Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Managing Editor
Paul V.M. Flesher
University of Wyoming
Editorial Board
Bruce Chilton, Bard College
Willem Smelik, University College, London
Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University
Edward M. Cook, Catholic University of America
Luis Dez Merino, University of Barcelona
VOLUME 10
Targums and the Transmission
of Scripture into Judaism and
Christianity
By
C.T.R. Hayward
LEIDEN BOSTON
2010
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
BS709.4.H39 2010
221.426dc22
2009040256
ISSN 1570-1336
ISBN 978 90 04 17956 1
PART ONE
TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES
PART TWO
DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN
PART THREE
SAINT JEROME AND JEWISH TRADITION
PART FOUR
TARGUM AND TEMPLE
Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, JSS 32 (1987), pp. 105
123.
on this Targum, this writer is still persuaded that the bulk of its text
was formulated in the late fourth century to early fifth century ce;
and for that reason the essays in this volume which discuss its date
are presented as they were originally published. These essays, insofar
as they are concerned with transmission of the meaning of Scripture
from Bible into that translation-cum-interpretation which is Targum,
are intended not simply as discussions of issues concerning dating, but
also as stepping-stones towards reconstructing the procedures adopted
by the Targumists, which seem to have remained remarkably constant
for quite long periods.
The section devoted to St. Jerome draws attention to a figure from
antiquity whose writings are often acknowledged as sources of first-
rate importance for our knowledge of Judaism in the early Amoraic
period. Yet his work is, perhaps, still not investigated and appreciated
as much as it might be for the information he has to offer about the
Judaism of his days; and his reports of contemporary Jewish bibli-
cal interpretation have a value which can hardly be exaggerated. The
three essays included here are intended not least as a testimony to
this state of affairs, and as a demonstration of Jeromes learning which
extends far beyond a concern with textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, important though this is, into a serious engagement with inter-
pretation of difficult and demanding texts.
The Temple at Jerusalem continued to occupy a central place in
Jewish thought, life, and prayer long after it had been destroyed, and
this place is reflected in the Targumim, which time and again invoke
its practices and the world-view which it presupposes. Many of the
essays in this volume acknowledge the influences of the Temples
role in Judaism as perceived by the Targumim, and a final section
is devoted to Temple and priesthood specifically. The recent work of
Beverly P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 2
vols (Leiden: Brill, 2006), leaves the reader in no doubt just how much
that Targum is dependent upon interpretations of priestly law and lore
which set the Jerusalem Temple at the centre of their world-view. The
projected restoration of the Temple in the days of the Emperor Julian
(361363 ce) may, Mortensen suggests, have provided the incentive
for Targum Pseudo-Jonathans inclusion of so much extensive and
sustained exegetical material. In any event, the Temples place in the
transmission of Scripture should not be underestimated; and recur-
ring Targumic references to its place in Jewish life recall its continuing
power to shape Jewish thought long after its destruction.
preface xi
There remains the pleasant task of thanking those who have had a
hand in the production of this volume. First, I am indebted to Paul
Flesher for suggesting the collection of these essays, and for his practi-
cal help and encouragement throughout the preparation of the book.
This is also an appropriate place to mark his contribution over many
years to the study of the Targumim, not least in his determination to
ensure that study of the Aramaic versions is given its due recogni-
tion in the world of international scholarship. To my colleague Loren
Stuckenbruck I extend my thanks for his help with the volume: his
generosity, especially with his time, has been deeply appreciated. As
always, I must extend the warmest thanks to my former teacher and
colleague Anthony Gelston, who has been unstinting with his support,
help and with useful suggestions. Thanks also are due to my colleagues
Walter Moberly, Stuart Weeks, and Jeremy Corley, many of whose
insights are incorporated in these essays. Any errors are mine, not
theirs. Finally, I must thank the hard-pressed staff of the Library of
the University of Durham, especially those in the Palace Green section,
whose unfailing courtesy and help have lightened many a burden in
the process of preparing this book.
C.T.R. Hayward
Department of Theology and Religion
University of Durham
St. Georges Day 2009
ABBREVIATIONS
Ab. Aboth
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,
(ed.) R. H. Charles, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913)
ARNa Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension A
ARNB Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension B
ALUOS Annual of the Leeds University Oriental Society
Ant. Jewish Antiquities
AZ Abodah Zarah
b. Babylonian Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate
BB Baba Batra
Ber. Rab. Bereshit Rabbah
BK Baba Kamma
BM Baba Metsia
Ber. Berakhot
Bib. Biblica
Bik. Bikkurim
BJ Bellum Judaicum
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CA Contra Apionem
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CD Damascus Document
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
Est. Bib. Estudios Biblicos
Enc. Jud. Encyclopedia Judaica
Erub. Erubin
FT/Frg. Tg. Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch
FTP Fragment Targum MS Paris 110
FTV Fragment Targum MS Vat 440
Gitt. Gittin
xiv abbreviations
Hag. Hagigah
Hor. Horayot
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JE Jewish Encyclopaedia
Jer. Jerusalem Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Ker. Keritot
Ket. Ketubot
LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
LXX Septuagint
m. Mishnah, followed by the title of a tractate
Makk. Makkot
Meg. Megillah
Mekh. Mekhilta
Men. Menahot
MGWJ Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums
MQ Moed Qatan
Ned. Nedarim
Nidd. Niddah
Ngl Marginal and interlinear glosses of MS Targum Neofiti 1
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (ed.) J. H. Charlesworth,
2 vols (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985)
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish
Research
Pes. Pesahim
Pesh. Peshitta
PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
PJ/Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
abbreviations xv
PL Patrologia Latina
PR Pesiqta Rabbati
PRE Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer
PRK Pesiqta de Rab Kahana
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
PT Palestinian Targum
Qid. Qiddushin
R./Rab. Rabbah
RB Revue Biblique
REJ Revue des tudes juives
RHPR Revue dHistoire et de Philosophie religieuses
RHR Revue de lHistoire des Religions
RQ Revue de Qumrn
Sanh. Sanhedrin
SC Sources Chrtiennes
Shab. Shabbat
Sheq. Sheqalim
Sot. Sotah
T /Tg. Targum
Taan. Taanit
Tanh. Tanhuma Yashen
Tanh. B. Tanhuma (ed.) S. Buber (Wilna, 1885)
TJ Targum Jonathan of the Prophets
TN/Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti 1
TO/Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos
Tos. Tosefta, followed by the title of a tractate
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
Vg. Vulgate
VL Vetus Latina
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
PART ONE
* This essay is presented with all good wishes to Martin McNamara on his sixty-
fifth birthday, in grateful acknowledgment of his distinguished scholarship and out-
standing service in the Aramaic targumim.
4 chapter one
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 sup-
port 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 senti-
ments, especially when Shem is fully integrated into the picture.
1
See especially M. Simon, Melchisdech dans la polmique entre juifs et Chrtiens
et dans la Lgende, RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93113, esp. pp. 6062; J. Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp.
196199; R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Gense (SC, 245; Paris: Cerf, 1978),
pp. 163164 and literature there cited; M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
(The Aramaic Bible, 1B; 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, pp. 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. II.1. haer. 55. Jerome, Ep. 73 ad Evagrium (Evangelum) Presbyterum 2 lists the
views of Christian writers, beginning with Origens belief that Melchizedek was an
angel. This last recalls 11Q Melch, where Melchizedek appears as a heavenly figure,
possibly 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. 255264.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 5
Japtheth the elder (ah yepet haggdl), to him also children were
born. Japheth, ancestor of Gentiles, is thus Noahs 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 pal-
atable 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 haggdl, 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. Sanh. 69b; but centu-
ries 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.
8.1521). Israels superiority to Gentiles is thus indicated: they inhabit
land where Gods earthly presence is manifested, granted to the ances-
tor 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
haggdl 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 Shems outstanding reputa-
tion 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
Shems seniority. The concerns that motivated Jubilees appear to be
absent, and they feel no need to engage with any case which Christians
might have put forward in the name of Japheths privilege as the first-
born son of Noah.
6 chapter one
Along with their apparent lack of concern about Shems seniority, the
targumim seem to have no particular anxieties about Gen. 9.2627.
In these verses, Noah blesses his sons Shem and Japheth because they
covered his shame when he lay in a drunken stupor (9.2124). 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 Martyrs time (c. 100c.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 Gods people (Dial. with
Trypho 139.23). 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 targu-
mim. 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.
Shems righteous deed is given as the reason for Canaans loss of sta-
tus; but this is readily explicable as a reasonable deduction from the
Hebrew text itself. The idea that Canaan shall be Shems rather than
their servant is already expressed in Jub. 7.11. Shems concern with
righteousness will feature again in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 14.19, where in
the 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:
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 7
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 Shems
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 Neofitis marginal glosses are
fragmentary, but clearly represent a tradition found fully in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan:
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-Jonathans transla-
tion 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 Japheths sons.
In none of these interpretations is anti-Christian sentiment at work.
Astonishingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum
Neofiti point in quite another direction. They predict a conversion
of Gentiles to Judaism, and provide a ready tool for opportunis-
tic Christian propaganda, in so far as they indicate an adoption of
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, Targum 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.
8 chapter one
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; j. Meg. 1.9.10; b. Yom. 9b.
7
See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 6; Wilmgton,
DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 69.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 9
8
1QapGen 22.13. For full discussion of this passage, see F.L. Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
pp. 6264.
9
This could be a mistake for Melchizedek, or an attempt to compromise between
the version of Tg. Ps.-J. mlk sdyq and the Hebrew mlky sdq: see the views of Fitzmyer
and le Daut respectively, summarized by A. Rodrguez Carmona, La figura de
Melquisedec en la literatura targmica, EstBb 37 (1978), p. 84.
10
Pace Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58. The most natural sense of
mm here and in Tg. Onq. of this verse is acting as priest: see Grossfeld, The Targum
Onqelos, p. 69 and literature there cited; and Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, p. 92.
For a temporal succession of priests in pre-Aaronic times, see Num. R. 4.8; j. Meg.
1.11; Ag. Ber. 42; and cf. b. Ned. 32b.
10 chapter one
11
See further Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, pp. 8485, 94; and Horton, Melchi-
zedek, pp. 56, 8283.
12
See J.J. Petuchowski, The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek, HUCA 28 (1957),
pp. 127136. The whole article supports the point; but see especially pp. 128130.
13
Jub. 8.19, translated by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp.
7172. Charles notes (Jubilees, p. 71) that the three holy places on earth belong to
Shem.
14
See Charles, Jubilees, p. 81.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 11
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 Sdqtlebb (7.16), a word meaning righteousness of the
heart.15 The implication may be that Shem particularly among Noahs
sons followed his fathers repeated injunctions to observe righteous-
ness (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 mid-
second century bce, the necessary elements of the tradition that Shem
was a righteous priest were known, and available for further develop-
ment. Indeed, the characterization of Shem which we find in Philos
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. 2.7576). He thus devotes a large part of De
Sobrietate (5167) to Shem, whose name means good, and whom
Moses counts worthy of the prayer recorded in Gen. 9.2627. This
last speaks of the Lord and God of the universe as peculiarly, by spe-
cial favour, the God of Shem: therefore Shem and the universe are of
equal value, and a man granted such privileges is Gods friend, like
Abraham.17
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 tiperet) of the cre-
ated 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 tiperet 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. 5155. In associating Noahs 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 the words
He gave a land to Abraham His friend. The Hebrew of the fragment reads: wbhly
m ykwn rs ntn lbrhm hbw; see T.H. Lim, Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1, cols. iii, JJS
44 (1993), p. 123. For comment on the text and interpretation of this fragment, see
12 chapter one
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. 1112, who
also comments on the targumim of Gen. 9.27.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 13
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 Philos 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 of Arphachshad (Gen. 11.10), which means that he was still alive
18
Sobr. 66. The Greek has:
[].
.
14 chapter one
thirty-five 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.
11.1011), 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. Shems judgments are Gods 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 Shems 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 Gods mercy when carrying the twins Jacob
and Esau, visited the study-house of Shem (Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. and
19
For the numerical calculations of his age based on scripture, see Horton,
Melchizedek, pp. 115116.
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. Thackerays translation of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), IV, p. 73.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 15
glosses, Frag. Tg. V and P of 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 Melchizedeks blessing, and follow the Hebrew in retaining at the
end of the verse the ambiguous words he paid tithes to him. Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan, 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. 13.2527; 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 reason-
able 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 teach-
ing (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 been developed as a counter to the kind of
21
See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46.
22
See Heb. 7.4; cf. Gen. R. 43.8, and Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, pp. 9596.
23
In both of these writings Jerome notes that the identification depends on cal-
culating the years of Shems 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.
16 chapter one
1
Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History
of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1994), pp. 8990, 144145. See also his earlier study,
Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 175185, particularly pp. 179,
182183, in respect of Abraham. Another important pre-Rabbinic text, Pseudo-Philos
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, makes no mention of Abraham as a proselytizer. The
age of this work is disputed, but a date in the first century ce seems probable: for
discussion of scholarly opinion, see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III. 1, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 328329. See also F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Re-Writing the
Bible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 262270, for a first-century dating. Howard Jacobson, A
Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (2 vols.), vol. 1 (Leiden,
1996), pp. 199210, argues in favour of a date in the second century ce.
2
With Goodmans overall thesis on the history of Jewish missionary activity, cf.
S. McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple
Period (Minneapolis, 1991). For the view that Jews were actively engaged in mission
to convert Gentiles in the first century ce, see e.g. J. Jeremias, Jesus Promise to the
Nations (London, 1958), and D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians
(Edinburgh, 1986), both cited by Goodman (Mission, p. 8) as explicit advocates of the
thesis. The literature on proselytism is extensive: L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in
the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton,
1993), pp. 553554, provides a summary list of the most significant treatments.
18 chapter two
3
See Goodman, Mission, pp. 45. For a critique of Goodmans definition of pros-
elytizing mission, see Shaye Cohens review of the book, JJS 46 (1995), p. 299.
4
The place-name may be explained by paronomasia as well of the oath or well
of the seven.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 19
and twice elsewhere in the Bible (1 Sam. 22:6; 31:13). Its meaning is
not transparent. Next, and called is only one possible translation of
, which may legitimately be read as a hiphil form, and he caused
(people) to call: the verbal root may also be better understood
here as to invoke. Finally, as well as signifying Eternal God,
might be rendered as God of the Universe, the God of the whole
world. Only here in the entire Bible is this title for God to be found.
The expression may thus reasonably be understood as having some
particular relevance to the story of Abrahams direct involvement with
a Gentile king. It would seem, then, that this verse confronted ancient
translators and students of the Bible with problems both lexical and
exegetical.
So much is evident from the oldest extant interpretation of the verse,
preserved in the Old Greek version commonly called Septuagint. The
translators took the verse to mean:
And Abraham planted a piece of land () at the Well of the Oath;
and there he called (or: invoked, Greek ) the name of the
Lord the Everlasting God ( ).
Hebrew here becomes an , a piece of tilled ground: in
Egypt, where the LXX translation was made, the represented
an area of agricultural land (Herodotus II.14; Philo, De Plant. 75, gives
it as 100 square cubits).5 Possibly LXX wished by this rendering to
eliminate suspicion that Abraham had planted some item associated
with pagan worship.6 Be that as it may, the effect of LXXs translation
is to make Abraham plant a substantial area of arable land rather than
a single shrub. Then he either designated the Lord as the Everlasting
God, or invoked the Lord (under the title of ) Everlasting God: the
Greek . . . is patient of both
senses.7 Furthermore, most naturally means Everlasting
God, not God of the universe, and the subtlety of the original Hebrew
is thus eliminated.8 There is no hint in this translation that Abraham
5
See M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 1: La Gense (Paris, 1994), p. 191, noting
the same translation in 1 Reigns 22:6 and 31:13. The witnesses to Vetus Latina have
field (agrum) or transliterate LXX as aruram: see B. Fischer, Vetus Latina Genesis
(Freiburg, 1951), p. 230.
6
See J. Barr, Seeing the Wood for the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient Translation,
JSS 13 (1968), pp. 1120.
7
See M. Harl, op. cit., p. 191.
8
Harl, op. cit., p. 190, translates the phrase as Dieu ternel.
20 chapter two
was making a universal claim for his religion, nor that he was seeking
to convert any non-Jew to Judaism. Nonetheless, in making Abraham
plant a piece of arable land, LXX lay the foundations for an interpreta-
tion which later exegetes would find fruitful.
It appears that Gen. 21:33 was a significant verse for the author of
Jubilees, who deduced from and built upon it actions undertaken by
Abraham not recorded in the Bible.9 Fully to appreciate the authors
enterprise, we must glance at his re-structuring of the story of
Abraham told in Gen. 2021, which he substantially re-wrote in Jub.
16:1017:14. Most striking is the complete suppression of the account
of Abrahams and Sarahs dealings with the non-Jew Abimelech, king
of Gerar, recorded in Gen. 20:117. All that survives of this is a note
that Abraham moved from Hebron, via Qadesh and Shur in the moun-
tains of Gerar, to the Well of the Oath (Jub. 16:1011; cf. Gen. 20:1).
Thereafter, the author turns to Gen. 21:14 with its account of Isaacs
birth, naming and circumcision, which he more or less reproduces in
Jub. 16:1214. The Bible then (Gen. 21:57) gives the ages of Abraham
and Sarah and comments on the meaning of Isaacs name; ignoring
this, Jub. 16:1531 embarks on a lengthy, non-Biblical narrative.
This story tells how angels visited Abraham at the Well of the Oath,
and promised him not only descendants through Isaac, but the birth of
six further sons, all of whom would become nations. But from Isaacs
sons alone one would become a holy seed, not counted among the
nations because he would become the portion of the Most High, ruled
by God to become a people to the Lord, a special possession from all
nations, so that he might become a kingdom of priests and a holy
people (Jub. 16:18). This virtual quotation of Exod. 19:56, where God
9
Jubilees was composed around the mid-second century bce, most probably soon
after the death of Judah Maccabee; for discussion of this and other possible dates in
the second century, see Schrer, op. cit., vol. III. 1, pp. 311313. J.C. VanderKam,
article Jubilees, Book of , in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 3
(New York, 1992), p. 1030, gives a general date for the book as sometime between 170
and 140 bce. All quotations of Jubilees are taken from O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees: A
New Translation and Introduction, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H.
Charlesworth, vol. 2 (London, 1985), pp. 52142.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 21
enters into covenant with Israel at Sinai and commands that His peo-
ple be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, suggests that Abrahams
actions at Beer-sheba carry, for the author of Jubilees, a foundational
character: what occurs here is a necessary preliminary to, even fore-
shadowing of, the covenant at Sinai; and it will have abiding meaning
for the future of Israel.
There now follows an account of the first earthly celebration of
the Feast of Sukkoth through its seven days (Jub. 16:2031). First,
Abraham built an altar, provided booths for himself and his servants,
and offered sacrifice each day (Jub. 16:2023). He offered incense each
morning and evening,
and he observed this feast seven days, rejoicing with all his heart and
with all his soul, he and all of those who were in his house. And there
was no alien with him or any who were not circumcised. And he blessed
his Creator . . . for he knew and he perceived that from him there would
be a righteous planting for eternal generations and a holy seed from him
so that he might be like the one who made everything. (Jub. 16:2526)
The angels eternally blessed Abraham and his descendants because
they keep this festival in accordance with its time as prescribed in the
heavenly tablets, dwelling in tents and taking branches of leaves and
willow:
And Abraham took branches of palm trees and fruit of good trees and
each day of the days he used to go round the altar with branches. Seven
times per day, in the morning, he was praising and giving thanks to his
God for all things. (Jub. 16:31)
This whole episode of Abrahams celebration of Sukkoth at Beer-sheba
was apparently derived by the author of Jubilees from Gen. 21:33, whose
position in the narrative he has brought forward so that it precedes
the story of Isaacs weaning, the feast in his honour, and the expul-
sion of Hagar (Gen. 21:821, followed essentially by Jub. 17:114). The
second meeting of Abraham with Abimelech (Gen. 21:2232) Jubilees
once again omits entirely. Gen. 21:33 is the only Biblical reference
to Abraham offering formal worship to God in the narrative of Gen.
20:122:1, after which we hear of the sacrifice of Isaac. Jub. 17:1518:3
locates Isaacs offering at Pesah, so it is reasonable to assume that Gen.
21:33, which immediately precedes Isaacs sacrifice, suggested to the
author of Jubilees that Abraham had worshipped God at the preceding
Festival, which for him will have meant Sukkoth.
22 chapter two
10
Cf. with Jub. 16:31 FTV of Gen. 21:33, according to which Abraham gave thanks
and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the Universe.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 23
11
See above, p. 22. The removal of Gentiles from the scene by the author of Jubilees
is of particular interest, in that some aspects of the ceremonies of Sukkoth as he
describes them are superficially similar to ceremonies of festivals of Bacchus. Cf. Jub.
16:30; 2 Macc. 6:7; and see R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp.
117118; and K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubilen, Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch-
rmischer Zeit, Band II (Gtersloh, 1981), pp. 414415.
12
The guiding impulse controlling the author of Jubilees here seems to be his well-
known desire to link events in the lives of the Patriarchs to the great festivals. Gen.
21:33 provided him with a ready-made excuse for making Abraham celebrate a feast,
providing that Abimelech could be removed from the scene. In the event, he placed all
material relating to this Philistine in Jub. 24:833, which re-works the story of Isaacs
sufferings at Abimelechs hands recorded in Gen. 26:133, and culminates in Isaacs
uttering a comprehensive curse on that people.
13
Greek text in F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Philo, vol. III, Loeb Classical
Library 247 (Cambridge Mass., 1968). Translations are mine. In De Mut. Nom. 190, he
gives the dimensions of . Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 318, cites De Virtutibus
217 as evidence of Abraham as missionary. Certainly the whole section 21119 praises
24 chapter two
no particulars of the plants are shown in the text, only the size of the
place. However, those whose custom it is to search after such things
regard the verse as an especially accurate description of property,
namely the tree, and the place, and the fruit of the tree. Thus it is
that the is the tree, no ordinary plant, but one rooted in the
thought of a man loved by God; the place is the Well of the Oath; and
the fruit of the tree is the change of the Lords Name into Everlasting
God (7374). Philo discusses each of these in turn. The numerical
symbolism of the is adduced: some, says Philo, regard it as
indicating that God is the beginning and end of all things, an opinion
fitted for constructing reverence towards God, which, when planted
in the soul, bears the fruit holiness (7577). Then the place, the Well
of Oath, he expounds with reference to Gen. 26:32 LXX, Isaacs ser-
vants digging but finding no water (7884). Finally, the fruit of the tree
refers to the designations of God as Lord and Everlasting God. Here
Philo rehearses what is for him a commonplace, that refers to
Gods rulership, to His beneficence, the latter title being used by
Moses in the creation story.14 As ruler He may act towards human
beings for good or ill; but as benefactor he desires only to do good
(8587). The soul should ensure that it be not in doubt whether the
ruler will act for good or ill, but rid itself of fear, and hope to benefit
from the good things which God wills to give (88):
Indeed, the expression Everlasting God is equivalent to The One who is
kind not once in a while and then not so, but always and continuously,
who shows kindness uninterruptedly, who without ceasing continues the
fruit of his gifts one after another; who revolves his favours in turn one
after another, binding them together with unifying powers; who lets no
opportunity of doing good pass by; who is the Lord, and so is also able
to do harm. (89)
This last description of the beneficent God recalls Philos words else-
where about the Creator who lovingly provides food and sustenance
for the whole human race with every passing season, a favour recalled
in various items of the Temple service (De Vit. Mos. II.104, 12425;
Spec. Leg. I.172).
This exegesis is enlightening in a number of ways. First, Philo
appears to base his comments on insights of interpreters either older
than or contemporary with himself.15 They understood that Abraham
had planted a tree (), a notion found also in Targum Onqelos.
Next, the measure of land, the place, symbolises God as beginning
and end, and leads Philo to set forth the right attitude of the human
soul towards that God who is both ruler and benefactor, so that the
soul may enjoy the unceasing gifts of the latter. His exposition of
Everlasting God reveals a Deity who is not only eternal, but possessed
of universal sovereignty over his created world.
At no point in this extended commentary, however, does Philo hint
that Abraham had called on the world at large to recognize this God;
nor does he suggest that Abrahams actions as he interprets them have
application to anything other than to the human soul in general. If
Philo had known that Gen. 21:33 could be understood as meaning
that Abraham had publicly proclaimed God as the universal God, and
had called on non-believers to acknowledge Him as such and to join
Abrahams family, there is every reason to suppose that he would have
recorded as much. For there is no doubt that he was favourably dis-
posed towards Gentiles who turned to Judaism: most recently, Louis
Feldman has singled out no fewer than eighteen passages in Philos
writings testifying to his admiration of and high esteem for such con-
verts.16 All the more striking, then, is the absence in Philos work of
any reference to Abraham as calling on Gentiles to convert, and the
complete lack of any hint in his exegesis of Gen. 21:33 that Abraham
proclaimed the universal God to non-Jews.
