14-15). It is inserted into the targum after Exod 14:29 in MS Paris 110, and
interwoven with the verses of the targum in MS 335 of the University Library,
Hamburg. The poem represents, in rather extreme form, the sort of aggadic
embellishment of the biblical narrative which is common in the Palestinian
targumim. The different ways in which it is presented in the Paris and Hamburg
MSS in relation to the targum, may reflect different ways of reciting the poem in
synagogue. The antiquity of the ‘Ezel Moshe is confirmed by the fact that a
4th/Sth cent. papyrus fragment of it is extant.6 A number of other Aramaic
poems relating to the 7th day of Passover are known, as well as to Shavuot, to
Shubbut hu+odesh, and to the story of the death of Moses (Deut 34).’ These
poems throw light on the aggada of the targum, and on its liturgical presentation
in synagogue.
TARGUMIC
JFIWISH AKAMAIC‘ ‘I‘KANSl,A’I‘IONS
THE PROPHETS: YONATAN
Targum Yonatan [= Yon] is the counterpart of Onk on the Pentateuch; it is the
official Babylonian targum to the second division of the canon. The attribution
to Yonatan ben Uzziel is based on B. T. Megillu 3a: ‘R. Yirmayahu - or some
say R. Hiyya bar Abba - said: . . . The targum of the Prophets was composed
by Yonatan ben Uzziel from the mouth of [ = under the guidance of] Haggai,
Zechariah and Malachi’. Yonatan is a shadowy figure. According to B. T.
Sukku 28a (cf. B. T. Buvu Butru 134a; P. T. Nedurim 39a; Avot de-Rubbi Natan
A14,29a) he was the most distinguished of Hillel’s pupils; but here he is made a
contemporary of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the last of the prophets.8
BarthClemy has argued that in fact the reference in B. T. Megillu 3a is not to an
Aramaic version, but to the Greek version of Theodotion (= Yonatan). He
points out that on a number of occasions elsewhere in the Talmud the Targum
of the Prophets is, by implication, attributed to Rav Yosef bar Hiyya (c. 270-333
c.E.), the head of the Academy of Pumbeditha - a scholar reputed to have
made a special study of targum. Thus Targ. Isa 5:17 is cited in B. T. Pesafzim
68a, and Targ. Obad 6 in B. T. Buvu Kummu 3b, under the rubric, ‘as Rav
Yosef translates’. (See also Hai Gaon’s commentary on Toharot quoted in the
Arukh, ed. Kohut, II pp. 293a, 308a.)9 The tradition is cited in the name of R.
Yirmeyahu and R. Hiyya b. Abba (both third century Palestinian authorities),
so it could well have referred originally to Theodotion. There can be no doubt,
however, that in Babylonia it was taken as referring to an Aramaic version. The
mistake would be analogous to the transfer to the Targum of the Pentateuch of a
tradition originally about the Greek version of Aquila.
Yon was held in high esteem in Babylonia and is cited as authoritative in the
Bavli. On several occasions quotations from it are introduced by the formula:
‘Were it not for the targum of this verse we should not know what it means’
(B. T. Megillu 3a; parallels: B. T. Moed Katun 28b; B. T. Sanhedrin 94b; B. T.
Berukhot 28b). It has close affinities with Onk both in language and in the
character of its translation, though it is rather more aggadic than Onk, and in
poetic passages can be quite expansive (see e.g. Judg 5 and 1 Sam 2: l-10). It has
all the marks of thorough editing, its renderings being, on the whole, consistent.
Yon was probably redacted in Babylonia about the same time as Onk. Though,
like Onk, its text is very stable there are significant textual variants in the MSS.
The major text-critical problem is the relationship of the Yemenite MSS with
supralinear vocalisation (e.g. Mss Or. 2210 and Or. 2211 of the British Library,
London) to western MSS with Tiberian vocalisation (e.g. Codex Reuchlinianus).
There appear to be two slightly different recensions of the targum - a western
and a Yemenite. It is generally assumed that the Yemenite MSS take us closer to
the Babylonian form of the targum.
’ Yahalom, “Ezel Moshe’, edits the papyrus and compares it with the medieval versions of the
poem.
’ The most extensive listing of these poems is still Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, 18-22,74-80, 150-51.
’ An analysis of the rabbinic traditions regarding Yonatan may be found in Neusncr. I~evelopment,
90 and Rabbinic Traditions 1, 198-200, 206-7, 393.
’ BarthClemy, Les devanciers, 90.
222
223
.Il,WISIl AKAMAI~“I‘KANSI.A’I‘IONS
.lt~WISIl AKAMAI< ‘I‘IIANSIA’I‘IONS
THE PROPHETS: PALESTINIAN TOSEFTOT
western and Yemenite provenance exist for the other two Megillot (Ruth and
Esther), but there the recensional picture is very unclear. The case of Esther is
particularly difficult. Bomberg in his Rabbinic Bible distinguished two targumim to Esther - one of which he called ‘Targum’ and the other ‘Targum Sheni’.