The evidence of Josephus and Pseudo-Philo may be dealt with
swiftly. The former records Abrahams dealings with Abimelech in
Ant. 1.20712, drawing into one continuous narrative the Biblical
material found in Gen. 20:118 and 21:2232. He concludes with the
oath which the Patriarch and king swore at Beer-sheba, the Well of
the Oath. His account of the birth and naming of Isaac follows, along
15
For these, see B.L. Mack, Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria,
in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt, 2. Principat, ed. H. Temporini and
W. Haase, Band 21 (Religion), pp. 227271; and P. Borgen, article Philo of Alexandria,
in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5 (New York, 1992), pp. 337339.
16
See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, pp. 295296.
26 chapter two
with the explanation of Isaacs name, notes of his parents ages, and
his circumcision (Ant. I.21314). Josephus says nothing at all which
remotely corresponds to Gen. 21:33. His omission of this verse is hard
to explain if, as Feldman suggests, Josephus elsewhere (Ant. I.16668)
seems to portray Abraham as a contemporary Jewish missionary.17
As for Pseudo-Philo, an allusion to Gen. 21:33 is probably intended
in some manuscripts of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum VII.4, which
speak of God settling Abraham in the land of Israel: there he will
establish His covenant with Abraham, bless his descendants, and be
called by him deus in aeternum, eternal God.18 Nothing is said of
Abraham speaking to Gentiles or urging their conversion to Judaism.
Quite another story emerges when we turn to the Aramaic Targums,
where Abraham appears as preacher and proselytizer.
17
See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 320. This understanding of Ant. I.16668 is dis-
puted by Goodman, Mission, p. 89. The text presents Abraham as arbitrating between
Egyptians of differing opinions, and teaching them arithmetic and astronomy. He
appears as a venerable sage acting (by implication) as an apologist for his people
rather than as a missionary.
18
Such is the reading preferred by Jacobson, A Commentary, vol. 1, p. 383: God says
nominabor ei deus in aeternum, I shall be named of him (sc. Abraham) Everlasting
God. The editio princeps of the book, however, reads dominabor for nominabor, yield-
ing: I shall be lord over him as Everlasting God.
19
Aramaic text in A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch accord-
ing to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959). Translations are mine.
20
See further B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible vol. 6
(Edinburgh, 1988), p. 85, noting that tree is interchangeable with according to
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 27
bBeza 27a. TO probably originated in the land of Israel and assumed its final form
between the First and Second Revolts: see U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum
Pentateuch (Tbingen, 1995), pp. 9294.
21
Aramaic text in E.G. Clarke, W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, 1984). Trans-
lations are mine.
22
This tree formed the middle plank of the Tabernacle. PJ reads: And when Israel
28 chapter two
proclaimed their opinion of its status before it (PJ Exod. 32:8). Thus
PJ surely regards Abrahams action at Beer-sheba as religiously signifi-
cant; even so, the Targum says neither that the passers-by converted,
nor that Abraham expected or required them to do such a thing.
Three further observations should be made. First, PJs phraseology
sets it apart, not only from the other Targums, but from interpre-
tations of Gen. 21:33 found in the Talmud and Midrashim, none of
which uses the root of Abrahams speech to the passers-by, nor
makes Abraham call on them to believe in the Name of God. PJs exe-
gesis of the Hebrew text here is again unique among the Targums in
taking as qal, rendering it with a verb in the active voice such
that Abraham proclaims a message: the remaining Targums, in com-
mon with Talmudic and Midrashic texts, read the verb as a hiphil and
make Abraham cause to call others to God. Second, at the end of the
last century, Adolf Bchler demonstrated that PJ was aware of tradi-
tions found in Jubilees.23 This may lead to suspicion that PJs rendering
of Gen. 21:33 might be directed against Jubilees version of Abrahams
deeds at Beer-sheba, set out above (section 2). Finally, the verbal root
occurs in both Aramaic and Hebrew, and in pronunciation resem-
bles the Greek used by authors of the New Testament as a
technical term for Christian preaching.24 In his epistle to the Romans
(10:915), the Apostle Paul stresses the necessity of faith and confes-
sion by word of mouth for salvation, saying that all who call upon the
Name of the Lord shall be saved. He asks how people shall call on one
in whom they have not believed? How can they believe in one of whom
they have never heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
crossed the sea, the angels cut the tree and cast it into the sea. It floated on the sur-
face of the water, and the angel proclaimed ( )and said, This is the tree which
Abraham planted in Beer-sheba, and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the
Lord. See also Song Rab. I.1:12. For other Rabbinic references to this tradition, see
M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus translated with Notes, The Aramaic Bible 2
(Collegeville, 1994), p. 237.
23
See A. Bchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschal-
mischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895), pp. 151159; J. Schwarz, Jubilees, Bethel, and the
Temple of Jacob, HUCA 56 (1985), pp. 6386; and C.T.R. Hayward, Jacobs Second
Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in P.R. Davies and R.T. White (eds.), A
Tribute to Geza Vermes, JSOT Supp. Ser. 100 (Sheffield, 1990), pp. 185187.
24
It was sometimes thought to be a loan-word from Greek , herald: see e.g.
G. Dalman, Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1905),
p. 183. For general discussion, see G. Friedrich, articles , , ,
, in G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3
(Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 683718.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 29
25
See above, pp. 2223.
30 chapter two
26
For the Aramaic of TN and its marginal glosses, see A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti
1, vol. 1: Gnesis (Madrid and Barcelona, 1968). Translations are mine. The latter
part of the marginal gloss in the Ms. of TN on this verse reads: Our father Abraham
answered and said to them: Pray before your Father who is in heaven; for from what
is His you have eaten, and from what is His you have drunk. They did not move from
there, since he was proselytizing them in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God
of the universe.
27
Aramaic text of the Fragment Targums in M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of
the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, vol. 1 (Rome 1980). Translations are
mine. The fragment preserved in Ms. Vat. 440 (FTV) is similar to TN, but adds that
Abraham was not willing to receive payment from the passers-by, exhorted them to
pray before your Father who is in heaven, since from what is His you have eaten and
drunk, and (cf. FTP) taught them right conduct. FTV concludes: And Abraham
confessed (or: gave thanks) and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the Lord,
the God of the universe.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 31
28
A third interpretation of as Sanhedrin, which need not concern us, is given
by R. Azariah in the name of R. Jehudah (Gen. Rab. 54:7) or in the name of R. Judan
(Midrash Ha-Gadol on Gen. 21:33) with reference to 1 Sam. 22:6. Once the meaning
inn was established, however, the Hebrew could be interpreted by notarikon as
, eat, drink, lodge the night, as in another explanation given by the Midrash
Ha-Gadol on the verse. Aboth de R. Nathan rec. A 7 concentrates almost entirely on
Abrahams hospitality.
29
Gen. 12:5 is a locus classicus in the Targums for Abrahams success in mak-
ing converts: see TO, PJ, TN and FTV reflecting Sifre Deut. 32; Gen. Rab. 39:21;
Aboth de R. Nathan rec. A 12; B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos, p. 63; R. le Daut,
32 chapter two
that Abraham planted a pardes, these Targums for all practical pur-
poses portray him as an inn-keeper, and thus obliquely betray their
knowledge of tradition whose oldest witnesses appear to be bSot. 10a
and Gen. Rab. 54:7.
Abrahams response to his satisfied guests according to these
Targums is similar to the words of Resh Laqish, who, it will be recalled,
insisted that Abraham had planted a pardes, not an inn. The sage also
states explicitly the exegetical grounds for interpreting Gen. 21:33 as
the Targums have done, grounds which, if we are correct, had possibly
been discerned and rejected centuries earlier by the author of Jubilees.
So again in bSot. 10a we read:
And he called there on the Name of the Lord, the God of the universe.
Resh Laqish said: Do not read and he called (), but and he
caused to call (), teaching that Abraham our father caused all the
passers-by to call with their mouths the Name of the Holy One, Blessed
be He. When they had eaten and drunk, they stood up to bless. He said
to them: Is it the case that you have eaten of what is mine? From what
belongs to the God of the universe you have eaten. Give thanks, utter
praise, and bless Him who said, and the world came into being.30
Although the affinities between this passage and the Targums are clear,
there is nevertheless one crucial difference between the Targums and
Resh Laqish at this point. The former evidently regard the conversion
of the guests to Judaism as payment (if one may use such a word) for
Abrahams hospitality: they would not move until he had proselytized
them, hinting that he made use of his hospitality to convince them
Conclusion
Both the vocabulary and the Biblical setting of Gen. 21:33 show how
easily that verse could be pressed into service to present Abraham as
a Jewish missionary stationed at a place where multitudes of travel-
lers crossed over to the Holy Land, seeking converts to the Lord, the
God of the universe, who alone created everything and who provides
continually for the sustenance of all living things. There is no direct
evidence, however, from literature older than the first century ce, that
Gen. 21:33 was so understood. It may be possible to infer from the
treatment of the verse in Jub. 16:2031 that the author of that trea-
tise was engaging in polemic with others who had so interpreted Gen
21:33; but such an inference is speculative, and receives no support
from the later writings of Philo. The latter is remarkable chiefly for
his silence on the subject of Abraham as missionary, a silence shared
with other writers; for neither Josephus nor Pseudo-Philo discuss
Gen 21:33.
With the exception of TO, all the Aramaic Targums of Gen. 21:33
make Abraham inform strangers about the God of Israel, who is
the God of the universe. PJ stands apart, however, from TN and the
marginal glosses of its manuscript, FTV and FTP. The former makes
Abraham a preacher, publicly proclaiming that people should confess
34 chapter two
and believe in the God of the Jews. The language of this Targum is
uncannily reminiscent of Pauls terminology of confession, belief, and
preaching in the Epistle to the Romans, and differs entirely from the
wording of the other Targums and the Talmudic and Midrashic texts
which comment on Gen. 21:33. PJ is best understood as a reminder
to Jewish audiences that Abraham was historically active as a preacher
of the universal God, rather than a passive, though timeless exemplar
of personal faith. There is an educative, even apologetic aspect to this
Targum: it says nothing of proselytism. Any approximate date pro-
posed for PJs interpretation is bound to be speculative. That said, a
tentative suggestion that it originated in the second or third centuries
ce, when Christian preaching was making inroads into all sections of
society, does not violate such evidence as we have.
The remaining Targums, TN and glosses, FTV and FTP make of
Abraham a missionary seeking converts to Judaism. All depend for
their exegesis on traditions which appear for the first time in the
Talmud and the Midrashim. If the ascription of the reading of
as hiphil to Resh Laqish may be trusted, we may date the material to
the second half of the third century or later. These Targums, there-
fore, in their present form, are unlikely to be much older than the
fourth century ce. Points of detail in their exegesis indicate that their
compilers have not only reflected on, but amplified material held in
common with Talmud and Midrash. The final product of the interpre-
tations in TN, FTV and FTP effectively associates Abrahams preach-
ing at Beer-sheba with the formal observance of worship and prayer.
This suggests that fourth century synagogues which made use of the
Palestinian Targums (whichever and wherever they may have been)
were not indifferent to the matter of proselytes, and tends to confirm
Goodmans arguments that Jewish attempts to win converts at that
time were not uncommon.
CHAPTER THREE
1
See P. Borgen, There shall come forth a Man: Reflections on Messianic Ideas in
Philo, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 341361. For Philos eschatological views, see
H.A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, 2 vols., (Cambridge Mass., 2nd ed. 1948), vol. 2, pp. 395426; Borgen (1992),
pp. 341342 and literature there cited; R.D. Hecht, Philo and Messiah, in J. Neusner,
W.S. Green, and E. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the
Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 139148. Students disagree (inter alia) whether
messianism was central or tangential in Philos thought; whether he understated kingly
messianic elements out of political expediency; and whether his eschatological hopes
stress messiah less than transformation of individual souls by the Logos. Conclusions
of this essay suggest that messianism was important to Philo; that he predicted a royal
messianic figure, but somewhat obliquely; and that both a messiah and enlightenment
of the individual soul characterize the last days.
2
On the related text De Praem. pp. 9197, 163172, see Borgen (1992), pp. 342
343, 348351, 354360.
36 chapter three
Three points must be emphasized. First, the Bible records four sepa-
rate oracles of Balaam concerning Israel (Num. 23:710, 1824; 24:39,
1519): Philo reduced these to three (Vit. Mos. I. 278279, 283284,
289291). His love of arithmology may explain this change. For Philo,
the number three is an image of a solid body, since a solid can be
divided according to a three-fold division (Leg. All. I.3); it is full and
perfect, consisting of beginning, middle, and end (Qu. Gen. III.3); and
the triad is complete, having beginning, middle, and end, which are
equal (Qu. Gen. II.5). Thus Philo refers the oracles to Israels begin-
nings in the past (Vit. Mos. I. 279), on Israels , her present
status as divinely blessed (e.g., Vit. Mos. I. 284, 289), and her future
victorious destiny (Vit. Mos. I. 290291). Signifying completeness, the
number three used to formulate Balaams oracles invites the reader to
regard the seers words as a full expression of Israels significance.
Secondly, Philo and the Rabbis insist that Balaam was a villain.3
Despite this, Philo contends that his words about Israel were genu-
inely prophetic. Balaam spoke his first oracle as one possessed by the
prophetic spirit ( ) which had
ridded him of his soothsayers craft, since it was not right for magical
sophistry to dwell alongside most holy possession (Vit. Mos. I. 277);
the second oracle he prophesied in words not his own (Vit. Mos. I. 283,
286); and the third he spoke , inspired by God (Vit. Mos. I. 288).
Balaam contributed nothing to the oracles: he spoke as Gods instru-
ment, expounding anothers words, without employing his own reason
(Vit. Mos. I. 277, 283). Even as a Gentile soothsayer, Balaam accurately
predicted the future (Vit. Mos. I. 264265). Inspired by God, therefore,
his prophecy was to be of exceptional quality.4 So much is evident
3
See G. Vermes, The Story of Balaam: The Scriptural Origin of Haggadah, in
G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 2nd ed. 1973), pp. 127177;
J.R. Baskin, Pharaohs Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic
Tradition (Chico, 1983), pp. 9496; M.S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their
Character and Development (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 6667, 103; J.T. Greene, Balaam and
His Interpreters (Atlanta, 1992), pp. 145147; and M. McNamara, Early Exegesis in
the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 24, Proc. of the Irish Bib. Ass. 16 (1993),
pp. 5779.
4
For Philos theory of prophecy, see Baskin (1983), pp. 9394; J.R. Levison,
Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus, JSJ 26 (1995), pp.
271323. J.R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden, 1997), pp. 2933,
4755, 229233 examines Philos Balaam story, comparing it with that of Josephus:
balaams prophecies 37
both writers, in his view, distance Gods direct power from Balaam, by making an
angelic spirit possess him. He argues that both have been influenced by (inter alia)
Hellenistic treatises on oracular inspiration, including Plutarchs essay De Defectu
Oraculorum. He says little, however, about the content of the oracles, and does not
discuss Philos emphasis on Balaams seeing rather than hearing them. See further
below.
5
So MT and LXX of Num. 24:2; cf. LXX Num. 23:6. See further Vermes (1973),
pp. 144145, and G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4 Les Nombres (Paris, 1994),
pp. 434, 444445.
6
So rendered by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary, Numbers (New York, 1946), pp. 118,
120.
7
These Targums expound the first Hebrew word twice, first as from root to
close implying something concealed, and then as from root to open as it occurs
in some Rabbinic texts: see also b. Sanh. 105a; Nid. 31a, and B. Grossfeld, The Targum
Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers (Edinburgh, 1988), p. 136; H. Rouillard, La Pricope
de Balaam (Nombres 2224) La Prose et les Oracles (Paris, 1985), pp. 347350; Dorival
(1994), p. 138; A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Manchester, 1991), p. 133;
M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers (Edinburgh, 1995), p. 136.
38 chapter three
the utterances of God; 24:16 says that he knows the knowledge of the
Most High; and both verses state that he saw the vision of God in
sleep, his eyes being uncovered. Philo radically altered these words, to
make Balaam speak of himself as
, the one who saw in
sleep a clear presentation of God with the unsleeping eyes of the soul
(Vit. Mos. I. 289). He suppressed the references to Balaams hearing
God, and his knowledge of the Most High. His emphasis is wholly on
sight. Most tellingly, Balaams uncovered eyes of LXX become the
unsleeping eyes of the soul.
Something extraordinary has happened. By so speaking of Balaam,
Philo has invested him with the character of Israel, whose name at first
was Jacob. Philo insists that Israel means the one who sees God, as
distinct from Jacob, which means practiser and who receives instruc-
tion by hearing.8 The object of Israels sight is knowledge of the divine,
as the following passage from De Mig. Abr. 39 makes plain: it should be
carefully compared with Philos words about Balaam. Here Philo com-
ments on Jacobs change of name to Israel, indicating vision through
the eyes of the soul which is superior to hearing:
For the coin of learning and teaching from which Jacob took his sur-
name is engraved anew into Israel, the one who sees. Now through this
comes about the seeing of the divine light, which does not differ from
knowledge, which opens the eye of the soul and leads it to perceptions
more luminous and clear than those which come by hearing.9
Why should Balaam be presented as prophesying in persona Israel,
about the past, present and future of the Jewish people? Undoubtedly
his self-designation as the man who truly sees (LXX Num. 24:3,15;
cf. 23:9) gave Philo reason to link the prophet with Israel; but Jewish
tradition encouraged him to go further. For according to TN, PJ, FTV,
8
Of numerous examples, see especially Leg. All. II.34; III.172, 186; De Conf. 56, 72;
De Praem. 27; De. Ebr. 82; De Mig. 125, 200, 224. For etymologies of Hebrew names,
Philo possibly used Jewish tradition: see G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlori-
legium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 1725. L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in
Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta, 1988), argues (pp.
102113) that Philo may have used an onomasticon: for discussion of Israel, see pp.
172173.
9
See also De Somn. I.129. For Philos interpretation of Jacobs encounter at the
Jabbok, when his name was changed to Israel, see A. Butterweck, Jakobs Ringkampf
am Jabbok: Gen. 32, 4ff. in der jdischen Tradition bis zum Frhmittelatler (Frankfurt-
am-Main, 1981), pp. 6271.
balaams prophecies 39
and a Tosefta Targum of Gen. 49:1, the dying Jacob-Israel had sum-
moned his twelve sons to announce to them the hidden mysteries,
including the secret of Israels redemption; but these mysteries, when
revealed, were immediately concealed from him.10 The Targums, how-
ever, declare that Balaam knew hidden mysteries in his prophecy, the
very things hidden from Jacob-Israel. Thus the Targums, like Philo,
made of Balaam a latter-day mouthpiece of Jacob-Israel. This is not
surprising. The Targumists could not fail to notice strong similarities in
wording between Jacob-Israels blessings in Gen. 49 and Balaams ora-
cles. Most striking among these are the lion imagery applied by Jacob to
the tribe of Judah in Gen. 49:9, reflected closely in Num. 23:24 and 24:9;
and mysterious reference to a , sceptre, in both Gen. 49:10 and
Num. 24:17. These, and other verbal similarities, allowed the Targumists
to interpret Balaams oracles with an eye to Jacobs blessings.11 That
Philo followed a similar procedure is indicated by a small but signifi-
cant detail. In paraphrasing Balaams lion imagery he twice (Vit. Mos.
I. 284, 291) uses forms of the verb to refer to the rousing or
rising up of the lion alluded to in Num. 23:24; 24:9. LXX used this
same verb at Gen. 49:9, where Jacob asks who shall rouse ( )
the lions whelp which is Judah? Strikingly, LXX used a compound
form of this verb in their translation of Num. 24:19, speaking of the
famous star which Balaam predicted as destined to arise from Jacob:
the Hebrew states that this star shall exercise dominion (), but
LXX rendered the verb as he shall awake or rise up ().
It seems likely that LXX had already established a lexical connection
between the fourth Balaam oracle and Jacobs blessing of Judah, which
later interpreters might exploit.12
10
For the Tosefta Targum, see M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Cincinnati, 1986), pp. 162163, which speaks of
( cf. FTV). TN and PJ speak of the mysteries as , as in their ver-
sion of Num. 24:3. On the Targums of Gen. 49:1 and the Balaam oracles, see also A.N.
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen,
1986), pp. 199203.
11
Note references to , prey, in Num. 23:24 and Gen. 49:9; the verb , bow
down in Num. 24:9 and Gen. 49:9, and the lioness with the lion in Num. 24:9 and
Gen. 49:9; and cf. B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham,
1986), pp. 281282; R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo, 1986), pp. 54, 102,
196; and J.L.W. Schaper, The Unicorn in the Messianic Imagery of the Greek Bible,
JTS 45 (1994), pp. 130131.
12
In LXX of the Pentateuch, occurs at Gen. 41:4, 7; 49:9; Exod. 5:8; 23:5
(some Mss.); Num. 10:35 (some Mss.), and at Gen. 28:16; 41:21; Num.
40 chapter three
10:35; 24:19. For its rendering of Hebrew have dominion in this last verse, see Dorival
(1994), p. 140.
13
See Colsons note in Philo VI, p. 420, where he renders as sowing
rather than foundation: he gains support from Philos use of the word in De Op.
Mundi 132; Quis Rerum 115; Spec. Leg. III.36; Leg. ad Gaium 54.
balaams prophecies 41
14
TN of Num. 23:9; see also PJ, FTP, and FTV. On LXX of Num. 23:910, see
Dorival (1994), pp. 435436. For rocks as Patriarchs and hills as Matriarchs, see
TN, PJ, FTP of Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15; FTP of Exod. 17:12; Exod. Rab. 16:8; Numb.
Rab. 20:19; b. RH 11a; Tanh. Balak 12; Mekh. de R. Ishmael Amalek 1:116118; N.A.
van Uchelen, The Targumic Versions of Deuteronomy 33:15: Some Remarks on the
Origin of a Traditional Exegesis, JJS 31 (1980), pp. 199209; Syrn (1986), p. 59;
McNamara (1995), p. 131.
15
For Philos other uses of , see De Op. Mundi 144; Spec. Leg. IV. 14,
236; De Virt. 80. In what follows, Philo applies Balaams words about Israel to practis-
ers of virtue: see further Borgen (1992), pp. 346351.
42 chapter three
of kin to God may seem removed from the words of Scripture; but the
Targums refer to the stars in Num. 23:10, which asks who has counted
the dust of Jacob? FTP and FTV translate the question:
Who can number the young men of the house of Jacob, of whom it was
said that they should be as numerous as the stars of heaven?16
Here the Targums introduce stars, significant elsewhere in Philos writ-
ings and directly related to his views on souls near of kin to God. In
brief, the Targums of Num. 23:910 catalogue Israels physical origins,
spiritual character, and her numbers like the stars. These elements lay
the foundation for Philos exegesis, not easily derived from LXX, but
entirely comprehensible in the light of the Targum.
Philos second Balaam oracle paraphrases Num. 23:19, the Hebrew
of which may be rendered as
God is not man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should
repent. Has he said, and shall he not perform it? Or has he spoken, and
shall he not establish it?
LXX altered Balaams opening words, saying that God is not like man
to waver, nor like a son of man to be threatened; but retained the fol-
lowing questions of the original.17 Philo (Vit. Mos. I. 283), however,
follows the opening Hebrew of the verse, before continuing with an
expanded interpretation:
He will utter absolutely nothing at all which shall not be steadfastly com-
pleted, since his word is his deed.
TN, FTP, FTV and TO eliminate the questions of the second half of the
verse, turning them into statements. TO of Num. 23:19 recalls Philos
paraphrase:
The word of God is not like the words of the sons of man. Sons of man
say, and tell lies. Also it is not like the deeds of the sons of flesh, who
16
The Hebrew of 23:10 begins: Who has counted the dust of Jacob, and the num-
ber of the fourth part of Israel? This recalls Gods promises to Abraham and Jacob
that their descendants should be like the dust of the earth: see Gen. 13:16 (where the
same verb count, , is used) and 28:14, neither of which, however, has any refer-
ence to stars. These are introduced by the Targums: cf. TN, Who can number the
young men of the house of Jacob, of whom it was said that they should be blessed
like the dust of the earth? Or who can number one of the four orders of the camps of
Israel, of whom it was said, they shall be as numerous as the stars?
17
See further Dorival (1994), pp. 438439.
balaams prophecies 43
decree that action be taken, but repent of it. He says and performs, and
all his word he establishes.
Again in the second oracle, Philo makes Balaam describe Israels pres-
ent status by saying that God, who scattered the Egyptians and brought
them up from their land, conspicuously covers them with a shield (Vit.
Mos. I. 284). He is expounding Num. 23:21, where the Hebrew reports
that Israels God is with him, and the shout of a king is in his midst.
Nothing in the Hebrew or LXX of this verse prepares us for mention
of a shield; but TN (cf. FTP and FTV) explain that
The word of the Lord their God is with them; and the trumpet-blast of
the glorious splendour of their king is a shield over them.
Philos correspondence with Targumic exegesis shown here could be
illustrated further. He uses LXXs vocabulary, only to depart from its
sense to incorporate notions attested in the Targum. Josephus, too, in
recounting Balaams prophecy, shows knowledge of traditions found
in Targum, demonstrating their currency in his day and strengthening
the case for Philos knowledge of them: Geza Vermes has presented the
evidence for this, which need not be repeated.18 With due care, there-
fore, Targumic material may be used to illuminate Philos re-written
Balaam oracles.
Borgen has perceived that Philo fastened upon Israels victory over
Egypt at the Exodus as a guarantee of future victories.19 This is cor-
roborated by his retaining Balaams two almost identical utterances
of Num. 23:22; 24:8 at Vit. Mos. I. 284, 290 within his second and
third Balaam oracles respectively. Since he has condensed four biblical
oracles into three, this is of moment: he uses one verse in his second
oracle, speaking mostly of Israels present, and the other in the third oracle,
dealing with Israels future. A translation of the Hebrew of the verses
yields:
God brings them (Num. 24:8 has him) out from Egypt: he has as it were
the horns (or: strength) of a wild ox.
18
See Vermes (1973) passim.
19
See Borgen (1992), pp. 352354.
44 chapter three
Interpreters could not ignore two such verses, loosely phrased and
slightly differing from each other, separated only by a brief intervening
text. Both LXX and Targum shed light on what Philo made of them.
First, the majority of LXX witnesses to Num. 23:22 took the verse to
mean:
God is the One who brings them out from Egypt: He has as it were the
glory of an unicorn ( ).
Here the unicorns glory can belong only to God, and what Schaper
calls a spiritualizing translation has been adopted.20 This has no bear-
ing on Philos second and third Balaam oracles, where he takes the
beast with one horn as a description of Israel: God brought Israel from
Egypt as one man (Vit. Mos. I. 284) and is led by God from Egypt as
a single army wing (Vit. Mos. I. 290).21 The ambiguous LXX of Num.
24:8, however, allows such an exposition: God brought him out of
Egypt and he (understood as meaning Israel) has an unicorns glory.22
The Targums of Num. 23:22; 24:8, however, took the horns or
strength of a wild ox as attributes of God, who had redeemed Israel
at the Exodus. FTP and FTV of both verses read:
God who redeemed and brought them out redeemed from Egypt,
strength and praise and exaltation belong to him.
PJ is similar, adding power to the list. TN and TO omit references to
redemption, TO listing only strength and exaltation as belonging to
God; otherwise, they agree with the Fragment Targums. The language
of the Targums of Num. 23:22; 24:8 recalls Targums of the hymn sung
after the Exodus. It is called the hymn of this praise (TN Exod. 15:1)
or the praise of this hymn (FTP, FTV, PJ, and glosses of TN Exod.
15:1). In it, God is styled the strength and mighty One of our praises
(PJ; cf. TN, TO, FTP Exod. 15:2). Israel must exalt God (PJ, FTP, FTV
Exod. 15:2). Gods power and strength are acclaimed (PJ, FTP, FTV
Exod. 15:3; TO, TN Exod. 15:7; TN, FTP Exod. 15:13; TN, PJ Exod.
15:18). God is the one feared in praises (PJ, FTP, FTV Exod. 15:11),
whose strength and power destroyed the Egyptians (TN, PJ, FTV
Exod. 15:16).
20
See Schaper (1994), pp. 120121, and Dorival (1994), p. 138.
21
See further Borgen (1992), p. 352.
22
See also LXX in Codex Alexandrinus of Num. 23:22; but the unicorn as such has
no place in Philos work.
balaams prophecies 45
The Targums took Balaams words about the wild ox to mean attri-
butes of God revealed in the Exodus, later celebrated in the hymn
honouring his triumph. Philo understood this hymn as addressed to
God the giver of victory and the gloriously victorious (De Agr. 79)
and sung by all the men of Israel, not with blind intention, but seeing
keenly (De Agr. 81). Now the Targumic interpretation of the phrase
horns of a wild ox helps to explain the otherwise baffling mention of
a hymn at the end of Philos second Balaam oracle, paraphrasing LXX
Num. 23:24,
Behold, the people shall rise up like a lions cub, and like a lion it shall
exult: it shall not sleep until it eat prey and drink the blood of the
wounded.
Philo retains some LXX vocabulary, but gives the verse a different sense:
I see the people rising like a lions cub, and like a lion exulting: he shall
eat his fill of prey and take for drink the blood of the wounded; and
when he is satiated he will not turn to sleep, but unsleeping he will
sing the hymn of victory, . (Vit.
Mos. I. 284)
Nothing in the Bible suggests this climax of Philos second Balaam
oracle. The Targumic evidence is thus especially valuable, and is best
appreciated in light of Philos overall train of thought. First (Vit. Mos.
I. 282) he tells how Balak sent Balaam to get good auspicies ()
by means of birds and voices ( ). Balaam, however,
prophesied that God would be a shield for the Hebrews: he had scattered
the evils of the Egyptians and brought up Israel as one man. Therefore
Hebrews disregard omens of birds () and oracle-mongering,
trusting in the One Ruler of the world (Vit. Mos. I. 283284). Then
Balaam sees the people rising like a lion to sing the victory hymn.
All this smacks of the Roman triumph. The words
in particular suggest chants sung during the triumphal procession of a
victorious imperator.23 To qualify for a triumph, the victor must have
been a magistrate possessing his own auspicia, that is, the right to
consult the omens, especially those of birds: at least five thousand of
a foreign enemy must have been killed, with outright victory ensu-
ing. The victor must have been acclaimed imperator, and have been
23
This very phrase is found in Plutarchs Life of Romulus 16 describing one of the
archetypical triumphs of a Roman leader.
46 chapter three
There is, however, another sense of the words about the triumphal
hymn, which use future tenses about it and hint at victories yet to
be won. Furthermore, the role of Moses as Israels (earthly) imperator
in the defeat of the Egyptians, although not explicitly acknowledged,
would be evident to any Jew reading Philos words. A resounding vic-
tory achieved without the taking of auspicies may be construed as a
victory over auspicia themselves, and over the polytheistic religion
which they represent. Philos words imply future victories (however
understood) for Jewish monotheism over pagan polytheism, as his
treatise De Vita Contemplativa shows.
There, Balaams prophecy of the triumphal hymn chanted by the
unsleeping is fulfilled among the Therapeutae.26 They truly represent
Israel the one who sees God, since they are constantly taught to use
sight and to aspire to the vision of the One who exists (Vit. Con. 1013).
24
Philos emphasis on the bird omens (again at Vit. Mos. I. 287) confirms that
he here speaks in terms of a triumph and its necessary auspicia: see details in H.S.
Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the
Roman Triumph (Leiden, 1970), pp. 174193, and (for the relationship of auspicia
to imperium) pp. 304355. For bird omens, see also Moore (1990), pp. 6667. Space
forbids discussion of religious aspects of the Roman triumph, which may illuminate
further what Philo makes Balaam say in this second oracle.
25
See above and PJ of Num. 23:24 where Israels likeness to a lioness is interpreted
to mean that she is unique, .
26
For this group, see Philos De Vita Contemplativa, relevant passages of which
are given in G. Vermes and M. Goodman (ed.), The Essenes according to the Classical
Sources (Sheffield, 1989), pp. 7599; and see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2, G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black (eds.)
(Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 591597.
balaams prophecies 47
They mind only the pursuit of virtue and contemplation of God, which
they celebrate each year in a great festival (most likely Pentecost). This
celebration culminates in hymns, dancing, and hymns of thanksgiv-
ing ( ) throughout the night in imitation of
the victory song which Moses and Miriam led after the Exodus (Vit.
Con. 8488). The participants celebrate without sleep until dawn;
then, more wide awake () than when the feast began,
they greet sunrise with a prayer for truth and sharp-sighted reasoning
(Vit. Con. 89). These people, says Philo, live for the contemplation of
nature, and in soul alone; they are citizens of heaven and of the world,
presented to the Father and maker of all by vitue (Vit. Con. 90).
This description marks the Therapeutae as supreme examples of
those who have fought and obtained spiritual victory over the passions.
Thus in De Sob. 13 Philo remarks that Moses hymn is sung by the
one who sees after defeating Egypt, the enemy of the soul; and in De
Ebr. 104121, speaking of the war waged in each human body between
virtue and the passions, he contrasts the person who has vision of the
One with the thoughtless man who fails to discern the cause of things
and ends up fashioning gods. Such polytheism produces atheism in
the souls of the senseless, whom Abraham rebuked in his hymn of
thanks (Gen. 14:22).27 Moses led the song at the Exodus and the song
of the well (Num. 21:1618): both he and Abraham are leaders of the
hymn of triumph and thanksgiving,
, celebrating the triumph of virtue in the soul. Simply expressed,
everyone who overcomes the passions, embraces virtue, and arrives at
the vision of God (and thus shares Israels character) may chant the
imperial triumph hymn, now and in the future. In this sense, there are
yet victories for Jews to win, the most important of which will bring all
mankind into submission to the universal cosmic Law, the Law given
to Moses. As Borgen has perceived, Philo believed that this last victory
would come about through the man of Balaams prophecy.28
27
For affinities between Philos depiction of Abraham and his description of
the Therapeutae, see R. Martin-Achard, Actualit dAbraham (Neuchtel, 1969),
pp. 132137.
28
Borgen (1992), pp. 353360. From what has been said here about the Therapeutae,
it should be evident that there is truth in Hechts comment (1987), p. 162 that for
Philo the first line of meaning for Messiah and Messianic Era was the inner experi-
ence in which the soul was transformed. The Logos turns man from the chaos of the
senses and pleasure toward the intelligible world. But that is not the whole story as
regards the Balaam oracles.
48 chapter three
The Hebrew text of Balaams third oracle (Num. 24:7) cryptically declares
of Israel that
Water shall flow from his buckets, and his seed shall be on many
waters; and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall
be exalted.
LXX decoded this metaphorical language to yield:
A man shall come forth from his seed and shall exercise lordship over
many nations; and his kingdom shall be exalted higher than Gog, and
his kingdom shall be increased.29
Philo represents this in his third oracle, dealing with Israels future,
working changes to LXX which are italicized in the translation below.
He makes Balaam say (Vit. Mos. I. 290):
At some time a man shall come forth from you and he shall get the mas-
tery over many nations: and the kingdom of this man, advancing day by
day shall be exalted to the height.
Balaam, speaking in the person of Israel, predicts his coming from
you, Israels children here addressed. He will get mastery ()
rather than exercise lordship (), suggesting an extension of
his power through struggle, confirmed by the note that his kingdom
will advance daily. The imagery suggests a military commander like a
Roman general exercising imperium, inexorably overcoming opposi-
tion. The goal of his kingdom is the height, that is, heaven.
The exegesis shows affinities with both LXX and interpretation pre-
served in Targum. Philo compressed Balaams four biblical oracles into
three, encouraged no doubt by verbal similarities between the third
and fourth oracles. Noteworthy is Num. 24:17, the prophecy in the
fourth oracle that a star shall march forth from Jacob, and a sceptre
arise out of Israel, which LXX took to mean that a star should come
from Jacob, and a man rise up out of Israel, thus inviting a direct link
with LXX Num. 24:7s prediction of a man coming forth.30 This last
29
On this exegesis, see Dorival (1994), pp. 139, 446.
30
For a succinct account of messianic interpretation of this verse, see Dorival
(1994), pp. 451453; for its use in eschatological prayer at Qumran, see B. Nitzan,
Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden, 1994), pp. 216217. On the Balaam
balaams prophecies 49
verse could then be read in the light of 24:17, which Hebrew and LXX
amplify (in Num. 24:1819) by predicting the mans destruction of
Moabites, the sons of Seth, Edomites, and an unnamed city: here we
have a ready-made list of many nations which the man will subdue
one by one. Philo says nothing of the star predicted in Num. 24:17;
but stars featured in his interpretation of these oracles, as he intimates
that the whole Jewish people may be regarded as stars insofar as they
are near of kin to God.31 In this last oracle, he appears deliberately to
focus on the man as single leader and representative of the multitu-
dinous stars who are near of kin to God.
Philo has links with traditions preserved in Targum. We give TO,
then TN, of Num. 24:7.
The king who shall be anointed from among his sons shall increase and
have dominion over many nations; and his king shall be stronger than
Agag, and his kingship shall be exalted.
Their king shall arise from among them, and their redeemer shall be from
among them. He shall gather for them their exiles from the provinces of
their enemies; and his sons shall have dominion over many peoples. He
shall be stronger than Saul [who] sp[ared] Agag, king of the Amalekites;
and the kingship of King Messiah shall be exalted.
In certain details, LXX and Targum share the same essential exegesis.
The water of the Hebrew text becomes a person, man who has a
kingdom in LXX and king in Targum; both versions take its flow-
ing from the buckets to indicate the origin of this person from Israel;
and the many waters become many nations ruled by this individual.32
LXX, however, speak of Gog rather than Agag of the Hebrew text: this
is followed neither by Targums nor by Philo.33 Finally, the Targums
refer this verse and its companion Num. 24:17 to an anointed king or
Messiah. LXX are more reticent, speaking of the man and his king-
dom. While at first glance Philo seems to reflect the reserve of LXX,
closer inspection suggests that he has in mind a figure arising from the
oracles and Qumran in general, see McNamara (1993), pp. 6162 and the literature
there cited.
31
See above pp. 4142.
32
See further Dorival (1994), p. 139, and R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque III
Nombres (Paris, 1979), pp. 230233.
33
Mention of Gog may allow LXX to avoid reference to a Davidic monarch: so
Dorival (1994), pp. 139140; but see Schaper (1994), pp. 127131 for a different
view.
50 chapter three
tribe of Judah, as a summary of the rest of his third oracle (Vit. Mos.
I. 290291) will help to show. For mention of the man is followed by
the second exposition of the horns of the wild ox: God has acted as
Israels guide from Egypt, leading them as a single army-wing consum-
ing its enemies and eating their fatness to the marrow and destroying
them with his archery (cf. Num. 24:8). The oracle ends with Philos
version of Num. 24:9, a prediction that the people, after the appearing
of the man,
shall rest lying down like a lion or a lions cub, entirely disdainful, fear-
ing no-one, producing fear in others. Wretched is he who disturbs and
rouses him. Those who bless you are worthy of blessing, but those who
curse you are worthy of curses.
Philo has so restructured the oracle as to place the man and his
kingdom in the same network of ideas as the single army-wing led
by divine guidance under Moses from Egypt. As Borgen has shown,
this past activity of Gods provides the guarantee for what will happen
in the future.34 The final outcome is the lying down of Israel to rest
in the manner of a lion, elaborated on the basis of Num. 24:9, which
concludes the oracles. Philo has yet retained the two separate biblical
mentions of the lion (Num. 23:24 in Vit. Mos. I. 284; Num. 24:9 in
Vit. Mos. I. 291). Evidently, he regards them as significant as the two
Biblical verses with their unicorn imagery. They somehow encapsulate
Israels destiny as she is led by the man, whose kingdom advances and
is exalted to the height. LXX of Num. 24:9 alone cannot account for
Philos words. It reads:
He lay down, he rested like a lion and like a lions cub: who shall raise
him up? Those who bless you are blessed, and those who curse you are
cursed.
Philo made the first part of this utterance refer to the future, elimi-
nated the question, and added remarks about the lions lack of fear
and his inculcation of terror in others. In certain respects, his exegesis
recalls TN of Num. 24:9, reading
They rest and encamp (Ngl adds: in the midst of war) like a lion and like
a lioness, and there is no nation or kingdom which shall stand bef(ore
them) . . .
34
Borgen (1992), pp. 353357.
balaams prophecies 51
5. Conclusion
35
See also TO, and B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Edinburgh, 1988),
pp. 162163.
52 chapter three
may be explained with the help of the Targums and their exposition of
Balaams words. Philo has in mind a hymn of the sort sung at a Roman
triumph, although the One to whom it is sung has no truck (unlike an
earthly Roman imperator) with ominous birds. Mention of the hymn,
nonetheless, emphasises the imperial character of Israels leader, be it
God throughout the ages, or the man who shall come in future to get
mastery over nations. This leader will eventually rule the world. And
given Philos strong affinities with the Targums throughout his exposi-
tion of Balaams words, and his awareness of the links between those
words and Gen. 49:812, it is likely that the man will belong to the
royal tribe of Judah.36
36
Pace S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford, 1979), pp. 109110
and Hecht (1987), pp. 139168, the latter seeing Philos messianism as at best a real-
ized eschatology in which exegetical elements that might be nationalized and identi-
fied with specific mythical or historical figures in other systems of Jewish thought . . .
became allegorical designators for the Logos . . . (p. 162).
37
See Vermes, (1973).
38
See P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period, CRINT Section 2 (Assen, 1984), pp. 259264; article Philo of
Alexandria, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, D.N. Freedman (ed.), vol. 5 (New York,
1992), pp. 337339. Wolfson (1948), vol. 2, pp. 395426, advances some Targumic
evidence in support of his case. Hechts strictures on this (1987), pp. 143, 164, n. 12
should be reconsidered, given that Wolfson did not have access to Targum Neofiti.
CHAPTER FOUR
1
See, most recently, J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 18 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
38a; Word Books: Dallas, 1988), pp. 271300, who also provides an extensive biblio-
graphy, pp. 269270.
2
See J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch
(Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1; Sheffield Academic
Press: Sheffield, 1988).
3
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 1423.
4
See Levison, op. cit., p. 30.
5
For description of LAB and discussions of its date, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1981),
pp. 265268, 275; Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. by M.E. Stone
(Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section 2, The Literature of
the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud; Van Gorcum:
54 chapter four
Assen, 1984), pp. 107110; D.J. Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. by J.H. Charlesworth; Darton, Longman & Todd: London,
19831985), 2.297303; E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, vol. III.1 (Clark:
Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 325331 with excellent bibliography; and D.J. Harrington,
J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, P.-M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquits Bibliques (2 vols.;
Sources Chrtiennes pp. 229230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 2.1078. This last work will here-
after be referred to as Pseudo-Philon.
6
For the text of LAB, we have used the edition prepared by D.J. Harrington,
Pseudo-Philon 1. Items omitted from its re-written Bible include the sacrifices of
Cain and Abel: see further below, p. 60.
7
See LAB 18, 5; 32, 14; 40, 2.
8
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 145161. He examines Adam texts from ben Sira,
Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, Jubilees, Josephus, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Moses,
and Vita Adae et Evae.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 55
1. LAB 13, 89
LAB first refers to Adam, apart from the mere mention of his name in
genealogies which open the book, in the course of a detailed descrip-
tion of things necessary for Israels cult.10 Chapter 13 tells how Moses,
at Gods command, made the Tent of Meeting, its vessels, the Ark of
the Covenant, the menorah, the Table for the Bread of the Presence,
and the two altars. He made next the priestly ephod, breastplate, and
precious stones: these gems will feature prominently in another rel-
evant context. He constructed the laver, the basins, and all that had
been shown to him, along with the other priestly vestments, the girdle,
tunic, and mitre with its golden plate and crown. Finally, he prepared
the sacred oil for anointing the priests; and, when all was ready, the
cloud of Gods presence covered everything.11
Two specific laws follow: the first decrees which animals are fit for
sacrifice; the second summarizes Biblical ordinances about leprosy.12
Finally, the annual festivals are listed in order, beginning with
Unleavened Bread, which is described as a memorial, proceeding
through the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets (New Years Day),
and the Day of Atonement, up to the Feast of Tabernacles.13 God then
speaks to Moses:
And I shall remember the rains for the whole earth, and the manner of
the seasons shall be established; and I shall set the stars and command
the clouds, and the winds shall sound, and lightnings shall run to and
9
It is worth pointing out that Levisons study refers hardly at all to Rabbinic tradi-
tion, even when it might closely correspond to items which he is expounding.
10
For the name Adam, see LAB 1, 12. Otherwise, the First Man is also regularly
called Protoplastus, the First-Formed, a term used earlier by Wisdom of Solomon 7, 1;
10, 1. See Levison, op. cit., pp. 5560.
11
See LAB 13, 1. God had already shown to Moses the heavenly exemplars of all
these things: see LAB 11, 15, and the comments of Perrot, Bogaert, and Harrington
in Pseudo-Philon 2. 113114.
12
See LAB 13, 23.
13
See LAB 13, 47, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 116117.
56 chapter four
fro, and there shall be a whirling of thunder. And this shall be for an
everlasting sign, and the nights shall produce dew, just as I said after the
Flood which came upon the earth.14
While it is possible that these words comment mainly on the Feast of
Tabernacles, whose particular association with the provision of rain is
so well-known,15 it is much more probable that they speak of the whole
order of the Festivals and cult which has been described in such detail.
The ordering of the seasons, the operation of the stars, the appearance
of clouds, winds, lightning, thunder, and dew are explicitly viewed as
the fulfilment of Gods promise to Noah after the Flood; and they will
relate not solely to the Feast of Tabernacles but, as we shall see pres-
ently, to the whole of Israels Temple service.16 Indeed, with the inau-
guration of the Tent, its appurtenances, and its sacrifices offered by the
legitimate anointed priests, Gods covenant with Noah is made effective
and firm. Cosmic order and earthly fertility are assured. What follows
should come as no surprise: God commanded Moses
about the year of the life of Noah and said to him: These are the years
which I established after the weeks in which I visited the city of men, at
the time when I showed to them the place of creation and the serpent.17
Although partly obscure, the text speaks clearly enough of the 120
years which God ordained at the Flood and which, according to LAB 3,
2, constituted the limits of life for the men of that generation. God then
explains to Moses the significance of what He had showed to Noah:
14
See LAB 13, 7: Et memor ero in pluvia totius terre et constituetur modus tem-
porum, et constituam astra et precipiam nubibus, et sonabunt venti, et percurrent
coruscationes, et erit turbo tonitruum. Et hoc erit in signum sempiternum, et rorem
dabunt noctes, sicut locutus sum post diluvium terre.
15
See Zech. 14, 1617, and M. Succ. 4, 910 which describes the famous water-
libation offered in the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles: it was intended as a request
to God to send the rains and ensure the fertility of the coming year. See R. Patai, Man
and Temple (Ktav: New York, 1967), pp. 2453.
16
The promise to Noah given in Genesis 8, 22 refers to the ordering of the whole
year, not simply to autumnal rains: see Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of this verse. Dews
are associated with Passover and the month Nisan: see B.T. Taan. 4b; Pirqe de Rabbi
Eliezer 32; I Enoch 60, 20; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 27, 1, 16.
17
See LAB 13, 8: de anno vite Noe et dixit ad eum: Hi sunt anni quos disposui post
ebdomadas in quibus visitavi civitatem hominum, in quo tempore ostendi eis locum
generationis et colubrum. The manuscripts read colorem, colour, which Harrington,
following M.R. James, has emended to colubrum, serpent: see Pseudo-Philon 2. 118,
where it is also noted that this vision of Adams is paralleled in 2 Baruch 4, 3.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 57
And He said: This is the place about which I taught the first-formed
man when I said, If you do not transgress what I have commanded you,
all things will be under your control. But he transgressed My ways, and
was persuaded by his wife; for she was seduced by the serpent. And then
death was established for the generations of men. And the Lord still
went on to show him the ways of Paradise, and said to him: These are
the ways which men have lost, since they did not walk in them, because
they sinned against Me.18
For present purposes, it is not important to decide whether God, in
this quotation, showed the ways of Paradise to Moses, to Noah, or to
Adam: each of the three possibilities has points in its favour.19 What
is important is LABs sequence of thought at this point; for the text
continues:
And the Lord commanded him (Moses) about the salvation of the lives
of the people and said: If they walk in my ways, I shall not abandon
them, but always have mercy on them and bless their seed; and the earth
shall hasten to yield its fruit, and there shall be rains for their benefit,
and the earth will not be barren. For I know certainly that they shall
corrupt their ways and I shall abandon them, and they shall forget my
covenants which I established with their fathers; but I shall not forget
them for ever. And they shall know in the last days that their seed has
been forsaken because of their sins, since I am faithful in my ways.20
This long chapter links the three figures of Moses, Noah, and Adam,
and relates them to Israels cult. This cult, which Moses establishes
at Gods command and which uses physical objects which have been
divinely shown to him, is understood by LAB as giving substance to
18
See LAB 13, 89: Et dixit: Hic locus est quem docui protoplastum dicens: Si non
transgredieris que tibi mandavi, omnia sub te erunt. Ille autem transgressus est vias
meas, et suasus est de muliere sua; et hec seducta est de colubro. Et tunc constituta est
mors in generationes hominum. Et adiecit Dominus adhuc ostendere vias paradysi,
et dixi ei: Hec sunt vie quas perdiderunt homines, non ambulantes in eis, quoniam
peccaverunt in me.
19
See Pseudo-Philon 2. 118. Adams vison of Paradise is recorded in 2 Baruch 4, 3,
which bears close resemblance to this and other material from LAB cited in this essay:
see M.R. James, The Biblical Antiquites of Philo (Translations of Early Documents
Series 1; SPCK: London, 1917), pp. 4754; and Pseudo-Philon 2. 118.