There are Yemenite MSS (and, apparently, some western MSS) which do not
observe this distinction, but present texts displaying a mixture of both recensions of the Targ. Esther. There is also the so-called ‘Third Targum’ to Esther,
found only in the Antwerp Polyglott (1569-72).
The targumim to Psalms, Job and Proverbs form an interconnected group. In
Job, and to a lesser degree in Psalms, two (sometimes three or even four)
targumim are given for a single verse, the first being more or less literal, the
second, introduced by the formula ‘Targum ‘Aher’, being aggadic. These
targumim were presumably created by deliberate and systematic fusion of
originally different recensions. They mark the confluence of originally different
streams of tradition. Targum Proverbs has significant affinities to the Peshitta
of Proverbs. It is not clear whether the targum depends on the Peshitta, or the
Peshitta on the targum, or whether both draw on a common source.
No targum of Chronicles was known to the editors of the early Rabbinic
Bibles and the Polyglotts. The editio princeps did not appear till 1680-83.”
Three MSS are extant:
(1) E = the Erfurt Codex (now Ms. or. fol. 1210 and 1211, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin);
(2) C = Ms. Or. Ee. 5.9, University Library, Cambridge;
(3) V = Codex Urbinas 1 (Urb. Ebr. 1, Vatican Library).
A fourth MS was destroyed in 1945: all that survives is a charred block in the
Sachsische Landesbibliothek in Dresden (Mscr. Dresd. A 46). The MSS appear
to represent two different recensions of the targum - one found in C and V, the
other in E. Targum Chronicles shows strong affinities to the Pal. Targ. of the
Pentateuch, particularly Ps-Y (cf. e.g. Targ. 1 Chr 1:4-24 with Ps-Y Gen
lO:l-32).
In character the targumim of the Writings differ from each other. Proverbs
and Chronicles are non-expansive. Psalms and Job contain numerous aggadic
plusses. However, it is in the Megillot that the greatest degree of paraphrase is
to be found, particularly in Lamentations, Song of Songs and Esther. Turgum
Sheni to Esther is the most expansive of all the targumim.
Codex Reuchlinianus contains about 80 passages (in both the Former and the
Latter Prophets) under the rubric ‘Targum Yerushalmi’ or ‘Targum ‘Aher’.
These are probably remnants of a recension, or recensions of a complete
Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. Other fragments are found in other sources, sometimes called ‘Tosefta of the Land of Israel’, or simply ‘Tosefta’. Like
the Palestinian Toseftot to Onk these Toseftot were presumably intended to
supplement Yon’s literal version. Though Palestinian in origin they are often
recast in the Aramaic dialect of Yon. They presumably arose at a time when
Yon was displacing the Palestinian Targum of the Prophets as the authoritative
liturgical version, and represent an attempt to salvage some of the more
interesting Palestinian traditions.
THE WRITINGS
According to B. T. Megilk 3a Yonatan ben Uzziel wanted to translate the
Writings, but was forbidden: ‘He (Yonatan ben Uzziel) further sought to reveal
(by) a targum (the inner meaning) of the Writings, but a but qdZ went forth and
said, Enough! What was the reason? - Because the date of the Messiah is
foretold in them.’ This might suggest that in talmudic times no targum of the
Writings was known, or in use, in Babylonia. Yet targumim for all the Writings
are extant (with the predictable exception of Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel),
some of which are ascribed in rabbinic literature to the Babylonian scholar Rav
Yosef. Thus Soferim 13:6 introduces a quotation from the Turgum Sheni to
Esther 3: 1 with the words, ‘Rav Yosef translated’. This may be yet another case
of attributing an anonymous targum to the great Babylonian targum expert.
Mediaeval writers, more reasonably, refer to the targumim of the Writings as
‘Targum Yerushalmi’. The aggadic nature of many of these targumim, their
basic dialect, and their translational equivalents tend to bear out this
classification.
The targumim of the Writings have not been studied as intensively as the
Pentateuchal targumim, and many fundamental textual problems still remain
unresolved. There is evidence everywhere of great textual fluidity - a lack of
textual stability reminiscent of the Pal. Targ. to the Pentateuch. Quite diverse
recensions exist for most of the targumim of the Writings. Targ. Lamentations
is a case in point: at least two recensions of this are extant-one in the Yemenite
MSS (e.g. Or 1476 of the British Library, London), the other in western MSS (e.g.
Codex Urbinas 1 of the Vatican Library). Comparison of these two recensions
leads to the unexpected conclusion that, if we ignore the superior vocalisation
of the Yemenite MSS, the western recension is arguably older and better than
the Yemenite.‘” This distinction between western and Yemenite recensions
seems to extend to Targum Canticles and Targum Qohelet as well. Mss both of
A literature
I” This is argued at length by Alexander, ‘Textual Tradition’.
” It was published by M.F. Beck at Augsburg. Beck used the Erfurt ms.