20
See LAB 13, 10: Et precepit ei Dominus de salvatione animarum populi et dixit:
Si in viis meis ambulaverint, non relinquam eos sed miserebor eis semper et benedi-
cam semen eorum, et festinabit terra dare fructum suum, et pluvia erit eis in lucri-
ficationem et non sterilizabit. Sciens autem scio quoniam corrumpent vias suas et
relinquam eos, et obliviscentur testamenta que disposui patribus eorum, et ego tamen
non in sempiternum obliviscar eo. Ipsi enim scient in novissimis diebus quoniam pro
peccatis eorum derelictum est semen eorum, quia fidelis sum in viis meis.
58 chapter four
the covenant which God made with Noah, that the cosmos would
be stable and the fertility of the earth be assured. After the Flood, a
promise that the cosmos would not be reduced to chaos is essential
for Noah; and the promise that the earth will be fertile goes some way
towards mitigating the curse which Adam caused, that it should bring
forth thorns and thistles.21
Evidently LAB takes for granted the Biblical story of Adams place in
Paradise, his sin, his expulsion, and the decree of death for humanity. If
Adam had obeyed God, the ways of Paradise would still be accessible;
as it is, these are the ways which men have lost, like Adam, by not
walking in Gods ways. The final part of the text seems to suggest that
Gods ways are now available to men in the commands given to Moses,
particularly those relating to the cult; if men keep these ways, the earth
will be fruitful, the rains will be beneficial, and the earth will not be bar-
ren. It would therefore seem as if, in some measure, the cult provides
those ways of God which, should they be observed, might undo Adams
curse and lead men to the ways of Paradise which Adam lost, incurring
thereby for the earth a curse and a legacy of thorns and thistles.
The appearance of Adam in the context of the cult is not at all sur-
prising when it is recalled that a whole range of writings spread in time
throughout the Second Temple period make the closest of associa-
tions between Paradise and the Temple. Of the sources which could
be cited,22 perhaps the best known, and certainly the most important
for us, is the Book of Jubilees: there we read of Noah that
he knew that the garden of Eden was the holy of holies and the dwell-
ing of the Lord. And Mount Sinai (was) in the midst of the desert and
Mount Zion (was) in the midst of the navel of the earth. The three of
these were created as holy places, the one facing the other.23
21
See Genesis 3, 1719.
22
Thus the Qumran community could regard itself as the Temple (e.g. 1QS 8, 111)
which is a plantation (1QS 11, 79) described as a Garden of Eden (1QH 8, 420).
For ben Sira, Wisdom is resident in the Sanctuary, whence it flows forth like the four
rivers issuing from Paradise (24, 827). Such language is natural: Jerusalem with the
Temple is the navel of the earth (Ezekiel 5, 5; 38, 12) and is ipso facto regarded as the
site of Paradise: see J. Jeremias, Golgotha und der heilige Felsen, 2 (1926),
pp. 74128; A.J. Wensinck, The Idea of the Western Semites concerning the Navel of the
Earth (Verhandelingen der K. Akademie van Wetenschappen: Amsterdam, 1916); and
R. Patai, op. cit., pp. 8587. Both the Garden of Eden and the Temple were among the
seven things created before the world: see, e.g., B.T. Pesahim 54a; Nedarim 39b.
23
See Jubilees 8, 19. The translation is that of O.S. Wintermute in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha 2. 73.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 59
24
See M.R. James, op. cit., pp. 4546.
25
See Jubilees 3, 2627 and the comments of K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubilen
(Jdische Schriften aus hellenistich-rmischen Zeit, Band II, Lieferung 3; Mohn:
Gtersloh, 1981), p. 337; Apocalypse of Moses 29, 36; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of
Genesis 8, 20; B.T. Avodah Zarah 8a; Shabbath 28b; Bereshith Rabbah 34, 9; Pirqe de
R. Eliezer 31, 3. Pre-rabbinic sources have him offer incense; the Targum does not
specify the offering; Talmud and Midrash state that he offered an ox. Adams priest-
hood in Jubilees is described by Levison, op. cit., pp. 9395; but he does not note how
widespread the tradition of Adam as priest became.
26
See M. Wadsworth, The Death of Moses and the Riddle of the End of Time in
Pseudo-Philo, JJS 28 (1977), pp. 1219.
60 chapter four
27
Disponam testamentum meum ad te, ut disperdam omnes habitantes terram.
28
See Pseudo-Philon 2. 87, and J.P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and
the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Brill: Leiden, 1968), p. 75.
29
Deleam hominem et omnia que germinata sunt in terra. This presumably includes
plants and trees, which do not feature in Genesis 6, 7.
30
See LAB 3, 8, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 88.
31
See LAB 3, 10: Et non erit sine fetu terra, nec sterilis habitantibus in se. There are
strong eschatological elements here, which are noted by Lewis, op. cit., pp. 7677, and
discussed in Pseudo-Philon 2. 8889.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 61
Then there will be another heaven and another earth, an eternal dwell-
ing place; and God concludes his covenant with Noah in the man-
ner described in Genesis 9. The rainbow, according to LAB, will be a
memorial of that covenant between God, Noah, and the inhabitants of
the earth.
In all this, Noah seems to have taken on some of the significance
of Adam. He stands as the one father of whole human race after the
Flood, and is the pivotal individual upon whose covenant the present
limited, but stable, world order is firmly based. This covenant, with
its promise of regular seasons and fertility, finds its fullest expression
in the cult finally established by Moses. Adam, who in other Jewish
writings can be regarded as a priest, is by contrast presented in a very
negative light, albeit in the context of the cult. But LAB makes it abso-
lutely clear that the cult, and its assurance of fertility, relate to Noah
and Moses, not to Adam. Thus after the Flood men cry to the Lord
for rain to break drought: the rain falls, the rainbow appears, and the
people see the memorial of the covenant and offer sacrifice.32 We have
already seen that the Festival of Unleavened Bread is called a memorial
in the list of Festivals which ends with Gods promise to remember
the whole earth with rain.33 The miraculous rod of Moses is also called
a covenant between God and His people, a memorial likened to the
rainbow which He set as a covenant for Noah.34
The link between Mosess rod and the rainbow is established when
God shows secrets to Moses before he dies: the promised land, the
place where clouds go up to water the earth, the origin of the waters of
the river; the land of Egypt, the place whence Israel gets its water. Once
again, the stress on water should be noted. God then shows him the
ways of Paradise; the measurements of the sanctuary; the number of
offerings; and the signs by which they start to observe the heavens.35
And He said: These are the things which have been prohibited to the
race of men, because they have sinned against themselves.36
32
See LAB 4, 5.
33
See above, p. 3.
34
See LAB 19, 11.
35
See LAB 19, 10. This passage refers to four sources of water; possibly the four
rivers of Paradise (Genesis 2, 1013) are in mind: see Pseudo-Philon 2. 132.
36
See LAB 19, 10: Et dixit: Hec sunt que prohibita sunt generi hominum quoniam
peccaverunt sibi.
62 chapter four
The items listed in the preceding paragraph will by now be familiar, and
serve only to underline the dire consequence of Adams transgression.
Adams first appearance in LAB is thus almost entirely negative, and
seems to involve a repudiation of those traditions which made of the
First Man a priest. For LAB, Adam is the one responsible for losses: he
loses the ways of Paradise, the earths fertility, and, ultimately we may
suppose, the very stability of the cosmos itself, since the logical end of
his transgression is the Flood. The cult, which has connections with
Paradise and serves to promote the earths fertility, cannot be linked
with Adam, who was responsible for the cursing of the earth. Rather,
LAB presents Noah and Moses as involved in the restoration of proper
relationships between God, the earth, and his creatures.37
2. LAB 26, 6
Adam appears again in the context of cult and priesthood, and this
time most strikingly so. The context is the lengthy story of the judge
Kenaz, who makes the individual tribes confess secret sins. The tribe
of Asher admits having found seven golden nymphs, covered with
precious stones, belonging to the Amorites. Their idolatrous character
is made clear; but they were unlike any other stones, and included
chrystal and prase from the land of Havilah. One was like a spotted
chrysoprase, and as if it revealed the very waters of the Great Deep.38
At night, these stones gave brilliant natural light; one, indeed was so
brilliant as to heal blindness. There is also mention of books associated
with these stones.39
As Kenaz wonders what to do with these things, God tells him that
an angel will put them in the depth of the sea, where the Deep will
swallow them. Then the angel will take twelve other precious stones
from the same place of origin as these seven; and these Kenaz is to
place on the ephod opposite the twelve stones put there by Moses on
37
It seems that Adam and his immediate progeny left the earth in a quite hopeless
condition, since LAB 16, 2 records another curse, not related in the Bible, which God
placed on the earth after Cain had murdered Abel. The prominence given to Noah
as a second First Man, and the Flood as a kind of New Creation, have some affini-
ties with Philos treatment of these subjects in De Vita Mosis II. 5965: see Levison,
op. cit., pp. 7879.
38
See LAB 25, 11.
39
See LAB 25, 12.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 63
the high priests breast-plate. Each stone will be engraved with the
appropriate name of an Israelite tribe.40
Before the seven precious stones and the books disappear, Kenaz
tests them with fire, iron, and water, but he cannot destroy them;
whereupon he exclaims:
Blessed be God who has done so many mighty deeds for the sons
of men, and who made the First-formed Adam, and showed him all
things; so that when he sinned in them, Adam might then renounce all
these things lest, showing them to the race of men, they might have the
dominion of them.41
Once more it would seem that LAB has knowledge of and is allud-
ing to a number of well-known traditions which it does not make
explicit. From the passage quoted, we must presume that Adam had
been shown the seven miraculous stones in Paradise before his expul-
sion, in accordance with what is said in LAB 13, 89. Indeed, he was
apparently shown everything, but renounced his knowledge lest his
descendants acquire control over what he had been shown.
Implicit here is the tradition that precious stones come from Paradise,
where Adam saw them. Their unique character, and their origin in the
land of Havilah whence come chrystal and prase suggests as much;
and the twelve new stones which replace the original seven come from
the same place (LAB 26, 4). According to Genesis 2, 1012, the first
river to go out from the Garden of Eden is Pishon, which surrounds
the land of Havilah. It was Pishon, in traditional understanding, which
supplied the precious stones for the light-giving oracle on the high
priests vestments.42 From Pishon also came the precious stone which
40
See LAB 26, 24.
41
See LAB 26, 6: Benedictus Deus qui fecit tantas virtutes in filios hominum, et
fecit protoplastum Adam, et ostendit ei omnia ut, cum pecasset in ipsis, Adam tunc
hec universa abnegaret ne ostendens hec generi hominum dominarentur eis. Our
translation follows that of Cazeaux in Pseudo-Philon 1. 207. D.J. Harrington, in Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 337, renders the latter part of the text: . . . and showed
him everything so that when Adam sinned thereby, then he might refuse him all these
things (for if he showed them to the whole human race, they might have mastery
over them). Cf. with this M.R. James, op. cit., pp. 154155. The verb abnegare may
mean renounce or deny; so we may understand either a voluntary renunciation of
knowledge by Adam, or Gods denial of such knowledge to him.
42
See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 35, 27; T.B. Yoma 75a; Shemoth Rabbah
33, 8; and later sources cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 23 (Raphael Haim:
Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 2627. Individual letters engraved on the precious stones would
light up and spell out answers: this was the oracle Urim and Thummim, so called
because of the illuminated letters and the illuminating answer revealed: see Targum
64 chapter four
Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 28, 30; B.T. Yoma 73b; J.T. Yoma 7, 3, end. The oracu-
lar property of the shining stones is described in detail by Josephus, Antiquities III.
215218; cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus I. 8890.
43
See Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 6, 16. Other sources refer to precious stones as
a source of light, but not to their place of origin: see, e.g., B.T. Sanhedrin 108b; Pirqe
de R. Eliezer 23, 1.
44
See LAB 25, 11 for their names.
45
See LAB 26, 13: ex eo quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit, et in cor hominis
non ascendit. Note particularly the comments in Pseudo-Philon 2. 158.
46
See LAB 26, 1415.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 65
47
See particularly Apocalypse of Moses 20, 12; Bereshith Rabbah 12, 6; Tanhuma
ed. Buber, Bereshith 18; and Pirqe de R. Eliezer 12, 4. According to J.T. Shabbath 2, 5,
Adam was the light of the world, but his transgression deprived him of splendour.
48
See LAB 11, 1; 19, 6; 33, 3; 53, 8. On this matter, see M. Philonenko, Essnisme et
gnose chez le Pseudo-Philon. Le symbolisme de la lumire dans le Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum, in Studies in the History of Religions (ed. J. Neusner; Brill: Leiden, 1967),
pp. 401410.
49
See LAB 12, 1.
50
See LAB 19, 16.
51
Thus at the giving of the Torah the light of Mosess face was shining more bril-
liantly than the sun and moon (LAB 12, 1). This seems, if anything, to exceed the light
given to the righteous after God remembers the world, which light derives from the
precious stones, sun, and moon.
52
See LAB 28, 89, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 163164.
66 chapter four
3. LAB 32, 15
Adam figures next in LABs version of the Song of Deborah and Barak,
which gives a lengthy survey of Israels history. Certain events receive
special mention: thus we are told of the Tower of Babel; Gods choice of
Abraham; the Akedah; the story of Jacob and Esau; and the descent of
Jacob and his sons into Egypt. The giving of the Torah, whose central
significance for the Adam tradition we have just noted, again features
prominently: the Torah is described as
the foundation of understanding which He prepared from the birth of
the universe.53
At Sinai, amongst the many physical phenomena which accompany
the giving of the Torah, the abyss was revealed, and at the same time
Paradise gave off the scent of its fruit. This surely means that Paradise
was opened at that moment.54 There follows a description of Mosess
death, of which heaven, earth, sun, moon, and stars are witnesses.
Mention of these heavenly bodies triggers an account of Joshuas bat-
tle at Gibeon, where the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Deborah is urged to sing, and the earth to rejoice, the text according
to the majority of manuscripts reading as follows:
Rejoice, O earth, over them that dwell upon you, because the assembly of
the Lord which burns incense upon you is present. For not unjustly did
God take from you the rib of the First-formed Man, knowing that from
53
See LAB 32, 7: fundamentum intellectus quod preparavit ex nativitate seculi.
54
See LAB 32, 8, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 173.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 67
his rib Israel should be born. For your forming shall be for a witness of
what the Lord has done for his people.55
At least since the time of M.R. James, editors have tended to emend
this text so that the earth is to rejoice
because the knowledge of the Lord that builds a tower upon you is
present.56
What this might be supposed to mean is not entirely clear; and the
main reason adduced for adopting the emendation, that LAB elsewhere
represents Israel as the true tower built by God, seems, on examina-
tion, to be without foundation.57 Furthermore, the text as it appears in
the majority of its witnesses not only makes sense as it stands, but is
also consonant with other statements in LAB about Adam the First-
formed Man. What seems often to have been overlooked is the fact
that Adam is portrayed as a priest whose particular offering was one
of incense, after he had been expelled from Paradise: so much is clear
from Jubilees 3, 2627 and Apocalypse of Moses 29, 16. If we retain
the unemended text of LAB, therefore, Adam is introduced in a cultic
context, and again denied any priestly status. Israel, who spring from
his rib, offer the incense, not the Protoplast himself; and they do so
because the regulations for the incense offering have been revealed to
Moses along with the rest of the cult when he was given intimations
of Paradise.58 This is entirely what we might expect after our survey of
LABs treatment of Adam to date.
Deeper appreciation of what LAB is saying may be possible when we
set its notion of Israels formation from Adams rib alongside traditions
55
See LAB 32, 15: Gratulare terra super habitantes in te, quoniam adest concio
Domini que thurificat in te. Non enim iniuste accepit Deus de te costam protoplasti,
sciens quoniam de costa eius nasceretur Israel. Erit enim in testimonium plasmatio
tua, quid fecerit Dominus populo suo. This is the text as printed by G. Kisch, Pseudo-
Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Notre Dame: Indiana, 1949), p. 207. All wit-
nesses read thurificat; and all except the editio princeps read concio.
56
So Harrington, Pseudo-Philo 1. 252: quoniam adest conscientia Domini que tur-
rificat in te. See his translation in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 347, and M.R.
James, op. cit., p. 178: for in thee is the knowledge of the Lord which buildeth his
stronghold in thee.
57
See Pseudo-Philon 2. 175, where LAB 6, 16 and 32, 1 are brought as evidence of
this. But 6, 16 refers only to the building of a furnace into which Abraham and his
companions are to be thrown: the word tower nowhere appears. 32, 1 refers to this
event, and tells how God freed Abraham from the fired bricks used in building the
tower of Babel.
58
See above, p. 57, and LAB 11, 15; 13, 1.
68 chapter four
59
Our translation of the text edited by A. Diez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I Tomo 1
Gnesis (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas: Madrid-Barcelona, 1968).
See also M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their extant
Sources (2 vols.; Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1980) 1.46, 127.
60
See Targums Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, and Fragment Targum of Genesis 2, 15,
and R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1963), p. 227.
61
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 9397 for Adam as Patriarch in Jubilees; pp. 4445 for a
discussion of ben Sira 49, 16, where Adam also appears as an Israelite Patriarch.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 69
4. LAB 37, 3
62
See LAB 37, 3: Nascente spina, veritas in specie spine prelucebat. Et quando iudi-
catus est protoplastus mortis, spinas et tribulos adiudicata est proferre terra. Et cum
Moysen illuminabat veritas, per senticem illuminabat eum.
63
See Philo, De Vita Mosis I. 65, 68: batos n, akanthdes ti phuton kai asthenestaton.
64
Other sources assume this tradition as a matter of course: see Mekhilta de R.
Shimon b. Yohai, ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Hillel Press: Jerusalem, 1955),
pp. 12; Shemoth Rabbah 1, 9; Bemidbar Rabbah 14, 4; Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 1, 2.
65
See LAB 28, 3: Numquid aliquis loquitur prior sacerdote qui custodit mandata
Domini Dei nostri, presertim cum exeat de ore eius veritas et de corde eius lumen
refulgens?
70 chapter four
It is the priests, of course, who have charge of the Urim and Thummim
which give illuminated oracles through the precious stones set in the
high priests breast-plate. In LAB, Urim and Thummim are regularly
spoken of as Demonstration and Truth.66 It will not be necessary
to repeat what we have said about the cult, the giving of the Law,
illumination, and the precious stones themselves: all these things are
subtly related to this text about Adam and the thorns which, as a
result of his transgression, the earth brought forth.
There could be no more forceful way for LAB to indicate that the
abiding significance of Adam lies in his trangression, which had both
negative and positive results. Through it, men lost the ways of Paradise
and were condemned to death: the earth was cursed, and eventually
the Flood came and swept everything away. Yet the curse which Adam
initiated brought forth the thorn, and this very same useless and trou-
blesome piece of vegetation provided the instrument for God to reveal
His Name and thus redeem Israel from Egypt. From this follows the
gift of the Law to Israel, Gods cultic assembly born from the rib of
the First-formed Man.
Concluding Remarks
In the same way that he introduces distinct, even unique features into
his presentation of Noah, the author of LAB has his own, very specific
view of Adam, which can be expressed with the help of exegesis almost
unparalleled in other Jewish writings. The most striking example of
this is the use made of the thorn-bush as mediator of truth. In this
and other respects, it appears from our survey that LAB uses material
about Adam to support and to deepen its own larger concerns and
particular interests: thus Adam is used to illustrate and to interpret
such fundamental matters as the cult, the giving of the Law, the end
of days, and the destination of the righteous. Regarded in this light,
LAB might be simply one more text which could be added to those
described by Levison, texts in which the presentation of Adam is
determined almost entirely by their own particular Tendenz.67
66
See LAB 22, 89; 25, 5; 46, 1; 47, 2; and cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV.69.
67
Tendenz is a word much favoured by Levison. It has been deliberately avoided
in this paper, since it is sometimes very difficult to define what the Tendenz of a par-
ticular post-biblical writer might be.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities 71
On the other hand, we have seen reason to believe that LAB is very
often aware of, sometimes even dependent upon, preexisting tradi-
tions about Adam. A very great deal of what is said about Adam is
placed in the context of the cult; and this can make complete sense
only in the light of a tradition, which we know to be older than LAB
and widely disseminated, in which Adam was seen as a priest who
offered sacrifice. We have seen that LAB appears to attack this tradi-
tion by partially suppressing it in the interests of its own peculiar large
concerns. But it leaves sufficient traces of that background-tradition
for us to see the authors process of thought, and the steps by which he
has arrived at his exegesis. In acting like this, LAB is exploiting already
existing traditions about Adam in much the same way as it exploits
legends circulating in its own day about Mosess death.
Again, the idea that Adam is an Israelite Patriarch is one shared
with other, earlier sources; but the presentation of this idea, and
the working out of its significance, is very much LABs own doing.
We should also recall the significant number of cases in which LAB
seems to take for granted the existence of traditional material, which
it offers to its reader without explanation, such as the association of
the Temple with Paradise, and the latter with the giving of the Law at
Sinai; the Paradisal origin of the stones in the high priests breastplate;
the notion that Adams transgression led to loss of light, which will be
restored for the righteous in the end of days; and the revelation of the
Divine Name from a thorn bush. In all these cases, LAB appears not
simply as a transmitter, but also as a moulder of traditional material.
With due respect to Levison, the evidence of LAB suggests that it
is legitimate to speak of a continuous Adam tradition, which extends
from the book of Jubilees (second century bc) to the Rabbinic period,
at any rate in respect of Adam as priest, sacrificer, and Patriarch of
Israel. It is true that the different literary sources express themselves in
different ways on these matters; so, for example, according to Jubilees
Adam offers incense, while in Rabbinic writings he sacrifices an ox.
But the basic traditions of Adams priesthood and Patriarchal status
are demonstrably old: LAB is witness to their existence in the first cen-
tury ad, and forms a chronological bridge between the pre-Christian
and the Rabbinic writings. We may not, on the basis of the evidence
presented here, argue for the existence of a monolithic Adam myth;
we may reasonably suggest, however, that a coherent Adam tradition
of the kind outlined here was not only known, but also influential.
CHAPTER FIVE
1
Best exemplified in Pirqe R.El. 31:3. For the text, I have used quotations in
M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 3.2 (Jerusalem: Azriel, 1934), and the Spanish transla-
tion of M. Prez Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia: Institucin
S. Jernimo, 1984).
2
A full account of the Aqedah in writings of the rabbis, medieval Jewish com-
mentators, and liturgical poets is given in S. Spiegel, The Last Trial (tr. J. Goldin; New
York: Random House, 1967). For studies of the Aqedah in the rabbinic and prerab-
binic periods, see especially G. Vermes, Redemption and Genesis xxii, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 193227; and R. Le Daut, La
Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22; Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963), pp. 131212.
3
P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History, CBQ 40
(1978), pp. 514546. They have continued their discussions elsewhere: see P.R. Davies,
the sacrifice of isaac 73
Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 5967; and B.D. Chilton,
Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration, Bib 61 (1980), pp. 7882.
4
See especially Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, pp. 537540.
5
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), pp. 127150; and A.F. Segal, He who did
not spare his own son. . . .. Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah, From Jesus to Paul: Studies
in Honour of F.W. Beare (ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd; Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier
University, 1984), pp. 169184, reprinted as The Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Judaism
and Christianity, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 127;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. 109130.
6
See B.D. Chilton, Recent Discussion of the Aqedah, Targumic Approaches to the
Gospels. Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Lanham/New
York/London: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 3949, and the review of this
book by R. Le Daut, JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 228231.
7
See Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, p. 129.
8
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 539.
74 chapter five
9
See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 56:3; Pesiq. R. 40; and Melito of Sardis, Fragment 9; Origen,
In Genesim Homilia 8:6; Ambrose, De Abrahamo I.8:72; Ephraim Syrus, Hymns on
Virginity 8:16; and Jerome, Epistle 66:7.
10
See Pirqe R. El. 31:3; and Origen, In Genesim Homilia 8:1; Ambrose, De Abrahamo
I.3:20; Ephraim Syrus, Carmina Nisibena 72:3; and Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. 51.5.
11
See Num. Rab. 4:6; Pirqe R. El. 8:2; 31:3; and Cyprian, De Bono Poenitentiae 10;
John Chrysostom, De Lazaro Concio 5:5.
12
Thus he interprets the ass of Gen 22:5 as representing the Gentiles: In hoc enim
animante figuratur populus gentilium, ante oneri subjectus, nunc Christo subditus.
Isaac ergo Christi passuri est typus. Venit in asina, ut crediturus populus nationum
significaretur (De Abrah. I.8:71). With this, cf. the Gentiles Ishmael and Eliezer
Dammesek as asspeople, Pirqe R. El. 31:2. See also his interpretation (De Abrah.
I.8:75) of Gen 22:9, which tells of the binding of Isaac: Et colligatis manibus et pedi-
bus Isaac filii sui, imposuit eum in aram super ligna. Nectit filio manibus suis vincula
pater; ne refugiendo filius, et vi ignis excitus peccatum incurreret. With this, cf. Frg.
Tg., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 22:10.
the sacrifice of isaac 75
When we meet in rabbinic writings the phrase the blood (of the
Aqedah) of Isaac, should we discern there a Jewish counterblast to
Christian doctrine? Superficially, at least, there would seem to be no
more pointed and potent phrase to use as a weapon against one of the
most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Indeed, both Davies and
Chilton regard the phrase as having grown out of Judaisms concern
to answer Christian teachings about atonement;13 and the failure of
the NT authors to make much explicit use of Isaac-Christ typology, so
favored by the Church Fathers, seems to lend some support to their
opinion. That opinion, however, needs more thorough scrutiny than it
has yet received; and such scrutiny leads the present writer to conclude
that the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac originated without reference
to Christianity at all.
At the outset it should be noted that the blood (of the Aqedah)
of Isaac occurs in rabbinic literature only very rarely.14 Probably the
oldest text to refer to it is the Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, which speaks of
it first in a comment on Exod 12:13, and again in expounding Exod
12:23. In the case of the former verse, R. Ishmael asks why, since
everything is revealed before God, Scripture should here present Him
as saying and when I see the blood (i.e., of the Passover lamb smeared
on the door-posts and lintels of Israels houses in Egypt), I will pass
over you? Since God is omniscient, why should he need to see blood
to distinguish Israelites from Egyptians? R. Ishmael replies to his own
question: as a reward for carrying out Gods commandment to daub
the houses with the lambs blood, God will be seen and protect his
people.15 This exposition is followed by another:
13
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 539, where they state that one way of
counteracting Christian claims was to recall the Aqedah at Passover time: for this tac-
tic to be effective in the amoraic period, the dramatic impact of Isaacs sacrifice had
to exceed that of Jesus crucifixion, and this was achieved by adding to the Aqedah
details of the Passion Narratives, including the shedding of Isaacs blood.
14
See Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J.Z. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publi-
cation Society of America, 1961), Pisha 7:7082; 11:8596; Mek. de Rabbi Simeon b.
Yohai (ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Hillel, 1955), pp. 45; Tanhuma
, 23; , 3; Yal. Shimoni 1 (Wilna: Romm, 1909), pp. 5859; Abot R. Nat.,
quoted by Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 886. For texts which regard the rams blood as
if it were Isaacs blood, see below, n. 30.
15
See Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisha, pp. 7077, especially lines, 7375: And why does
Scripture say And when I see the blood? Only to show that as a reward for the com-
mandment which you are performing I will be revealed and protect you. Lauterbachs
text has been used; the translations are ours.
76 chapter five
And when I see the blood (Exod 12:13): I see the blood of the Aqedah
of Isaac, as it is said, And Abraham called the name of that place The
Lord will see (Gen 22:14); and further on it says: And as He was about
to destroy, the Lord saw and repented (1 Chr 21:15). What did He see?
He saw the blood of the Aqedah of Isaac, as it is said: God will see for
Himself the lamb, etc. (Gen 22:10).16
The second part of the exposition, here translated, is not introduced as
an alternative explanation, , but is an integral part of the com-
mentary.17 R. Ishmael poses a real theological problem, and answers it
by saying that God gave a specific commandment which Israel carried
out: as a reward, therefore, rather than seeing the blood, God Himself
was seen, revealed to spare Israel. He understands the verb to see as if
it were a passive form, I will be seen, and thus solves the theological
difficulty. But there remains the fact that the verb in the Hebrew text is
active in form; thus the blood of Isaacs Aqedah is introduced without
preamble, and is then justified by Abrahams words in ages past that
the Lord will see, in the future. That is, Abraham has predicted a time
when God would see, in the context of the Aqedah recorded in Genesis
22. That time has arrived, and in seeing the blood of the Passover vic-
tim God acts to redeem Israel as he sees the blood of Isaacs Aqedah.
Lying behind this exegesis is the principle already made clear earlier
by R. Ishmael, that God passed over Israel as a reward for some deed
previously executed by Israel. In this case, Israel deserves protection at
the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn by virtue of Isaacs Aqedah, of
which Abraham had said that the Lord would see.
That it truly was the Aqedah which God would see, and not some-
thing else, requires proof. This is forthcoming in the scriptural text
next quoted, 1 Chr 21:15, which describes the Lord as about to
destroy, . Now the very root is used also to describe His
action at the first Passover in Egypt in Exod 12:13,23. Thus a verbal
16
Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisha, pp. 7882.
17
Lauterbach, Mek. de R. Ishmael, 2.57 makes this clear. His apparatus lists only the
late collection Midrash Hakhamim (on which see his introduction, Mek. de R. Ishmael,
1. xxxii) as indicating a here. The manuscripts of Mekhilta at this point have
no such reading. For this reason, we assume that Davies and Chilton (The Aqedah,
p. 536) are referring, not to this passage, but to Pisha 11:92, where Lauterbachs text
indeed reads ; but attention to the apparatus will show that the witnesses
from which Lauterbach adopted this reading are not mss of Mekhilta, but the Midrash
Hakhamim and the Wilna Gaons Eyphat Tzedeq (see his introduction, Mek. 1. xxxiv).
There is, therefore, considerable doubt whether Mekhilta regarded even this second
passage as an alternative explanation of the text.
the sacrifice of isaac 77
link is forged between three verses of Scripture, all of which can then
be interpreted in the light of one another. 1 Chr 21:15 refers to the
Lords sparing Israel from the plague at the threshing-floor of Ornan
the Jebusite where David built an altar, and this is the very site of the
future temple built, the Chronicler himself assures us (2 Chr 3:1) on
Mount Moriah, where Abraham had offered Isaac (Gen 22:1). Hence
the commentator, through these verses of Scripture, is able to link the
blood of the Passover and Mount Moriah, where Abraham offered
Isaac; and he can bring us back full circle to the Passover with men-
tion of the lamb spoken of in Gen 22:8. It must, therefore, have been
this blood which God saw. Commenting later on Exod 12:23, And
the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the
blood, the Mekhilta offers virtually the same remarks as before.18
Lauterbach suggests that what God saw was Isaacs readiness to be
sacrificed, since he was not actually slaughtered; but he notes other
rabbinic sources which speak of Isaacs blood.19 It seems that the
Mekhilta may preserve the exegetical origins of the expression the
blood of Isaacs Aqedah, which set out to explain what it was that
Abraham prophesied God would see, through the process described
above. And since Isaacs sacrifice was in any case linked explicitly with
Passover in pre-Christian times,20 recourse to Gods seeing the blood
of the Passover victim/Isaac was exegetically in order. Leaving aside
for the moment any question of intended anti-Christian polemic in
these passages, or any queries as to their date of origin, it is undeni-
ably the case that the Mekhilta attributes to Isaacs blood one, and only
one, effect: it preserves Israel from the killing of the firstborn at the
first Passover in Egypt. In this respect, it is not unlike other great acts
performed by the Patriarchs by virtue of which later Israel was deemed
worthy by God of reward and blessings. That is to say, it belongs in the
sphere of the merits of the Fathers.21
Gods rewarding the piety of the Fathers also provides the key to
correct understanding of the third text which speaks of Isaacs blood.
The Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, in expounding Gods summons to
18
See Pisha 11:8596.
19
See Lauterbach, Mek. 1.57.
20
This is undoubtedly the case, despite all attempts of Davies and Chilton to avoid
the facts: see The Aqedah, pp. 533536, and Chilton, Recent Discussion, p. 43. For
an independent critique of Davies and Chilton on this point, see Segal, The Sacrifice
of Isaac, pp. 114115.
21
Cf. Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, p. 112.
78 chapter five
Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt, lays great stress on the forthcoming
exodus as the fulfillment of an oath which he had sworn in the past to
Israels ancestors. Exod 4:13 has Moses attempting to avoid this task,
asking God to use another agent; it is this attitude which God seeks to
discourage by recalling the urgency of His oath. As the commentary
is of some importance, it is quoted in full.
And God spoke to Moses. R. Jose said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said
to Moses, I am He who said, and the world was there, as it is said, God
the Lord has spoken, and called the earth (Ps 50:1); and it says, Out of
Zion, the perfection of beauty (Ps 50:2). I am He who said to Abraham
between the (sacrificial) pieces, You shall surely know, etc. (Gen 15:13).
And now, behold, the oath is insistent and has come before me, to bring
out the sons of Israel from Egypt, and I am seeking to bring them out;
but you say to me, Send by the hand of one whom you will send!
R. Joshua said, And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One, blessed be He,
said to Moses: I am faithful to pay the reward of Isaac son of Abraham,
from whom issued one quarter (of a measure) of blood on top of the
altar. And I said to him, By the greatness of your arm preserve the sons
appointed for death (Ps 79:11). And now, behold, the oath is insistent,
etc. (as in preceding paragraph).
R. Simeon b. Yohai said: And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One,
blessed be He, said to Moses, I am He who said to Jacob, And your seed
shall be like the dust of the earth. And now, behold, the oath, etc. (as
above).
R. Yehudah said, And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One . . . said to
Moses, I am judge in truth; I am full of mercy; I am faithful to render
reward; and Israel is enslaved in the power of the uncircumcised and
unclean; and I am seeking to bring them out from under their hand. But
you are saying, Send by the hand of one whom you will send!22
This complex exegesis rests on foundations laid by Exod 2:24, which
states that God heard Israels groans in the Egyptian oppression and
remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and on
Lev 26:42, where God promises to remember his covenants with
Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. As early as Sir 44:1923 we find these cov-
enants associated with Gods oath; and interpreters commonly found
the scriptural sources for these covenants in Genesis 15 (Abraham),
22 (Isaac), and 28 (Jacob).23 The Mekhilta stresses that these oaths sworn
22
Mek. de R. Simeon b. Yohai, pp. 45.
23
On these covenants in rabbinic tradition, see C.T.R. Hayward, Divine Name and
Presence: The Memra (Totowa: Allenheld, Osmun, 1981), pp. 7384.
the sacrifice of isaac 79
to the Fathers were the reason for the exodus; thus Isaacs Aqedah does
not stand alone as the sole cause of Gods urgent desire to effect Israels
release from bondage. His blood has no particular atoning power;
rather, as the text makes clear, Isaacs sacrifice is a meritorious deed
which deserves its proper reward.24
Yet one quarter, or a quarter of a measure of Isaacs blood is said
to have been shed, even though Isaac himself was spared from death;
Ps 79:11 is quoted to remind us of this fact.25 But this leads us to the
text which most clearly depicts the blood of Isaac, the fourth for our
consideration, as it is preserved in Tanhuma.
He (Abraham) took up the knife to slaughter him (Isaac), until there
came forth from him one quarter of his blood. And Satan came and
knocked Abrahams hand, so that the knife fell from his hand. And
when he put out his hand to take it up, a heavenly voice went forth
and said to him from heaven: Do not stretch out your hand against the
lad (Gen 22:12); and if it had not done so, he (Isaac) would have been
slaughtered already.26
The part played by Satan will merit further mention; but it would
seem that the last sentence of the passage quoted holds the clue to the
meaning of this text. Abraham was completely committed to carrying
out Gods command to slay his son; he even drew blood from him,
and would have killed him altogether but for Satans intervention and
the heavenly voice. Abrahams obedience to Gods decree is absolute.
Nothing is said of divine rewards for his obedience, nor of the future
saving effects of Isaacs blood. The theme of Abrahams obedience is, of
course, biblical and figured large in prerabbinic exegesis.27
Looking at this evidence, it is hard to conclude that the blood (of the
Aqedah) of Isaac has much to do with Jewish responses to Christianity
and its doctrine of atonement. The phrase occurs so rarely and fails to
engage with the claims which the NT makes for the universal efficacy
of Christs sacrificial blood.28 Further, none of these texts requires the
hypothesis that it originated or developed with Christianity in mind;
on the contrary, they make perfect sense within a purely Jewish religious
24
Note particularly the comment of R. Yehudah in the last paragraph of the quoted
text.
25
Thus there is no question of Isaacs death and resurrection.
26
Tanhuma , 23, translated from Hebrew in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 896.
27
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 520.
28
See above, p. 74.
80 chapter five
and theological context. Besides this, there are three additional reasons
for denying any connection between this phrase and anti-Christian
polemic.
First, there is evidence that attempts were made to suppress the
tradition that Isaacs blood was shed, and the very success of these
attempts may account for its scarcity in the literature as a whole.
Rather than developing and bringing to the fore the notion of Isaacs
blood as a means of atonement, midrashic texts of central importance
do the very opposite, and firmly and expressly rule out of court any
theological use of it. Thus we read:
And He said: Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, etc. And
where was the knife? Tears of the angels of the service had dropped
upon it and melted it. He (Abraham) said to Him: I shall strangle him
(Isaac). He said to him, Do not stretch out your hand against the lad. He
(Abraham) said to Him: Let us bring forth from him a drop of blood.
He said to him: Do not do anything to him; do not make a blemish in
him (Gen. Rab. 56:7).
As in the case of Tanhuma quoted above, Abraham is determined, if
possible, to slay his son. But Genesis Rabbah, unlike Tanhuma, clearly
states that Abraham was forbidden by God to draw even so much as
a single drop of Isaacs blood. Other sources are equally insistent that
this was so.29 In this way, a concept which might have developed into
a weapon for use against Christianity was removed from the field of
operations. And we may infer why this happened; for to speak of the
blood of Isaac, to associate it with means of atonement and forgiveness,
and perhaps tacitly to imply that it was as good as, or superior to, the
blood of Jesus, would be to admit in principle that the fundamental
axioms of the Christian doctrine of the atonement were in substance
correct, and that Judaism was in some sense defective without a Jesus-
like figure.
Nevertheless, what could quite properly be a response to Christian
notions of atonement may be discerned later on in the same text, at
Gen. Rab. 56:9, where we read:
R. Judah in the name of R. Benaiah said: He (Abraham) said before Him:
Lord of all the worlds, see the blood of this ram as if it were the blood
29
The quotation from Genesis Rabbah is our translation of the Hebrew text printed
by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1927). See also Pesiq. R. 40; Pesiq.
Rab Kah. 26:3; Ag. Ber. 66, 71; and Yal. Shimoni, 1.59.
the sacrifice of isaac 81
of Isaac my son, the sacrificial portions of this ram as if they were the
sacrificial portions of my son Isaaclike as we have learned: See, this is
instead of that, this is an exchange for that; behold, this is a substitute for
that. See, this is (a valid) exchange. R. Pinhas in the name of R. Benaiah
said: He (Abraham) said before Him: Lord of the worlds, regard it as if
I had sacrificed Isaac my son at first, and afterwards I had offered this
ram instead of him, just as Scripture says, And Jotham his son reigned
in place of him.30
Here we have a sacrifice which, it could be argued, is different from
anything Christians might adduce; without dying and without shed-
ding even a drop of his blood, Isaac at his Aqedah makes available for
Israel the benefits of his piety, provokes Gods remembrance of His
people, and assures Israel of His continuing mercy.31 All these ben-
efits and privileges are available to Israel without recourse to a quasi-
Christian doctrine of a sacrificed redeemer; and, far more important,
they accrue to Jews as the result of the application of a basic halakhic
principle found in the Mishnah and directly invoked by the Midrash.32
The effect of this is to concentrate some exegetical endeavor on the
ram caught in the thicket and offered as a substitute for Isaac; and this,
too, would make sense when it is recalled that the Church Fathers had
long pointed out how the ram, rather than Isaac himself, was the true
anticipation of the redeemer.33
Second, it may be possible to trace the original use and Sitz im
Leben of the phrase the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac back to a
30
For the notion that the rams blood is accounted as if it were the blood of Isaac,
see also Num. Rab. 17:2; Eccl. R. 9:7.1; Pesiq. R. 40; and Tanhuma Shallah 14.
31
For the Aqedah and Gods mercy, see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 56:10; y. Taan. 2:5.4 end;
and zikhronoth in the Musaf service for Rosh HaShanah. Its remembrance will effect
Gods deliverance of Israel: thus, e.g., Tg. Neof. Gen 22:14 and its marginal gloss; and
will make for their atonement, Pesiq. R. 47; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23, 27; Lev. Rab. 29:7; and
Frg. Tg. Gen 22:14.
32
M. Tem. 5:5, discussing valid and invalid means of substituting one sacrificial
beast for another, states: (If he said,) Let this be instead of this, (or) the substitute
for this, (or) in exchange for this, it is a valid substitute (tr. H.H. Danby, The
Mishnah [Oxford: Clarendon, 1933]). On the use of the oral law and scriptural exege-
sis which supported it as a defense against Christianity and as an apology for Judaism
by the Amoraim, see J. Neusner, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 111137.
33
It is interesting to record that, according to St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio xlv
In Sanctum Pascha 12, God the Father would not accept Isaac, but exchanged the sac-
rifice, allantllaxato tn thysian, the ram being offered in place of the rational victim.
See also Melito of Sardis, Fragment 10; Ambrose, De Abrah. I.8:7778; In Psalmum
XXXIX Enarratio 12. For the significance of the rams horn in rabbinic writing, see,
e.g., y. Taan. 2:5.4; Pesiq. R. 40; Tanhuma 23, 46; b. Ro Ha. 16a.
82 chapter five
34
For the most recent critical assessment of Bib. Ant.s date, see E. Schrer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ III.1 (rev. and ed. G. Vermes,
F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 325330.
35
Bib. Ant. 18:56. Translation of D.J. Harrington in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha 2 (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1985),
p. 325. For the original text, I have used PseudoPhilon, Les Antiquits Bibliques 1,
(Introduction et Texte Critiques par D.J. Harrington; SC 229; Paris: Cerf, 1976).
the sacrifice of isaac 83
election by God and His covenant with them.36 The clause et pro san-
guine ejus elegi istos might conceivably refer to Abraham; but the most
natural interpretation of the words would refer them to the blood of
Abrahams sacrificial victim, namely, Isaac.37 Nonetheless, it is evident
that the other references to Isaacs sacrifice, Bib. Ant. 32:14; 40:2, nei-
ther allude to Isaacs blood, nor speak of the sacrifice as having taken
place in reality.
It would seem that Bib. Ant., which yields the earliest datable written
reference to the blood of Isaac, is very much in the same mold as the
passage from the Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai which we inspected
above. The same basic principles are at work in both sources. That
is to say, Gods activity on behalf of Israel is, in quite specific ways,
determined by his covenant promises to the Patriarchs. In Mekhilta,
the virtues and pious deeds of the Fathers urge God to fulfill His oath
to bring Israel out of Egypt; in Bib. Ant., the election of Israel as Gods
own people, whom Balaam is forbidden to curse, is the outcome of
fundamental acts and words expressed in the lives of the Patriarchs
long ago. The Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, in speaking of the blood of
Isaacs Aqedah, offers the same kind of thinking: in this case, Israel
in Egypt is spared the slaughter of the firstborn because of Abrahams
prophecy that the Lord would see.
If our analysis of these texts is correct, it is reasonable to suggest
that the phrase the blood of Isaac originated during or before the
first century ad in the context of Jewish thinking about the merit of
the Fathers. Furthermore, its importance should not be overestimated,
since Isaacs blood stands alongside other equally weighty considerations
which involve Abraham and Jacob. In answer to such questions as:
Why did God bring Israel from Egypt? Why did He not allow Balaam
to curse Israel? Why did Israel escape the death of the first-born
through blood?, some aspect of Patriarchal fidelity is paraded, of which
Isaacs sacrifice is one. It is unnecessary therefore to see the blood of
Isaac as an anti-Christian device; indeed, its superficial resemblance to
36
See Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquits Bibliques (Introduction Littraire, Commen-
taire et Index par C. Perrot et P.-M. Bogaert; SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), p. 126.
J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the
Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), pp. 5051, offers particularly valu-
able insights and perceptive commentary on this section of Bib. Ant.
37
See Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, p. 194: note how he proposes a possible Hebrew
Vorlage which involves the notion of zekhut.
84 chapter five
Christian ideas about the blood of Jesus may account for its curtail-
ment by certain rabbinic authorities, as in Gen. Rab. 56:7,9.
The third reason for arguing that the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac
owes nothing to Jewish reaction to Christianity is the evidence of the
Church Fathers themselves. It is well known that the apologist bishop
Melito of Sardis, who died ca. ad 190, was the first Christian writer
to use Isaac-Christ typology to any effect. Before him, the writers of
the First Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas make scant
and superficial references to Isaac, who plays no part in their main
arguments.38 And it is striking that Justin Martyr (ca. ad 110165),
whose Dialogue with Trypho shows considerable knowledge of Jewish
exegetical tradition, has nothing to say about the figure of Isaac. The
Church Fathers of the third and fourth centuries never, to the best
of my knowledge, show signs that Jews of their day spoke of Isaacs
blood.39
This last point, we would submit, is most telling. For had the blood
of Isaac featured at all significantly in the teachings of the late Tannaim
and the Amoraim, the Church Fathers would have taken malicious
delight in it. Here, they would have said, is the proof of Jewish fal-
sification of Scripture: here is proof of the lies and deceit which we
Christians have always known them to practice! In the hands of the
Church Fathers, a phrase like the blood of Isaac would have been
much more than a stick to beat the Jews; it would have been used to
justify horrible anti-Jewish acts on the grounds that they were blas-
pheming against the blood of Christ.
To illustrate what has been said, we might briefly analyze what
Melito actually says about Isaac and Jesus. His evidence is particularly
enlightening since he was bishop of a city which had a large Jewish
community and a thriving synagogue. The Jews of Sardis, indeed, were
persons of power and influence in their society.40 In his Homily on
the Pascha he lists Isaac as a type of Christ; but he is one type among
many, including Abel who was murdered, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David,
38
See Hayward, The Present State, p. 146; R.L. Wilken, Melito and the Sacrifice of
Isaac, TS 37 (1976), pp. 6264; and see P. Prigents notes in the volume prepared by
himself and R.A. Kraft, Eptre de Barnab (SC 172; Paris: Cerf, 1971), pp. 129131.
39
This holds true also of the text of St. Athanasius, Festal Epistle 6:89, quoted by
Wilken, Melito, p. 66.
40
See Wilken, Melito, pp. 5358; Schrer, History III. 1, pp. 202222.
the sacrifice of isaac 85
and the paschal lamb.41 But his Fragments may, as Wilken suggested,
betray some knowledge of Jewish traditional understanding of Isaacs
offering, and a desire to refute this understanding by outright denial
of its major elements:
But Christ suffered, whereas Isaac did not suffer; for he was a model
(typos) of the Christ who was going to suffer. But by being merely the
model of Christ he caused astonishment and fear among men. For it was
a strange mystery to behold, a son led by his father to a mountain for
slaughter, whose feet he bound and whom he put on the wood of the
offering, preparing with zeal the things for his slaughter. But Isaac was
silent, bound like a ram, not opening his mouth nor uttering a sound.
For not frightened by the sword nor alarmed at the fire nor sorrowful at
the suffering, he carried with fortitude the model of the Lord. Thus Isaac
was offered in the midst foot-bound like a ram, and Abraham stood by
and held the sword unsheathed, not ashamed to put to death his son.42
What is striking here is Melitos comment that Isaac was silent, because
Jewish sources like Josephus Antiquities and Pseudo-Philos Bib. Ant.,
which are demonstrably earlier than Melitos time, indicate that Isaac
had a good deal to say.43 And the tradition that Isaac suffered is strongly
represented in 4 Maccabees which presents him as the model of a mar-
tyr for the Jewish faith, yet without any mention of his blood.44 It would
not seem unlikely, then, that Melito is flatly contradicting two Jewish
traditions about the Aqedah which were well known to Christians in
Sardis because of the citys large Jewish population. But Melito does
not remark that Christs blood was shed, whereas Isaacs was not; and
he surely could not have overlooked this matter if, at Passover time, the
Jews of Sardis were recalling the blood of Isaacs Aqedah.
Interesting is Melitos description of the events as a mystery, a word
used also by the Syriac writer St. Ephraim (ca. ad 306373) whose
association with Jews and knowledge of their traditions are well known.45
41
See S.G. Hall, Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon,
1979), p. 37; cf. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem III. 18. All references to Melitos work
are cited according to Halls edition.
42
For translation, see Hall, Melito, p. 75.
43
See Josephus, Antiquities I., pp. 222236; Bib. Ant. 32:3.
44
See especially Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, pp. 117118.
45
See his Hymns on the Church 11:3 in Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen
de Ecclesia (CSCO 198 [Scriptores Syri 84]; ed. E. Beck; Louvain: Catholic University
of America/Catholic University of Louvain, 1960), p. 28: To Abraham you gave the
promise, and in Isaac you fashioned the great mystery. The translation is from Des
Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia (CSCO 199 [Scriptores Syri 85); ed.
86 chapter five
Once again, Ephraim says nothing about Isaacs blood, but, like Melito,
seems to refute a Jewish tradition by flatly contradicting it: on this
occasion, it is the tradition that Abraham had told Isaac that he was
to be the lamb for the offering.46
Isaac had asked about the sacrifice, Where is the lamb for the whole
burnt offering? The speaking lamb asked the question about the dumb
lamb. Abraham did not reveal to his son that You are the lamb for the
whole burnt offering, lest he turn in sobbing and there be a blemish in
his offering.47
Like the Western Fathers, Ephraim uses the Isaac-Christ typology to
full effect; but there is no hint that he is aware of any Jewish tradition
that Isaacs blood was shed.48
Whatever the exact relationship between individual details of Jewish
and Christian elaboration of the story of Isaacs offering, our inves-
tigations have led us to conclude that the blood (of the Aqedah)
of Isaac, at least, has nothing to do with alleged Jewish attacks on
Christianity. Indeed, we have reason to believe that this phrase may
have been suppressed in rabbinic terminology, precisely because of its
superficial resemblance to Christian theological discourse about the
blood of Jesus. We should, therefore, be alive to the suggestion that
other apparent similarities of detail in the Aqedah and the Christian
Passion Narratives are not necessarily the result of antagonism between
Judaism and Christianity in the period of the Tannaim or Amoraim.