224
The Character of the Tar-gum
TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
as vast and diverse as the targumim defies easy generalization. One
225
JEWISII /\KAMAI~“I‘KANSI.A’I‘IONS
JEWISH AKAMAI(’ TKANSLA’I‘IONS
approach to characterizing the targum is to identify and list its various
translation-techniques. The implication is that these techniques in sum should
suffice to define the phenomenon of ‘targumism’. The following are some of the
more important translation-techniques which have figured in the discussion:
Table of the Nations in Gen 10. Thus Gen 10:2 becomes in Ps-Y: ‘The sons of
Japhet were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras, and
the names of their provinces are: Phrygia, Germania, Media, Macedonia,
Bithynia, Asia, and Thrace’. The targumic treatment of Gen 10 gives a map of
the world as known to the meturgemanim. In similar fashion they identify many
of the places mentioned in the definition of the borders of the Promised Land in
Num 34:3-12, and so provide a targumic map of Erets Israel. Later institutions,
such as the synagogue and the Beit ha-Midrash, are introduced into the narratives of the patriarchal period (see e.g. Ps-Y to Gen 9:27, and Neof to Gen
30:13). In general the phenomenon of actualisation may be compared to the
practice in 17th century Dutch art of painting biblical scenes in 17th century
Dutch costumes and settings.
common
(1) Treatment of anthropomorphism
The targumim on many occasions soften anthropomorphic expressions used of
God. E.g.
1. Gen 115, ‘The Lord came down to see the city and the tower’;
Neof, ‘The Glory of the Shekhinah of the Lord was revealed to see the city
and the tower’.
2. Gen 35, ‘For God knows’;
Neof, ‘It is revealed and known before the Lord’.
3. Exod 3:20, ‘I will put forth my hand and smite the Egyptians’;
Neof, ‘I will send the plague of my punishments and put to death the
Egyptians’.
4. Exod 15:8, ‘With the blast of Your nostrils the waters were piled up’;
Ps-Y, ‘By a Word [memar] from before you, the waters were transformed
into heaps and heaps’.
5. Gen 26:3, ‘Sojourn in this land and I will be with you’;
Ps-Y, ‘Sojourn in this land and my Word [memri] will assist you’.
Since the time of Saadya it has been argued that such translations are motivated
by doctrine and arise from a desire to defend the transcendence and spirituality
of God. The problem is that the targumim are not consistent: they also translate
literally many anthropomorphic terms. No one has yet discovered a pattern in
this inconsistency, or offered a convincing explanation for it. It is unlikely that
dogma played a significant role. In rabbinic literature contemporary with the
targumim God can be spoken of in strikingly anthropomorphic language. The
translations quoted above are sonorous, and, presumably, intended, in a general way, to be reverential. They are characteristic of the style of the targum - to
the extent that at certain points in targumic literature the style almost becomes
parody. l2
(3) Doublets
In a doublet the original is translated twice. E.g. Gen 18:3: MT, ‘If now I have
found favour in your eyes’; Neof, ‘If now I have found grace and favour in your
sight’. Exod 15: 1: MT, ‘I will sing to the Lord’; Neof, ‘Let us praise and extol
before the Lord’. In these two cases one word in the original is involved.
Sometimes it is a phrase. E.g. Gen 4:4: MT, ‘The Lord favoured Abel’; Ps-Y, ‘It
was pleasing before the Lord, and the Lord favoured Abel’. There may be
different reasons for doublets. It may be simply a matter of style. Or a pair of
words may have come to form a cliche: for ‘grace and favour’ see Esth 2: 17, and
for ‘praise and extol’ see Dan 2:23. In some cases doublets can arise through the
conflation of different textual traditions. In the doublets considered here the
second element is synonymous with the first. There are, however, examples of
double translation where the second element offers a different, perhaps even
contradictory, rendering of the Hebrew from the first. Note Ps-Y’s double
rendering of the Hebrew n”zM in Gen 4: 13 as ‘tolerate’, and ‘forgive’ (see further
below). Such antithetic doublets are, perhaps, aimed at maximizing the sense of
Scripture.
(4) Associative translation
The targumim have a tendency to ‘update’ Scripture. E.g. they regularly
identify biblical peoples and places with peoples and places from their own
times. All the Palestinian Targumim systematically interpret the names on the
Associative translation13 occurs where in translating text A the meturgeman is
influenced by similar phraseology in text B. E.g. Exod 16:31 states with regard
to manna that ‘the taste of it was like wafers (made) with honey’ [Hebrew: fa‘mci
kyappihit bi&h&j. Neof translates: ‘its taste was like pancakes [.?Cz] with
honey’. The parallel text in Num 11:8 describes the taste of the manna as being
‘like the taste of a cake baked with oil’ [Hebrew: k(a‘am PSad ha.Eemen]. There
‘* Klein gives the most balanced treatment of anthropomorphism in the targumim. See especially
his Anthropomorphivns and Anthropopathisrns. Further, Hayward, The Memra, and MuAoi Le6n,
Dies Palabra and Gloria de la Shekina.
” See Klein, ‘Associative and Complementary Translation’. Klein’s various essays anillysing the
translation techniques of the targumim are particularly commendable. Further. Sperher, ‘7k Rihk
in Aramaic, 43, 37-264.
226
227
(2) Actuaksation