For example, it is tempting to suggest that Satans attempts to prevent
the Aqedah, represented by the passage of Tanhuma quoted above and
by other sources,49 may represent a Jewish adaptation of NT passages
which present Satan as trying to dissuade Jesus from undergoing his
50
See, e.g., Pesiq. R. 40 for Satan playing on Isaacs emotions; Gen. Rab. 56:9 for
Abrahams fear that he will make the sacrifice blemished; and Tanhuma 22 for
the threat that Ishmael would inherit.
CHAPTER SIX
* The following editions of Targums of the Pentateuch have been used: A. Dez
Macho, Ms. Neophyti (5 vols.; Madrid-Barcelona, 19681978); E.G. Clarke, in col-
laboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New York: Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The
Bible in Aramaic. I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959);
M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources
(2 vols.; Rome, 1980); idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum (2 vols.;
Cincinnati, 1986). Translations are my own.
1
For a recent survey of postbiblical attitudes to Esau, see L.H. Feldman, Josephus
Portrait of Jacob, JQR 79 (198889), pp. 101151, esp. 118133.
a portrait of the wicked esau 89
2
See Jub. 19.1314 for Esaus illiteracy, which Feldman, Josephus Portrait, p. 119
properly notes as intended to contrast with Abrahams learning, Jub. 11.16; 12.27; and
Jub. 35.838.10. 1 En. 89.12 also describes Esau in uncomplimentary language.
3
See, for example, Philo, Sacr. 4 (ii); Congr. 129 (xxiii); Vit. Mos. 1.23949 (xliii
xliv).
4
See Feldman, Josephus Portrait, pp. 130133.
5
See G.D. Cohen, Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought, in Jewish Medieval
and Renaissance Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1967), pp. 1948; H. Hunzinger, Babylon als Deckname fr Rom und die Datierung
des I. Petrusbriefes, in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land (ed. H. Reventlow; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 6777; and S. Zeitlin, The Origin of the Term
Edom for Rome and the Christian Church, JQR 60 (1969), pp. 262263.
90 chapter six
not clear, however, that Neofiti is of one mind with them; and to the
particulars of this Targum we should now address ourselves. In the
discussion which follows, it will be convenient to order the targumic
material under four headings: events before and during Esaus birth;
events during his lifetime; references to him after his death; and the
question of Esaus identification with Rome.
peoples are in Rebeccas womb, one of which will be the stronger: and
it is the view of rabbinic texts such as Gen. R. 63.7, b. Avod. Zar. 2b,
and PRK 29 that the Hebrew lwm means kingdom. Such an interpre-
tation may be latent in the thought of Philo, who emphasizes that God
does not allude to their names, but to the nations which were to arise
from them, since they were both patriarchs of great nations which
would later appear; and that the one would be archn, hgemn, and
despots, while the other would be hupkoos and doulos.6
The last part of the prophecy, that the elder should serve the
younger, is expressed in Hebrew as wrb ybd syr. All the Targums
keep close to the actual Hebrew vocabulary, using similar words in
Aramaic: Neofiti has wrbh yhwwy mbd qdm zyr, which may indeed
refer to the two children as elder and younger, but equally may speak
of them as greater and lesser respectively. Grossfeld, commenting on
Onqelos here, notes the power of the verb bd, to enslave, reduce to
servitude or slavery, and thus translates as greater and lesser, seeing
in these expressions a reflection of the conflict between Jacob-Israel
and Esau-Rome.7 It is possible that Neofiti should be understood in
the same way; but it is not certain, and it should be noted that there is
no reference in the text to Esau or to Rome. Possibly to remedy what
was felt to be a defect, the Ngl has supplied further information:
because the kingdom of Esau is at an end; and afterwards (will arise)
Jacob, his kingdom which shall not be destroyed and which shall not
cease from him for the ages of ages. Therefore he called his name
Jacob.
It is not clear whether this marginal note belongs with this verse,
although Dez Macho places it here: it might, given its final sentence,
belong rather with v. 26, most of which is lacking in the ms of Neofiti.
The literal translation given here reflects the awkwardness of the
Aramaic; but the gloss, with its allusions to Dan. 7.14 and 2.44, obvi-
ously intends to represent Esau as the fourth world empire destined
for destruction and replacement by the eternal kingdom of Jacob. The
gloss recalls 4 Esdras 6.810, which derives from the aftermath of the
destruction of 70 ce; to whatever verse of scripture it belongs, it seems
6
See Philo, Leg. All. 3.88 (xxix).
7
See M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis
together with an English Translation of the Text (New York: Ktav, 1982), pp. 150151;
B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 6; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1988), p. 95.
a portrait of the wicked esau 93
8
For the date of 4 Esdras, see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1986), III.1, pp. 297300. 4 Esdras 6.810 is discussed on p. 298; see
also Cohen, Esau as Symbol, p. 21. The text, as translated by B.M. Metzger in J.H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London, 1983), I, p. 534,
reads: From Abraham to Isaac, because from him were born Jacob and Esau, for
Jacobs hand held Esaus heel from the beginning. For Esau is the end of this age, and
Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows.
9
On this matter, see particularly Cohen, Esau as Symbol, pp. 3138; and M. Harl,
La Bible dAlexandrie. La Gense (Paris, 1986), p. 209, who notes other statements
of this kind surviving in catena fragments collected by F. Petit, Catenae Graecae in
Genesim et Exodum 1 Catena Sinaitica (CChr Series Graeca 2; Turnhout: Brepols,
1977), pp. 240241.
10
Justins comment occurs in a discussion of Isa. 43.15, where he refers to Christ
as everlasting king, saying to the Jew Trypho: you are aware that Jacob the son of
Isaac was never a king. See the fragment of sermon by Hippolytus, quoted by Jerome,
Epistle 36 ad Damasum, where Esau is presented as the devil, and associated with
Cain. But Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 1, insists at length that the two sons born to
Rebecca are nations, peoples differentiated only in order of birth; and the designation
of the Jews as people he uses to convict the Jewish people of idolatry in the matter of
the golden calf and the idols of Jeroboam son of Nebat.
11
See Gen. R. 68.7; b. H ul. 92a; Abod. Zar. 2b; PRK 29.
94 chapter six
writings.12 The most that may be said is that the majority of the Targums
may have come to prefer kingdoms as a translation of peoples, and
that known Christian exegesis may have played a part in this. And
the question whether these same Targums, with the exception of the
Ngl, implicitly identified Esau with Rome, cannot be answered on the
evidence sifted so far.
Neofiti translates literally the description of Esaus birth (Gen. 25.25),
but the ms omits his name at the end of this verse, and the whole of
the next verse up to the name Jacob, probably by homoioteleuton.
The Bible says that Isaac was sixty years old when he fathered them:
instead of them, Ngl has this nation, a curious reading not without
interest given our previous observations.
The Bible tells (Gen. 25.27) how the boys grew up:
and Esau was a man knowing hunting, a man of the field; but Jacob was
a plain man, dwelling in tents.
Neofiti follows the Hebrew in describing Esau as knowing hunting;
but, uniquely among the Targums, translates a man of the field as a
man, lord of fields, gbr mry hqlyn. Neofiti says nothing more in this
verse about Esau, so the remark is particularly arresting: Esau is a land-
owner, a master of territory unspecified in extent, but probably to be
understood as great. The expression certainly implies that Esau is rich
and powerful.13 By contrast, Jacob is said to be perfect in good deed,
dwelling in the Study Houses.
The pregnant brevity of Neofiti is worlds apart from the two Ngls.
The first of these actually offers an explanation of Onqelos, which has
used the unusual word nhyrkn to describe Esau. The gloss expounds
this as meaning that Esau had bronze thighs, nhw yrkn; and goes
on to speak of him as a brigand, thief, and kidnapper, thus follow-
ing lines of thought we have already encountered in other sources.
The second gloss hints at his identification with Rome, describing him
12
See Leg. All. 3.88 (xxix); and cf. Quaest. in Gen. 4.157, where Jacob and Esau are
described as patriarchs of two nations.
13
lxx and Vg are quite different: the former presents Esau as agroikos, a boorish
field-dweller, the latter as a farmer.
a portrait of the wicked esau 95
14
On these glosses, see further R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Gense (SC,
245; Paris, 1978), pp. 246247.
15
See Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, pp. 9697. The same expression
occurs in v. 33, where Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render accordingly, but Neofiti
renders the Hebrew literally, as on the day.
16
Jerome most likely saw the problem, since the Vg omits a translation of kayym
altogether in both vv. 31 and 33. Neofiti regularly describes Jacob as pious: see, for
example, Gen. 33.18; Lev. 22.27; and cf. b. ab. 33.
96 chapter six
the law, or both these things. We shall return to this problem, noting
for the moment that Neofiti here displays an attitude which might be
described as anti-halakhic.17
There are difficulties of a different order in v. 34, which offers
the first clear indication that Neofiti regarded Esau as a particularly
wicked man. The Targum translates the Hebrew fairly literally: Jacob
gave Esau bread and lentil pottage, and he ate, drank, rose up, and
went away: so Esau despised his birthright. Neofitis rendering of the
final words of the Hebrew, and its additional material, are set out in
literal translation below:
and Esau despised his birthright, and against (or: upon) the resurrection
of the dead, and he denied the life of the world to come.
In his careful study of the text of Neofiti, B.B. Levy remarks of this
addition that the verb governing the phrase against the resurrection
of the dead is lacking.18 The same author argues in another place that
Neofiti can often betray, through difficulties and irregularities in its
grammar and syntax, reasonably clear evidence of additions to its text.19
May it not be the case that, rather than lacking a verb, this section
represents a later, rather clumsy addition to Neofitis original literal
translation of the Hebrew text? It is true that FTP, FTV, and Ngl show
that the Palestinian Targums contained the substance of this addition;
but they use vocabulary different from that of Neofiti, and Esaus denial
of these things is well known from other rabbinic sources.20 If we also
17
Neofiti does contain rulings which are not in accord with the halakhah: see, for
example, its version of Lev. 10.6; 19.3; and the discussion of these, and other pas-
sages, by B.J. Bamberger, Halakhic Elements in the Neofiti Targum: A Preliminary
Statement, JQR 66 (19751976), pp. 2738.
18
See B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, I (New York, 1986), pp. 174
175.
19
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 2843.
20
Thus FTP, FTV, and Ngl say that Esau desecrated, pys, the life of the world to
come, an expression not used by Neofiti which also avoids the word hwlq, portion or
lot in connection with the world to come. See also Gen. R. 63.14. Pseudo-Jonathan
of Gen. 25.29 includes Esaus denial of the world to come among a list of five sins he
committed on that day: see Gen. R. 63.11; b. B. Bat. 16b; Exod. R. 1.1. Thus Esaus
denial is not uniformly attached by the Targums themselves to v. 34 in particular.
Further, Neofitis literal rendering (bzy) of the Hebrew bzh, he despised, is not shared
with the other Targums; but it is precisely this Hebrew verb R. Levi in Gen. R. 63.14
expounds with reference to resurrection of the dead. Might not Neofitis present text
arise as the result of an addition of the kind of midrash represented by Gen. R. 63.14,
inspired precisely because Targum Neofiti had retained bzy in its translation? On
midrashic additions to Targum Neofiti, see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 5463.
a portrait of the wicked esau 97
21
See A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.;
Jerusalem, 1979) [in Hebrew], I, pp. 98, 117, where other rabbinic witnesses to the
tradition are cited, and attempts to identify the targets of the supposed polemic are
critically assessed.
98 chapter six
Neofiti alone of all the Targums states that Esau will have dominion
over Jacob, wtlt byh, if the latter fails to keep the commandments of
the Torah.
The first two items are closely related. The phenomenon of conflates
in Neofiti has recently been studied by Rimon Kasher, who shows how
scribes have combined readings particularly of the various Palestinian
Targums (rarely of Palestinian Targums and Onqelos) to produce the
present text of Neofiti on many occasions.22 If we have such a conflate
before us, and it seems likely that we do, then Neofiti has most prob-
ably chosen deliberately not to include the further definition of Esaus
brother as the Jews. Rather, Neofiti continues to speak of Esau in the
singular as your brother; and when we turn to the third peculiarity
in its presentation, we note that the singular form in the sentence and
you shall have dominion over reappears towards the end of the verse,
and fits awkwardly with the intervening plural references to the sons
of Jacob and their burden.
One possible explanation of the present state of this verse in Neofiti
would suggest that the whole of the section with plural nouns and verbs,
from and it shall be, when the sons of Jacob labour . . . to . . . restrain
themselves from labouring in the Torah, is a latter addition to a text
which originally, like the Hebrew, had only singular nouns and verbs.
Levy has pointed to the similarities between this section and Neofiti
of Gen. 3.15, where God warns Adam of the consequences which will
follow for his descendants should they keep, or not keep, the com-
mandments of the Torah; and his discussion allows for the possibility
that Neofiti of Gen. 27.40 has modified this well-known material from
Gen. 3.15 before incorporating it into the present text.23
While Levys thesis is plausible, more should be said about Neofitis
translation of the difficult Hebrew verb tryd, rendered in our trans-
lation above as you wander as from the Hiphil of root rwd, show
restlessness. But the verb may derive from other roots; and the ancient
versions offer a wide range of alternative explanations of it, which have
most recently been listed and discussed by Alison Salvesen.24 Neofiti
alone of all these versions seems to derive tryd from the root rdh, to
rule, have dominion, an interpretation of it known also to R. Jose in
22
See R. Kasher, Targumic Conflations in the Ms Neofiti 1, HUCA 57 (1986),
Hebrew section, pp. 119.
23
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 183186.
24
See A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Manchester, 1991), pp. 4748.
a portrait of the wicked esau 99
25
Hebrew wth tml bw. This expression, with second person masculine singular
imperfect Qal of ml, plus bw, occurs only here in the whole Hebrew Bible.
26
See also Sacr. 64, 135. Jub. 35.8 end-10a, which is represented by a Hebrew frag-
ment from Qumran, links Esau to antediluvian wickedness by saying that Esaus yeser
100 chapter six
had been evil since his youth, like those in the days of Nephilim (Gen. 6.5) and the
days of Noah (Gen. 8.21).
27
Apart from the fact that these two sources place their versions of the material
in settings other than Gen. 27.41, it should be noted that their exegetical goals are
quite different from those of Neofiti. Thus Lev. R. gives only a summary of the tradi-
tion. Gen. R. makes Esau recall that God did nothing to Cain for killing his brother,
and removes an ambiguity in the biblical text, found also in Neofiti, by making Esau
plan to kill his father and then his brother. Neofitis I shall wait until the days of my
fathers mourning approach is ambiguous: it may imply, but does not state, that Esau
intended to murder his father, and the version of Gen. R. looks like a further develop-
ment of a targumic insight.
a portrait of the wicked esau 101
also uses this word in both verses.28 Esau is here presented as a military
commander, an understanding of him which we meet also in Jubilees
and in Josephus, Ant. 1.327 (xx:l). Secondly, Neofiti does not share
with FTP, FTV, and Ngl Jacobs suspicion, voiced in a paraphrase
expounding the word mhnh of 32.3, that Esau has come to kill him.29
Thirdly, in the Hebrew of 33.8, Jacob says that he has acted to gain
favour in the eyes of my lord, referring to Esau: Neofiti renders this
phrase as in your sight, so that Jacob does not appear to acknowledge
Esaus superiority.
These may be dealt with briefly. Neofiti and other Palestinian Targums
of Gen. 49.2 and Deut. 6.4 have Jacob refer to Esau as a blemish or a
disqualification, root psl. Ishmael and the sons of Keturah are described
by the same term. The sense is that Esau is unfit to approach God, dis-
qualified from service of the Almighty.30 In Gen. 49.26, he is described
as one of the great ones of the world along with Ishmael. The famous
midrash which tells of Gods offering the Torah to the nations of the
world (Deut. 33.2) represents the sons of Esau rejecting the offer on
the grounds that the Torah contains the commandment thou shalt not
kill; like Esau their father (cf. Targum Neofiti of Gen. 27.41), they are
killers.31
The description of Josephs death in Targum Neofiti of Gen. 50.1
includes mention of the rulers (wltnyn) from the sons of Esau and
Keturah: the representatives of Ishmael, however, are described as
kingdoms (malkwwn) and rulers. None of the Targumim of this verse
apply language of kingship to the sons of Esau at this point: they are
spoken of as mighty men, warriors in FTV, Ngl, and GM; and as
men in Pseudo-Jonathan and FTP. The military character of these
people is again emphasized. And when Israel on their journey from
28
In Gen. 32.7, the interlinear gloss of Neofiti reads pwlmwsyn, and FTV has gwbryn
pwlmr byn, a mistake for pwlmrkyn. On the relationship of these renderings to Gen. R.,
see D.M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti (Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 45.
29
Thus Ngl reads: And Jacob said when he saw them: Perhaps they are camps of
Esau my brother coming before me to kill me . . .
30
The root psl is well known in both rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic as expressing
what is unfit for sacrifice or for food.
31
For further discussion of the Targums of these verses, see C.T.R. Hayward,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 8991.
102 chapter six
Egypt ask permission from the sons of Esau to pass through Edomite
territory, we are struck by the fact that the Edomite reaction described
in Num. 20.18 is missing from the text of Neofiti, as is the name of
Edom in Num. 20.14. It is possible that the Ngl has preserved the text
of Targum Neofiti of Num. 20.18: it notes that the king of Edom, not
spoken of in the Hebrew of this verse, but only in the Hebrew of Num.
20.14, will come against Israel with those who draw the sword.32 But
given Neofitis failure to speak in royal terms of Esaus sons elsewhere,
we may be justified in questioning whether it is certain that Ngl here
represents the original text of Neofiti. Targum Neofiti of Num. 20.21
gives the reason why Israel did not attack the Edomites on this occa-
sion: God had forbidden them to do so, a view shared by Pseudo-
Jonathan, FTV, and Josephus, Ant. 4.7677 (iv.5).
32
See Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1. IV. Nmeros, pp. 184185.
33
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, II (New York, 1987), p. 148 (it seems that the gap
existed in the text copied by the scribe of N); R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque.
III. Nombres (SC, 261; Paris, 1979), pp. 236237; and Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1.
IV. Numeros, p. 238 n. 6, for a discussion of the textual state of Neof. and the other
Targums of these verses.
34
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, II, pp. 151152; Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque,
pp. 240241. The Latin loan-word legio is found in Neofiti again at Gen. 15.1;
Num. 12.16.
a portrait of the wicked esau 103
At Gen. 15.12, the famous midrash which tells how Abraham was
shown the four empires which would enslave Israel is included in
Neofiti, as in Pseudo-Jonathan, FTP, and FTV. In Neofiti, the identity
of the fourth empire has been scratched out of the ms; but there is
little doubt that Edom was intended by Neofiti in this place, as in the
other Targums and midrashim which we know. According to these,
Edoms kingdom is the one which is destined to fall, never to rise
again. Clearly the censor of the ms understood that Edom was here a
cipher for Rome, or for the Christian church; but the text of Neofiti,
as restored along the lines of the other Targums, does not make the
identification explicit.35
Conclusion
35
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, I, pp. 139140; Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque.
I. Gense, pp. 170171, and, for more detailed consideration of the texts referred
to here, R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 271272. On the question
whether Targum Neofiti of Exod. 12.42, the Poem of the Four Nights, makes mention
of Rome, see Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 359369.
104 chapter six
Neofiti, even allowing for the work of the censor. They may also be
superficial; because when we look beyond them, a picture of Esau
emerges which, in important respects, is incompatible with them. For
Esau is revealed as a latter-day Cain. He is so depicted in Gen. 27.41;
25.34; and probably also in 27.40. The note that Esau was a land-
owner (Gen. 25.27) recalls Cains profession as a cultivator of the land
(Gen. 4.2). The hostility of the two brothers Esau and Jacob was very
early related to Cains attack on Abel: it was certainly known to Philo,
and so close was the association of Esau with Cain that the targumic
paraphrases of Gen. 27.41 were given as explanations why Esau did
not, in actual fact, do what everyone might expect him to have done,
and act like Cain in murdering his brother instanter. Esau, in this pic-
ture, is a killer, and his descendants have the same reputation, as in
the ancient exegesis preserved in Neofiti of Deut. 33.2.36
Furthermore, it was notorious that Cains sacrifice (Gen. 4.5) was
not accepted; it was thus pswl, like Esau himself, according to Neofiti
of Gen. 49.2 and Deut. 6.4. And we should note one further, and cru-
cial, fact of biblical history. As Gen. R. 75.9 points out, God did not kill
Cain for murdering his brother; rather, he protected him from anyone
who sought to slay him (Gen. 4.15). The link between Esau and Cain,
therefore, belongs to a world removed from that which could equate
Esau with Rome, because in the latter the everlasting downfall of Rome
is essential stuff of the equation. As the Palestinian Targums of Gen.
15.12 insist, Edom is to fall, never to rise again: there is no question of
this Esau being protected from the wrath of his enemies. We may sug-
gest, therefore, given the evidence of Philo and the observations made
here, that the association between Esau and Cain in Neofiti belongs
to an older stratum of tradition than the EsauRome equation. This
study has, we believe, enabled us to see how the one tradition has been
superimposed on the other.
It would also seem reasonable to argue that verses which present
Esau as a commander of troops, a mighty warrior, and one of the great
ones of the world, but do not speak of him in royal terms (Gen. 32.7;
33.1; 49.26; 50.1) may ante-date the introduction of the EsauRome
equation into Neofiti. These verses do not speak of legions, have no
36
For the dating of the Targums of this verse, see J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its
Development (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 156162 [in Hebrew], and R. Syrn, The Blessings
in the Targums (bo, 1986), pp. 144148.
a portrait of the wicked esau 105
37
Although this text speaks of Ishmael in royal terms, it is unlikely to belong to
the Islamic period, since EsauRomeChristendom certainly had kingdoms at that
time.
38
It was certainly known to St Jerome, Comm. in Iesaiam 21.1112; but how much
older than his time it may be is disputed. J. Neusner, From Enemy to Sibling: Rome and
Israel in the First Century of Western Civilization (New York, 1986), dates it to the fifth
century, but Jeromes evidence suggests an earlier origin for it. Feldman (Josephus
Portrait, pp. 130133) argues that Josephus knew of it, and that it may be traced back
as far as Philo; but it would seem that it became current in rabbinic circles only at the
time of the Second Revolt: see Cohen, Esau as Symbol, pp. 2223; and M.D. Herr,
Edom, EncJud, VI, cols. 379380.
PART TWO
* The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Ktav 1984), abbr. Ps-Jon;
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos
(Leiden 1959), abbr. TO; A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I 5 vols. (Madrid-Barcelona
196878), abbr. N; M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to
their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome 1980), abbr. FT.
1
See W. Bacher, article Targum, Jewish Encyclopaedia 12 (New York 1904),
p. 60; M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin 1903), pp. xviixix; R. Bloch, Note sur
lutilisation des fragments de la Geniza du Caire pour ltude du Targum Palestinien,
REJ 14 (1955), p. 31; and R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo 1986),
pp. 179199, who regard Ps-Jon at base as a Palestinian Targum older than TO, by
which it has been influenced. An earlier date for (proto-) Ps-Jon is implied should it
be that TO depends on a form of Ps-Jon: so G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of
Genesis 4:316, ALUOS 3 (196162); Leiden 1963), pp. 81114, reprinted in Post-
Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden 1975), pp. 92126; G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum and its Relationship to Targum Onkelos (Rome 1972), and R. Syrn, op. cit.
pp. 195199. TO probably reached its final form in the late third to early fourth cen-
turies ad: see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
vol. 1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh 1973), pp. 101102. We shall
not here deal with relationships between Pentateuchal Targumim, nor offer absolute
dates for texts.
110 chapter seven
2
See A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols.,
(Jerusalem 1979) in Hebrew; Live Translation: On the nature of the Aramaic Targums
to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 4149; The Palestinian Targums
Repetition, Internal Unity, Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; D.M. Splansky,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and
Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union CollogeJewish Institute of Religion
1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal
Targumim (Tbingen 1986), pp. 252256.
3
M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal dans Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15 (1975), pp. 367
387.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 111
4
Ibid. pp. 384385.
5
Ibid. p. 386.
6
See below, pp. 112114.
7
Cf. C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of the Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), p. 131, n. 25.
112 chapter seven
acts with Isaac . . . By your life, this son of a slave shall not inherit with
my son Isaac.8
Here Ishmael appears guilty of attempted murder, with malice afore-
thought. Ps-Jon, by contrast, merely suggests that one day Ishmael will
attack Isaac, as Sarah says:
Cast out this handmaid and her son, for it is not possible for the son of
this handmaid to inherit with my son, for he will wage war with Isaac.9
This possibility of future violence, however, is not the only pretext for
Sarahs demand. Earlier, we have been informed that
Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to
Abraham, jesting (mghk) for idolatry and bowing down to it.10
Other Palestinian Targums of this verse agree with Ps-Jon that Ishmael
was a worshipper of idols, a fact which Ps-Jon goes out of his way to
highlight and which will merit full discussion in the next section of
this essay.11 PRE, however, does not say that Ishmael worshipped idols;
rather, he prays to the Lord of the Universe (PRE 30:2). By contrast,
Hagars idolatry is frankly admitted, and is said to have caused her
water-supply to fail:
Because of Abrahams virtue, the water in the wine-skin did not fail.
But when she reached the desert and began to go astray after the idols
of her fathers house (var. lect.: of the Pharaoh) at once the water ceased
in the wine-skin.
Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:15, however, has a different explanation of events:
both Ishmael and Hagar come to the desert and stray after idolatry,
8
PRE 30:1. The text of PRE is translated from quotations in M. Kasher, Torah
Shelemah, vol. 3:2 (Jerusalem 1934), and from the Spanish version of M. Prez
Fernndez, Los Capitulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia 1984).
9
Ps-Jon Gen. 21:10; cf. Gen. R. 53:11.
10
Ps-Jon Gen. 21:9; cf. Gen. R. 53:11 (R. Ishmael); Exod. R. 1:1; and Sifre Deut
31. See the discussion of mghk by H. Bietenhard, Sifre Deuteronomium, Judaica et
Christiana 8 (Bern 1984), pp. 7475. The manuscript of Ps-Jon, the editio princeps, and
Waltons Polyglott read . . . bowing down to the Lord, lyyy: the reading bowing down
to it, lh, is preferred by Ginsburger, op. cit. p. 34, followed by R. le Daut, Targum
du Pentateuque vol. 1 Gense, p. 209. The picture of Ishmael as both idolatrous and
worshipper of the Lord may reflect the historical situation among pre-Islamic Arabs,
many of whom were pagan, while others converted to Judaism: see, e.g. K. Salibi,
A History of Arabia (Beirut 1980), pp. 5074.
11
See N and FT Gen. 21:9, and below, pp. 8284.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 113
12
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit. 210. These witnesses he designates Ven, A, B, viz.,
the edition of PRE printed at Venice in 1544, and MSS Cassanatensia 1.VI.1 and
10.IV.1: see pp. 4144. Ohana seems not to take account of variant readings of manu-
scripts and editions of PRE.
13
PRE 30:1. Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:11, however, differs from PRE: it was Ishmaels idol-
atry which gave displeasure to Abraham.
14
According to Islamic belief, Abraham was a true worshipper of the One God who
built the Kaba at Mecca.
15
Ohana, art. cit. pp. 371373.
114 chapter seven
He took a barrel (var. lect.: clothing; chain) and fastened it to her, and
the girdle with which she carried it dragging across her, to show that
she was a slave; but not only for this reason, but also because Abraham
wanted to see his son and to know by what road he went.16
Nothing resembling this aggadah, nor any mention of a veil, is found
in Ps-Jon; and had Ohana considered the textual problems which PRE
poses at this point, his conclusion may have been other than it was. We
may go further, and note how the Targum has no reference to other
material in PRE which would be of use in anti-Islamic polemic, such
as the revelation to Abraham that Sarah was his divinely predestined
wife, Hagar being a mere slave (contrast Ps-Jon of Gen. 16).
The upshot of all this seems clear: it is highly improbable that Ps-Jon
is simply and directly dependent on PRE for his treatment of Hagar and
Ishmael. Consequently, we may conclude that Ohana has constructed
his thesis of a late dating of Ps-Jon as a whole upon an hypothesis
which cannot stand up to critical analysis. This conclusion, we submit,
is supported by other factors which we shall now investigate.
16
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit. p. 210 and notes.
17
Cf. Ps-Jon of Gen. 11:28, and literature cited by R. le Daut, op. cit. pp. 146147;
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 4546; and J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic
Literature (Cambridge 1969), pp. 179180; 187189.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 115
18
Ohana, art. cit. pp. 385386.
19
See A. Guillaume, Islam (2nd ed., Harmondsworth 1956), pp. 89; p. 40. The mak-
ing of images is strictly forbidden: cf. H.A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historical
Survey (2nd rev. ed., Oxford 1961), p. 68.
20
Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim, ed. P. Antin, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri
Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina LXXII (Turnhout
1959), p. 24.
21
See above, n. 10, and the writings of Nilus and Clement of Alexandria discussed
by J. Wellhausen, Reste Arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed., Berlin 1897), pp. 101109;
118129.
116 chapter seven
Once the Arabs had adopted Islam, their conquest of vast areas of the
Eastern and Western Roman Empires was accomplished in a very short
space of time. Not only was the expansion of Islam rapid; it was also
effective in converting people to the new faith. Ps-Jon, however, seems
to know nothing of Arab expansion outside the traditional lands asso-
ciated with Ishmael and his sons. The Bible names Ishmaels first sons
as Nebaioth and Qedar: Ps-Jon Gen. 25:13 translates them as Nebat and
Arab, ancestors of the Nabataeans and Arabs respectively. The Targum
explains the names of some of Ishmaels other sons symbolically;22 all
of them, however, are said to occupy land stretching from India to
Halusah (Ps-Jon and Targum Neofiti Gen. 25:18), that is, as the Bible
makes clear, eastwards of the land of Israel, from Egypt as one goes to
Assyria.23 Nabataeans and Arabians, however, are singled out as par-
ticularly significant in that area.
Furthermore, Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:16 states that the names of Ishmaels
sons are listed according to their villages, kwprnyhwn, and (military)
camps, wbqstrwwthwn: the Fragment Targum and Targum Onqelos
record similar information. Once again, Jeromes comments on these
verses in Hebraicae Quaestiones coincide almost exactly with the
Targumim. Of the twelve sons of Ishmael, he singles out Nebaioth,
a quo omnis regio ab Euphrate usque ad Mare Rubrum Nabathena usque
hodie dicitur, quae pars Arabiae est.24
His comment shows apparent knowledge of Josephus Antiquities I. 220,
which lists the twelve sons of Ishmael and says that
these occupied the whole country extending from the Euphrates to
the Red Sea and called it Nabatene; and it is these who conferred their
22
In Gen. 25:4 his sons names are given in Hebrew as Mishma, Duma, Massa, and
Hadad: Ps-Jon renders them as Hearing, Silence, Hope (or: Carrying) and Sharpness.
See Tg. of I Chron. 1:30 and Le Daut, op. cit. pp. 243245.
23
Thus Gen. 25:18. See further below, pp. 8586.
24
See Antins edition, cited above, n. 20, p. 31.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 117
names on the Arabian nation and its tribes in honour both of their own
prowess and of the fame of Abraham.25
Thus Jerome shows the Ishmaelites as living in towns, villages, and lit-
tle forts, in the same way as Ps-Jon: having noted the name Nabathena,
which is part of Arabia, he says of those who live there
Nam et familiae eorum oppidaque et pagi ac minuta castella et tribus
eorum appellatione celebrantur ab uno quoque: ex his Cedar in deserto
et Duma alia regio et Theman ad austra et Cedema ad orientem plaga
dicitur.26
Thus Ps-Jon and Jerome describe the region and the dwelling-places
of the Ishmaelites in almost exactly the same terms. And Ps-Jon states
unambiguously that Ishmaels territory was defined, and that he dwelt
there. We can see this by setting his version of Gen. 25:18 alongside
the original Hebrew, which reads in literal translation:
And they dwelt from Havilah up to Shur, which faces Egypt as you came
to Assyria: upon the face of all his brethren he fell.27
Ps-Jon interprets as follows:
They dwelt from India to Halusah, which faces Egypt as you come to
Assyria. And he dwelt in his inheritance in the face of all his brethren.
In other words, Ps-Jon has no inkling that Ishmaelites or Arabs might
occupy zones not allotted to them by God and recorded as such in the
Bible. They live in the wilderness, rearing sheep and cattle for which
they are famous: thus the sheep of Qedar and the rams of Nebaioth are
understood as the sheep of the Arabs and the rams of Nebaioth (Isaiah
60:7 and its Targum), an understanding shared by Ps-Jon of Numbers
11:22, which alludes to the sheep which are in Arabia and the oxen in
Nebat, and by Jerome, who remarks
25
The translation is H.St.J. Thackerays in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IIV,
Loeb Classical Library (Harvard 1967), p. 109. On the Nabateans and their importance
in pre-Islamic times, see Schrer, op. cit. pp. 574586.
26
See Antins edition, p. 31.
27
Even the Biblical verse seems to point to the desert dwellings of the Ishmaelites:
they are outside settled society.
118 chapter seven
Alone of the Targumim, Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:13 says that God will make
of Ishmael a brigand nation. The Targum uses the Greek loan-word
lystys for brigand, the only occurrence of this word in Ps-Jon according
to the concordance prepared by Clarke, Aufrecht, Hurd, and Spitzer.31
The word refers to bandits and raiders who suddenly appear to rob
and destroy property and to loot peoples goods. Once more, Jerome
provides first-hand evidence that, in his day, the Arabs were raiding
and looting the land of Israel, and were notorious for this activity. Thus
he comments on Jeremiah 3:2, which depicts Judah as waiting K rby
bmdbr: this, he says, may be rendered either like a brigand or like a
crow in the desert. He continues:
28
Commentariorum in Esaiam XVII, ed. M. Adriaen, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri
Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica 2A, CCSL LXXIII A (Turnhout 1963), p. 697.
29
See Splansky, op. cit. p. 99.
30
See Tg. Isa. 21:167; Ps. 120:5; Jer. 2:10; and Jerome, In Hieremiam I.22; II.84, ed.
S. Reiter, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica 3, CCSL LXXIV
(Turnhout 1960), 16, p. 101.
31
Op. cit. p. 329.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 119
32
In Hieremiam I.50, ed. Reiter, p. 31.
33
Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 16:12, ed. Antin, p. 21.
34
Cf. Gen. R. 53:11.
35
On the Islamic conquests and the establishment of Pax Islamica, see T.W. Arnold,
The Preaching of Islam (London 1913), pp. 4577; The Cambridge History of Islam, ed.
P.M. Holt, A.K.S. Lambton, and B. Lewis, vol. 1 (Cambridge 1970), pp. 3192.
36
Op. cit. p. 177.
37
Splansky, op. cit. pp. 9899.
120 chapter seven
Ishmael and his sons and the sons of Keturah and their sons went
together and they dwelt from Paran to the entrance to Babylon in all of
the land which faces the east opposite the desert. And these mixed with
each other, and they are called Arabs or Ishmaelites.38
That is to say, both Targum and Jubilees see Ishmael as mingling with
his brethren, which whom he dwells, as Scripture itself makes clear
(Gen. 25:18): he is not resident among non-Semitic peoples. This point
is even more strongly maintained in Ps-Jon than in Jubilees, since the
former identifies Keturah with Hagar (Ps-Jon Gen. 25:1), and her sons
will therefore be Ishmaels brethren in the fullest sense of the word.39
Once more, Jerome attests that this identification was made by Jews in
the fourth century ad, and has material of his own to contribute about
the sons of Keturah.40
In the light of the above remarks, we may properly deal with a mat-
ter to which Splansky attaches some significance: he argues that Ps-Jon
betrays his post-Islamic date by frequently suppressing mention of the
sons of Keturah in those aggadic sections which he holds in common
with other midrashic sources, and which do indeed include reference
to the sons of Keturah. Such omissions, he argues, often enable Ps-Jon
to juxtapose Ishmael with Edom in exegetical passages which may
be derogatory to them both, and thereby to address a world divided
between Islam (= Ishmael) and Christianity (= Edom = Rome).41
This theory, however, is contradicted by important aggadic para-
phrases like Ps-Jon Gen. 27:29 and 49:26, where the sons of Keturah,
far from being suppressed, are explicitly named along with the sons
of Ishmael in Isaacs blessing of Jacob; and by the evidence of Jubilees,
cited earlier, which states that Ishmaels and Keturahs sons were min-
gled together. The fact that Ps-Jon also identifies Hagar and Keturah
means that the sons of Ishmael and Keturah are to all intents and pur-
poses the same family group, and that the supposed omission of the
latter from a few aggadic passages is unlikely to bear the significance
which Splansky appears to find.
38
Translated by O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
vol. 2, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (London 1985), p. 94. (Italics ours.)
39
FT and two marginal glosses of N also identify Keturah as Hagar: cf. Gen. R.
61:4 (R. Judah) and PRE 30:4. For explanations, see le Daut, op. cit. p. 241; Prez
Fernndez, op. cit. p. 213; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews vol. 5 (Philadelphia
1955), pp. 264265; and Shinan, The Aggadah vol. 1, p. 98.
40
Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 25:1, ed. Antin, pp. 3031.
41
Splansky, op. cit. pp. 9294.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 121
42
Splansky, op. cit. pp. 9698.
43
See Wintermute, op. cit. p. 86; R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees, Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament vol. 1 (Oxford 1913), p. 36; Charles rev. by C. Rabin,
Jubilees, The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford 1984), p. 55.
44
For detailed discussion and a list of Rabbinic references, see Syrn, op. cit.
pp. 5860, 135136. The exegesis of mountains as eminent persons is attested already
122 chapter seven
May the blessings of your father be added to the blessings with which my
fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob blessed me, which the princes of the
world, Ishmael, Esau, and all the sons of Keturah desired . . .
The Hebrew expression gbt wlm, everlasting hills, is thus understood
as symbolic of these princes, whom the hills represent and which the
Bible qualifies by wlm, a word meaning both everlasting and world.45 It
is the biblical text itself, therefore, which leads to the Targums exegesis,
since the word wlm requires translation into Aramaic. Consequently,
it is highly unlikely that any reference to Islam, however indirect, is
intended by the translator; and it is certainly unnecessary to posit
one.
Closely related to Gen. 49 is the Blessing of Moses recorded in
Deut. 33. Ps-Jon to verse 2 of this chapter relates a famous aggadah,
that God offered to give the Torah to the sons of Esau and of Ishmael
before He offered it to the Israelites, but they refused to accept it. Joseph
Heinemanns careful study of this tradition has led him to conclude
that Ps-Jons version of it is the oldest form extant. If Heinemanns
results can be accepted, then we have yet another indication that
Ps-Jons picture of Ishmael is essentially pre-Islamic.46
by 11Q Melch line 17 commenting on Isa. 52:7, that the mountains of that text refer
to prophets.
45
With Ps-Jon cf. very closely TO: May the blessings of your father be added to
the blessings with which my fathers blessed me, which the princes who were from of
old (rbrby dmn lm) desired for themselves.
46
See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and Its Development (Jerusalem 1974), pp. 156162
(in Hebrew), and Syrn, op. cit. pp. 144148.
47
Ps-Jon of Gen. 17:26 should read: On that very day, on the fourteenth of Nisan,
Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son. The one surviving Ms. of Ps-Jon,
British Library add. 27031, omits Nisan; while the editio princeps and Waltons
Polyglott read nyn, years. This reading is probably an error for Nisan: see S. Speier,
The Date of the Circumcision of Abraham and Ishmael according to the Targum
attributed to Jonathan, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 29
(196061), pp. 6973 Hebrew section, and Le Daut, op. cit. pp. 184185.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 123
to explain how, in the course of the long aggadah in Ps-Jon Gen. 22:1,
Ishmael can claim to be more meritorious than Isaac.
The aggadah itself points to a debate in purely Jewish terms: Ishmael
and Isaac dispute the right of inheritance from Abraham. Ishmael is
the first-born son, while Isaac asserts that Ishmael is a slave-womans
son, he the son of Abrahams free wife Sarah. Ishmael then claims
righteousness through his voluntary circumcision at the age of thir-
teen years, taunting Isaac with the latters involuntary circumcision
when he was but eight days old. Stung into response, Isaac declares
that, being now thirty-seven years old, he would hand himself over
entirely to God: thus the stage is set for the Aqedah, the sacrifice of
Isaac, which follows.
The origins of the aggadah can be traced in the first century ad.
It tackles a problem implicit in the Torah itself which existed long
before the appearance of Islam, namely, the status of those descen-
dants of Abraham who, like the Jews, are themselves circumcised.48
The Targum solves the problem: not circumcision alone, but that and
descent from Isaac establish the Jews as Gods people, and the Aqedah
proves the point.
It is highly improbable, however, that Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:1 originated
as a counter to Islam. Ishmael claims right of inheritance because of
his merit gained through voluntary circumcision; but Islam does not
regard circumcision as sufficient to justify a mans claim to be Muslim.
The rite is indeed of great importance, and is almost universally prac-
tised; but the Koran is silent about it.49 Rather, it is submission to the
will of God and acceptance of the Prophets revelation which make
a man Muslim. It is hard to see how any Muslim could claim that
Ishmaels circumcision gave Muslims a special status before God,
expecially since, from the earliest days of the Islamic conquests, non-
Arabs embraced the religion on the basis of their faith in it.
48
See R. Le Daut, Traditions targumiques dans le Corpus Paulinien?, Biblica 42
(1961), pp. 3743; idem, op. cit. pp. 214215; and Hayward, art. cit., pp. 129132:
I must now modify what I wrote there (p. 131) about the possible anti-Islamic bias in
this verse of Ps-Jon. It seems that Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians
II.469, knew of Jewish traditions that Isaac and Ishmael had quarrelled over the mat-
ter of circumcision.
49
See A.J. Wensinck, article Khitn, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed. vol. 5 (Leiden
1986), pp. 2022; Gibb, op. cit. p. 64.
124 chapter seven
7. Conclusion
50
See R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome 1963), pp. 131212; G. Vermes,
Redemption and Genesis XXII, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, (2nd ed., Leiden
1973), pp. 193227; P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition
History, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 514546; and C.T.R. Hayward, art. cit.
51
See Ohana, art. cit. p. 178; R. Gottheil, article Abraham, Jewish Encyclopaedia
vol. 1 (New York 1901), p. 89; R. Paret, article Isml, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new
ed. vol. 4 (Leiden 1978), p. 184.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 125
the finished text of Ps-Jon. A post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon, then, stands
revealed as at best unproven, and more probably as highly uncertain.
Clearly, it cannot be assumed as a result of modern scholarship; and
future discussion of Ps-Jon must be wary of accepting it without more
rigorous proof than has hitherto been forthcoming.
CHAPTER EIGHT
* The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible
in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959);
A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I, 5 vols. (Madrid and Barcelona, 19681978); M.L. Klein,
The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1980).
1
See R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature Targumique (Rome, 1966), pp.
89101, and the survey of more recent literature in B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of
Targumic Literature, vol. II (New York, 1977), pp. 3140; A. Dez Macho, El Targum
(Madrid, 1982). There is good critical discussion of Ps-Jon in the specialist study of
G. Bienaim, Mose et le don de leau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et
Midrash (Rome, 1984).
2
See e.g. M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal dans
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15 (1975),
pp. 367387; and A. Shinan, The Nature of the Targum of the Torah attributed to
Jonathan, Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1986),
pp. 109116 (in Hebrew).
3
See D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to other Targu-
mim, Use of Midrashim, and Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), and the convenient survey of material in A.N.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 127
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen,
1986), pp. 252256.
4
Cf. A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols.
(Jerusalem, 1979) (in Hebrew), especially vol. 1, pp. 119146; idem, The Palestinian
TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287.
5
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155177; vol. 2, pp. 243285; and idem, Live
Translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3
(1983), pp. 4149.
6
See G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:316, The Annual of the
Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (196162; Leiden, 1963), pp. 81114; reprinted in
Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975), pp. 92126.
128 chapter eight
Verse 1
And it happened when Isaac grew old that his eyes grew too dim to see,
because when his father had bound him, he had looked on the Throne of
Glory, and from that time his eyes began to become dim. So he called Esau
his elder son on the fourteenth of Nisan and said to him: My son, behold,
on this night the high ones praise the Lord of the World, and on it the
treasuries of dews are opened. And he said to him, Here I am.
7
Cf. G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and its Relationship to Targum
Onkelos (Rome, 1972); R. le Daut, op. cit., pp. 100101. However, the unpublished
Ph.D. thesis of G.J. Cowling, The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Inves-
tigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts (University of Aberdeen, 1968),
includes detailed criticisms of Vermess article.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 129
The Targum has translated the Hebrew almost literally, but has inserted
into its rendering three exegetical comments. First, Isaac has become
blind because he has looked on the Throne of Glory on the occasion
of the Aqedah. Indeed, at Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:10 we are told that Isaac
saw the angels of the height as he lay bound on the altar, a tradition
known also to Targum Neofiti (N), and the Fragment Targums repre-
sented by the Paris and Vatican Manuscripts (FT(P) and FT(V)) of the
same verse. Ps-Jon is thus in agreement with the other PTgg, and the
interpretation of Gen. 27:1 recalls that agreement. A similar reason for
Isaacs blindness is given in Ber. R. 65:10, where it is so elaborated that
tears streaming from the eyes of the watching angels fall into Isaacs
eyes and make him lose his sight. Ps-Jon is silent about other supposed
causes of Isaacs disability which are recorded in late documents. Thus
Tanhuma Toledot 8 states that God made Isaac blind so that he should
not have to see the idolatrous practices of Esaus wives; or, by way of
another explanation, so that Isaac should not recognize that he was,
in fact, giving his blessing to Jacob, and not to his favourite son Esau.
The Midrash Ha-Gadol, however, tells us that God deprived Isaac of
sight lest he should look on Esaus wicked deeds.8
With these late texts Ps-Jon has nothing in common. Nonetheless,
in PRE 32:4 R. Simon states that when Isaac was bound he saw the
Shekhina, and had consequently become blind. As a result of this
statement, PRE 32:4 is often adduced as a parallel to Ps-Jon. The two
texts are, however, only superficially similar: the Targum relates that
Isaacs father had bound him, that he had seen the Throne of Glory,
and that his eyes, from that time onwards, had begun to grow dim. By
contrast, PRE says that when Isaac was bound (there is no reference
to his father) he saw the Shekhina; and he did not die, as, by rights,
he should have done (Exod. 33:20). Rather, his sight was weakened at
the time of his old age. From this, one may conclude that a blind man
8
On Isaacs blindness and the Aqedah, see R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome,
1963), p. 140, and Debarim R. 33:1 cited by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol.
1, Gense (Paris, 1978), p. 256. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1934)
(in Hebrew), pp. 1069, 1071, notes the traditions of the Tanhuma and the Midrash
Ha-Gadol. FT(P) states that the Holy Spirit was removed from Isaac so that Jacob
could receive the blessing; cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim IV.196, translated by
R. Marcus, Philo Supplement 1, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).
130 chapter eight
9
For the text of PRE, I have used quotations in Kashers Torah Shelemah and the
translation of M. Prez Fernndez, Los Caplulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia, 1984); see
p. 227 for the stress on Isaac still living.
10
See Vermes, art. cit., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, pp. 111112. Rashi quotes the
tradition in his comment on Gen. 27:9.
11
See Philo II, translated by F.H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.,
1968); compare this description of Jacob with Ps-Jon of verse 11. The discipline of
Torah study is called in IV Macc. 13:22.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 131
12
See Josephus, Antiquities I.267: .
13
See le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 256256, for the link between Passover
and prayers for dew.
14
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 227.
15
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 262263: he does not refer to the Ms. variant
in PRE, which coincides with Rebeccas words later in the text.
16
See I. Elbogen, Der jdische Gottesdienst, 3rd ed. (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1931),
p. 214; A.Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1960), p. 196.
17
See I Enoch 60:20; II Enoch 6:1; b. Taanith 4b.
132 chapter eight
Verse 5
And Rebecca heard by means of the Holy Spirit when Isaac was speaking
with Esau his son; so Esau went to the field to hunt prey to bring it.
Ps-Jon refers to Rebeccas possession of the Holy Spirit again at verse
42, thereby indicating that she is one of the prophetesses of Israel: the
Targum shares this understanding of the Matriarch with a number
of other Rabbinic texts, all of which have been discussed by Schfer.18
PRE 32, although included in their number, does not say that Rebecca
heard Isaac, still less that she did so through the Holy Spirit; the refer-
ence to the Spirit is directed towards a quite different end.19
Verse 6
And Rebecca said to Jacob her son, saying, Behold, on this night the high
ones are uttering praise to the Lord of the world, and on it the treasuries
of dew are opened; and I have heard your father speaking with Esau your
brother, saying:
Precisely because Rebecca had heard through the Spirit what Isaac had
said, she repeats his words exactly as they are recorded in verse 1.
PRE 32:4 stands apart from Ps-Jon, and does not suggest that Rebecca
possessed the Holy Spirit; consequently, she is made to say that
the treasuries of the dews are to be opened, and that the angels of the
height will sing, thereby reversing the order of things set out by the
Targum. PRE then says that Jacobs sons will be delivered in the future
on Passover night, and that they will sing a song: of this, Ps-Jon says
nothing, although a reference to future redemption and the Song at
the Sea would be appropriate in the present context, and might even
have been expected, had the Targum been dependent on PRE.20
18
P. Schfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur
(Mnchen, 1972), p. 55; le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 257; Kasher, op. cit.,
p. 1075. See also Ber. R. 67:9; Tanhuma Toledot 10.
19
Isaac commands Esau to make him a good dinner, and PRE states that the Holy
Spirit agrees with this when it says Do not eat the bread of the niggard, Prov. 23:6.
20
PRE also records that Isaac had asked Esau to prepare him a good dinner, infor-
mation which Rebecca passes to Jacob. This is not found in Ps-Jon.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 133
Verse 9
Go now to the sheep-shed, and take for me from there two kids of the
goats, fat ones; one for the Pesah, and one for the hagigah; and I will
make them into savoury food for your father, just as he loves.
The Bible speaks of two goats rather than one, and Ps-Jon offers an
explanation: one is the Passover victim, the other a hagigah, an animal
killed to provide supplementary meat for the meal.21
PRE 32:4 agrees with Ps-Jon as to the purpose of the two goats, and
is generally cited as a parallel to the Targum at this point.22 Yet once
again PREs exegesis is, in truth, quite different from the Targums.
First it reports Rebeccas order to Jacob, and speaks of his fear that he
might invoke his fathers curse, a fear which his mother disarms. Next,
we read that Jacob went and took two kids of the goats:
Did Isaacs meal then consist of two goat-kids? Was he not satisfied
with one? As it is said, The righteous has enough to satisfy the appetite
(Prov. 13:25). One was to celebrate the Passover, and the other to pre-
pare him a good meal, as has been handed down to us by tradition: the
Paschal victim comes only when a man is satisfied.
Both Targum and PRE are clearly dependent on well-known Talmudic
rules about the Passover lamb and its supplementary hagigah, and for
the Targum these rules sufficiently explain the presence of two goats.
Ps-Jon seems entirely ignorant of any suggestion that Isaac may have
been a glutton, even to the extent of describing the lambs as fat ones.23
PRE, however, is obviously concerned to exonerate Isaac from the
charge of gluttony.
It is not easy to discover the identity of those who may have slan-
dered Isaac in this way, but it is evident that some such charge against
him was known in pre-Christian times, since Philo offers an apologia
for the Patriarchs large appetite in Quaestiones in Genesim IV.200. He
speaks of Isaac as a man of enormous stature and wonderful structure,
such as befits a man of virtue and the founder of such a nation as
21
See m. Pesahim 6:3; t. Pes. 5:3; b. Pes. 114b.
22
Cf. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 258; M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan
(Berlin, 1903), p. 48; E.B. Levine, The Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and
Neofiti I to Genesis: Parallel References, in A. Dez Macho (ed.), Ms. Neophyti I, vol.
2: xodo (Madrid and Barcelona, 1970), p. 559.
23
This point has not, it seems hitherto been noticed. LXX of this verse describes
the kids as tender and good.
134 chapter eight
Verse 11
And because Jacob was a sin-fearing man, he was afraid lest his father
should curse him; and he said, Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man,
but I am a smooth man.
Shinan rightly observes that PRE 32:4 tallies with Ps-Jon in report-
ing Jacobs fear of his fathers curse, but fails to speak of him as a
sin-fearing man.28 There is no suggestion of Jacobs fear in the text
of Genesis 27, and the expression sin-fearing man is found in Ps-Jon
only in this verse. The sin-fearing man is, of course, well known from
Mishnah Aboth 2:8, and may be defined as one who sees what will be,
that is, one who weighs up the consequences of an action or a state
24
Marcus, op. cit., above, n. 8, translates: (This he did) not through insatiableness,
for he was continent as no-one else has ever been found (to be), but because of his
wonderful structure.
25
See Marcus, op. cit., p. 490; cf. E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, vol. III.2
(Edinburgh, 1987), p. 829. Procopius gave the exegesis some currency: it is refuted by
Cornelius Lapide, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosis (Antwerp, 1623), p. 230.
26
See Marcus, op. cit., pp. 492493, for translation and notes.
27
Cf. above, p. 130.
28
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 135
Verse 12
According to the Bible, Jacob is afraid that Isaac regard him as a
mocker, . Both Ps-Jon and N interpret the Hebrew word as
, as one who jests: this is a term used specifically of idol-wor-
ship in Ps-Jon Exod. 32:6, 18 (the episode of the golden calf ) and in
Gen. 21:9 with reference to Ishmael.33 In like manner, Ber. R. 65:15
and b. Sanhedrin 32a understand the Hebrew word to signify idola-
trous practice. Ps-Jons translation of it may have sexual connotations,
as in Ps-Jon Gen. 39:14, 17; and it is otherwise used in a bad sense at
29
See m. Aboth 2:9, where R. Simeon b. Nathanael, dubbed a sin-fearer in the
preceding mishnah, says that the good way to which a man should adhere is one that
sees what will be.
30
As he rightly observes, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 55, PRE provides a parallel only for the
end of Ps-Jons comment.
31
Translated by O.S. Wintermute in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (London, 1985), p. 106. Philo comments on this verse in De
Migratione Abraham 153 that Jacob, the practiser of good things, is called smooth by
Scripture. Once again Jacob is seen as the practiser of Torah, who, almost by defini-
tion, fears sin.
32
See Josephus, Antiquities I.270.
33
See Ohana, art. cit., for a view of this verse as anti-Islamic. But have Jews ever
regarded Islam as idolatrous?
136 chapter eight
Gen. 18:13, 15; 19:14; 38:23. Ps-Jon makes it clear that Jacob wishes
to avoid being suspected of idolatry, and will soon indicate in a quite
subtle and suggestive way that Esau commits that very sin by bringing
a stewed dog to his father.34
Verse 13
And his mother said to him, If he blesses you with blessings, may they
come upon you and upon your children; but if he curses you with curses,
let them come upon me and upon my soul. But listen to me and go, take
for me . . .
The aggadic expansion of the verse is of an obvious kind and spells
out rather woodenly what is the plain sense of the text. PRE 32:4 has
a similar, but much shorter, comment:
His mother said to him, My son, may blessings be upon you and on
your descendants. But if (there are) curses, may they come on me and on
my soul, as it is said, On me be thy curse, my son (Gen. 27:13).
The exegesis is substantially the same in Targum and PRE, and Kasher
adduces further examples of the same interpretation in later midrashic
collections.35 While N renders the verse literally, TO offers a version
which altogether rules out the nagging doubts of Rebeccas speech in
Ps-Jon:
And his mother said to him: It has been said to me in prophecy that
curses shall not come upon you, my son.
TO remembers what Ps-Jon seems temporarily to have forgotten, that
Rebecca is a prophetess: she therefore has foreknowledge of Isaacs
blessing.36 Ps-Jons interpretation of this verse was open to dangerous
possibilities. Any hint that Isaac might have cursed Jacob could be of
service to anti-Jewish propagandists, and perhaps for this very reason
TO so effectively excludes the line of exegesis represented by Ps-Jon,
PRE, and other documents. Given TOs standpoint, it is hard to see
34
See below, p. 146.
35
See Kasher, op. cit., p. 1079.
36
TO here assumes the very tradition which Ps-Jon has explicitly enunciated in
verse 1.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 137
how Ps-Jons interpretation of this verse could have come into exis-
tence after the rise to power of Christianity or Islam.37
Verse 15
So Rebecca took the desirable garments of Esau her elder son, which
were from the first Adam; for on that day Esau had not put them on,
so that they were left with her in the house. And she clothed Jacob her
younger son.
The tradition that the garments which God made for Adam were handed
down to subsequent generations of first-born sons is very widespread,
and most of the sources name Esau as one of the recipients.38 Shinan
attaches special significance to its place in this verse, maintaining that
the proper location for this Targumic aggadah is retained by N, the
glosses of Targum Neofiti (Ngl), and FT, who include it in their ver-
sions of Gen. 48:22 as an explanation of the which Jacob
gave to Joseph.39 These Targumim speak of the garments as passed
down from Abraham to Isaac (via Nimrod, according to N); thence
to Jacob and to Joseph. Shinan believes that Ps-Jon has shortened the
aggadah and moved it from its rightful context: such procedures are all
that might be expected of a work which is the contrived product of a
literary process, and serve to indicate the late date of the Targum.40
It seems highly probable, however, that Shinans account of this verse,
and the conclusions which he draws, are mistaken. All the Targumim
of the Pentateuch, except TO, agree with the general tradition of other
Rabbinic texts that Esau received Adams garments, but this tradition
is preserved in two distinct forms, a fact which Shinan has failed to
notice. In the first form, the garments reach Esau via Nimrod, either
indirectly through Isaac (e.g. N, Ngl, FT of Gen. 48:22), or directly as
a result of his taking them from Nimrod by force (e.g. Ber. R. 65:16;
37
Ps-Jon also fails to tackle the theological problem posed by Jacobs successful
deceiving of Isaac, a matter which was greatly to exercise Christian exegetes like
Augustine: see his Contra Mendacium 10:4. Again, Jacobs mendacity would have
provided useful material for Islamic controversialists!
38
Cf. FT(P), N, Ngl, FT(V) to Gen. 48:22; yer. Megillah 1.11; Bemidbar R. 4:8;
Tanhuma B. Toledot 67; PRE 24:2, 5; Wayyiqra R. 18:2; Aggadath Bereshith 42; Shir
Ha-Shirim Zutta 3:8; Tanhuma B. Bereshith 9.
39
Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 117118, 156.
40
Ibid., pp. 155160.
138 chapter eight
PRE 24:5). The garments which come to Esau through Nimrod have a
strongly marked royal and military character.41
The second form never includes Nimrod amongst those who receive
the garments, which are priestly vestments, the special robes of the
first-born who acted as priests before Levi was chosen for the priestly
office.42 It is to this form of the tradition that Ps-Jon of Gen. 27:15
belongs. Nowhere does Ps-Jon indicate that Esau acquired the gar-
ments from Nimrod. This fact is significant, given that he had ample
opportunity to do so, recording as he does Esaus murder of Nimrod
and his son which, in other sources, is said to have been motivated
by Esaus overweening desire for the robes.43 Further, we have drawn
attention to the sacrificial and cultic elements which are to the fore in
Ps-Jons exegesis of this chapter, and priestly robes fit properly into
this context.
Already in the fourth century ad it was a common opinion that
Esaus garments were priestly robes. The Christian scholar Jerome
states clearly that Gen. 27:15 was referred by the Jews of his day to
the garments in which first-born sons had served as priests before the
time of Aaron, and his report is confirmed by the Jerusalem Talmud
and other texts.44 That these pre-Levitical robes had once belonged to
Adam was also widely known.45 To this nexus of ideas Ps-Jon properly
belongs, and it is consequently a mistake to connect his exegesis in any
way with the PTgg of Gen. 48:22.
41
This is clear from Pesiqta Rabbati 23/24:2 and PRE 24:2, which quotes R. Aqibas
view that Nimrod was a universal monarch, possessing Adams garments. See also
Kasher, op. cit., p. 1026.
42
See Ber. R. 97:6; yer. Meg. 1.11; Bem. R. 4:8; Tanhuma B. Toledot 67; Aggadath
Bereshith 42; FT(P) to Gen. 48:22; Ber. R. 20:12; Tanhuma B. Bereshith 9; Tanhuma
Toledot 12; Midrash Abkir on Gen. 3:21.
43
See Ps-Jon on Gen. 25:27. But there is no mention of his motive for the killing,
and the supposed parallel with PRE 24:5 is at best superficial, although it is cited
by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 246; Ginsburger, op. cit., p. 45; and Levine,
op. cit., p. 558.
44
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim, ed. P. Antin, S. Hieronymi
Presbyteri Opera Pars 1. Opera Exegetica, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72
(Turnhout, 1959), p. 34; yer. Meg. 1:11; and cf. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque,
pp. 258259.
45
See texts cited above, n. 42. The antiquity of the tradition of Adams priestly
garments is well argued by S.P. Brock, Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac, in
A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet (Gttingen, 1975),
pp. 98104; Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 222223.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 139
Verse 20
In response to Isaacs question how it was that Jacob had found ani-
mals so quickly, the latter replied that it was because the Lord had sent
him success, . The Hebrew verb might suggest that the Lord had
done this by chance;48 Ps-Jon, N and TO, therefore, indicate that the
animals were prepared by the Lord, using the verbal root to do so.49
This root may be significant, since the Targumim use it in the con-
text of the Aqedah, which took place at Passover time. Thus N, FT(P)
46
PRE 24:5. Although Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 181, connects this exegesis with
Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:27, the differences between the two texts are sharp. Ps-Jon does not
refer to Adams garments; makes mention of Enoch, Nimrods son, which PRE does
not; and has no allusion to the hiding of the garments either here or in Gen. 27.
47
Unlike Aggadath Bereshith 42, Ps-Jon does not explain why Esaus garments were
in his mothers house.
48
The root has the sense of meet, encounter, happen by accident.
49
Ps-Jon uses this root in verse 25 to refer to the wine which the angel brought
to Jacob.
140 chapter eight
and FT(V) to Gen. 22:8 use forms of to refer to the lamb which
the Lord will make ready and prepare for the whole burnt offering.
Furthermore, Ps-Jon on Lev. 22:27 uses the same root with respect to
the lamb substituted for Isaac at the Aqedah, and speaks also of Isaacs
blessing of Jacob clad in goatskins. The connection of this chapter and
verse of Leviticus with the Passover will be discussed further below.50
It should be noted that PRE makes no reference to Gods preparation
of animals for Jacob.
Verse 25
The verse is rendered literally until mention is made of the wine which
Jacob brought in to his father; Ps-Jon then continues:
But he had no wine with him. And the angel made ready for him, and
brought some wine which been stored up in its grapes since the days of the
beginning of the world, and he put it in Jacobs hand; and Jacob brought
it to his father, and he drank.
There has been no mention of wine until this moment: what, then was
its place of origin? Ps-Jon provides the answer, in agreement with the
Tanhuma.51 The pre-Rabbinic texts appear to ignore the wine alto-
gether; similarly, PRE is silent about it. For Ps-Jon, however, the mat-
ter is of some importance, and serves to link the blessing of Jacob
with primordial time and the Garden of Eden. Indeed, this Targum
indicates that certain events in the lives of the Patriarchs repair the
relationship with God which Adam had damaged, and to some extent
restore the harmony between God and man which had existed in the
Paradise garden.52 Ps-Jon again manages to bring into play a parallel-
ism between Isaac and Rebecca on the one hand, and Adam and Eve
on the other, in his exegesis of verse 45.
50
See below, pp. 142143.
51
Tanhuma B. Toledot 16; cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 262, who cites also
Yalqut Shimoni; and le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 260, for other Rabbinic
references to the wine.
52
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), pp. 132134.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 141
Verse 27
Ps-Jon translates literally until the words of Isaacs blessing, which he
renders as follows:
See, the smell of my son is like the smell of the sweet incense which is to
be offered on the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary, which is called
Field which the Lord has blessed and where He has been pleased to make
his Shekhina to dwell.
Proper appreciation of this exegesis requires us to compare it with the
versions of the other targumim. Thus FT as preserved in Vatican Ms
440 reads:
like the smell of good sweet-smelling incense which is to be offered on
the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary, which the Lord, He who
lives and exists, has blessed.
The FT preserved in Paris Ms 110 closely resembles FT(V), but speci-
fies that the incense is offered on top of the altar. N is slightly more
verbose:
like the smell of good sweet-smelling incense which is to be offered on
top of the altar on the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary. This is the
mountain which He who lives and exists for all the ages has blessed.
The Ngl record two variants: in the first, Jacobs smell is compared, not
with the incense, but with the garden which is planted in the portion/
field of Eden; in the second, the comparison is with good sweet-smell-
ing aromatics which are to be offered on the mountain of the house of
Sanctuary which the word of the Lord has blessed.
Ps-Jon clearly represents a well-defined tradition of the PTgg found
in very similar form in FT(V) and the fragmentary material of the sec-
ond Ngl. There is no question here of Ps-Jon relating to us an abbrevi-
ated version of material common to the PTgg.53 Most of the individual
elements of the exegesis may be found in other Rabbinic works: thus
Tanhuma Toledot 22 explains the verse with reference to the incense;
the field is taken by Sifre Debarim 352 to mean the Sanctuary; and the
reference to the Garden of Eden in Ngl, which is so much bound up
with the Sanctuary, is paralleled by Ber. R. 65:22. Indeed, the source
53
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 9899: this verse closes a Seder, and, like
others of its kind, calls forth extended Targumic aggadah as a result.
142 chapter eight
54
Ps-Jon Exod. 40:5.
55
See Exod. 30:6, 36.
56
Ps-Jon Gen. 25:27.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 143
. . . the kid of the goats was chosen after it to recall the virtue of the
perfect man ( )who made a kid of the goats into savoury meat
and brought it to his father, and was worthy to receive the order of
blessing.
This portion of Scripture has a long and ancient association with the
Passover.57 Jacob is seen as a wise man, a Torah scholar, a perfect
man; given the symbolic interpretation of the incense elsewhere in the
Targum, we can see how the exegesis of the verse came about, and
the complex and subtle meanings which are latent within it. Given
Philos interpretation of Gen. 27:27, we may simply note that there is
no necessary reason why Ps-Jons exegesis should be late. PRE offers
no parallel to the Targum at this point.58
Verse 28
And may the word of the Lord give you of the good of the dews which
come down from heaven, and of the good of the fountains which ascend
and make the sprouting things of the earth grow below, and plenty of
corn and wine.
This should be closely compared with Ns rendering of the verse:
And may the Lord give you of the good of the dew, the choicest which
comes down from heaven, and of the good of the earth; and abundance
of corn, wine, and oil.
Ps-Jons exegesis of the second part of the verse is inspired by Deut.
33:13 and Gen. 49:25, in which Moses and Jacob respectively bless
Joseph. This is the exegesis of Scripture by Scripture, in which pas-
sages having material in common are explained in the light of each
others meanings. Ps-Jon has no contact with the elaborate and highly
wrought homily of PRE 32:4 (end):
R. Jehudah said: Isaac blessed Jacob with ten blessings; for the dew of
heaven and for the wheat of the earth, according to the ten utterances
with with the world was created, as it is said, May God give you the dew
of heaven (Gen. 27:28). And when Jacob went out from the presence
of his father, he went crowned like a bridegroom, as a bride with her
jewels; and on him descended the dew of heaven which gave life, and
57
Cf. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 141142, 170174.
58
For Sages compared with incense, see also ben Sira 39:1314; b. Menahoth 110a;
and possibly 4QFlor 1:6, where the Hebrew root , often used of the incense offer-
ing, is applied to the , which offers up the works of the Torah.
144 chapter eight
his bones acquired new strength, and so he was turned into a valiant and
strong warrior. For this reason it is said: By virtue of the hand of the
mighty one of Jacob, by the name of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel
(Gen. 49:24).
It should be evident that Ps-Jon and PRE are not related in their com-
ments on this verse. One may, perhaps, ask why this should be the
case, if there were any substance in the suggestion that other verses
of Ps-Jon in this chapter are dependent upon, or closely related to,
PRE?
Verse 29
May the nations, all the sons of Esau, be in subjection to you; and may
the kingdoms, all the sons of Keturah, do obeisance before you. Be a great
one and ruler over your brethren, and may your mothers sons be the
first to ask of your welfare. May those who curse you, my son, be cursed
like Balaam the son of Beor; and may those who bless you be blessed
like Moses the prophet, the scribe of Israel.
With justice Shinan remarks that he has not found a complete paral-
lel to Ps-Jons exegesis, although both he and other scholars note that
parts of it feature in other midrashic collections.59 Ps-Jon shares with
the other PTgg the expressions great one and ruler and to ask of your
welfare, but it diverges noticeably from them in choice of vocabulary,
using , be in subjection, in stead of their word , serve, and
, do obeisance, where they use . The evidence of the vocabu-
lary suggests that while Ps-Jon is linked with the tradition of the PTgg,
it nonetheless stands somewhat apart from it.
This suspicion is confirmed when we examine the exegesis in detail.
The Bible lists four groups who are to be placed under Jacobs author-
ity: peoples, nations, his brethren, and his mothers sons. All the PTgg,
N, FT(V), FT(P) and Ps-Jon refer to the peoples as sons of Esau; other
sources explain them as sons of Noah, or the seventy nations.60 The
nations become kingdoms in all PTgg, and are then further defined in
Ps-Jon as the sons of Keturah; not so N, FT(V) and FT(P), who dub
them all the sons of Ishmael. In dealing with brethren and mothers
59
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 99, who cites Kasher to this verse; cf. also le
Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 260, 262.
60
For the sons of Noah, see Tanhuma Toledot 16; Aggadath Bereshith 42; and for
the seventy nations, see Ber. R. 66:4.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 145
sons Ps-Jon translates the Hebrew literally, but N, FT(V) and FT(P)
define the former as sons of Keturah and the latter as sons of Laban.
Thus Ps-Jon refers to two named groups, while the other PTgg name
families of four individuals.
Particularly striking is Ps-Jons failure to name the sons of Ishmael.
Splansky has attributed great significance to Ps-Jons exegesis of verses
like Gen. 25:11, 35:22, 49:2, in which, he claims, mention of the sons
of Keturah (who feature in aggadic exegeses of these verses found in
other sources) has been suppressed by Ps-Jon to bring about a stark
juxtaposition of the sons of Ishmael and Esau. In this way, Splansky
argues, Ps-Jon witnesses to the date of its composition, a time when
the world was sharply divided between the power of the Church (=
Esau = Rome) and Islam (= Ishmael).61 It is thus hardly surprising that
his brief remarks on Ps-Jon of this verse seem lame and unconvincing,
for Gen. 27:29 utterly contradicts his general theory. Despite its echoes
of the other PTgg, Ps-Jon omits the sons of Ishmael, names only sons
of Esau and Keturah, and defines the latter as kingdoms. There is not a
shred of evidence that this verse attests a world divided between Islam
and Christianity.62
Neither does this verse provide support for those who would argue
that Ps-Jons tendency to shorten aggadic material is a sign of its late
date. The independence of Ps-Jons language over against that of the
PTgg and TO suggests that his exegesis of this verse is sui generis,
not simply an abbreviation of common Targumic material; and even
if, for arguments sake, we were to admit the possibility that Ps-Jon
had abbreviated this aggadah, it is astonishing that Ishmael should be
omitted if the Targum of this verse dated from the Islamic period.
61
See Splansky, op. cit., pp. 9299, 112.
62
Splansky, op. cit., p. 26, also argues that the phrase a great one and a ruler is
a conflate, a term which he defines (p. 24) as individual words or groups of words
which appear in Ps-Jon along with additional words which either have the same
meaning as the words taken from Onk[elos] or provide translations for Biblical words
which Onk[elos] had not translated. Such conflates, he believes, demonstrate Ps-Jons
dependence on TO. Indeed, TO has a great one, but he says nothing of the fact that
a ruler is the rendering of N, FT(V) and FT(P). Ps-Jon shows knowledge of the PTgg
at this point.
146 chapter eight
Verse 31
Now the word of the Lord had withheld pure prey from him; so he found
a dog and killed it. And he also made of it savoury meat . . .
This well-known aggadah is peculiar to Ps-Jon, as Zunz noted long
ago.63 Shinan remarks that it represents a popular, vulgar tradition,
similar to others which speak of God or an angel preventing Esau
from gaining the blessing.64 He correctly emphasizes that it looks for-
ward to verse 33, where Esaus food is compared with the burning of
Gehenna: similarly, Ber. R. 67:2 says that Gehenna went in with Esau
when he visited Isaac. But the smell of Gehenna is not connected with
Esaus food in this latter source, and Ps-Jon alone makes a connection
between the two.
Ginsburger referred to Isa. 66:3 in respect of this aggadah; there,
idolatrous rituals and abominable practices include the breaking of
a dogs neck, as if in sacrifice. Ps-Jon is really suggesting that Esau is
an idolater, killing a dog according to practices condemned by Isaiah.
Naturally, this food would stink of Gehenna: that place is not only the
scene of idolatrous rites in ancient times (e.g. II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31,
32; 32:35), but will be the site where the wicked and idolatrous burn
on the great day of judgement. Pre-eminent among these will be Esau,
who offered idolatrous food to his father. Ps-Jons exegesis, it seems, is
a learned one, based on sound knowledge of the Bible, and it makes a
sound homiletic point. It may, therefore, be doubted whether it should
properly be counted as a popular and vulgar tradition.
Verse 33
And Isaac was terrified with great terror when he heard Esaus voice, and
the smell of his savoury dish came into his nostrils like the smell of Gehin-
nom. And he said, Who is this who has hunted prey and brought it to
me, and I have eaten of all he brought before you came in? And I have
blessed him; and even so he is blessed.
63
Cf. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt-am-
Main, 1892), p. 76.
64
Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55; vol. 2, p. 286.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 147
Verse 35
Ps-Jon agrees with N and TO that Jacob came with wisdom, defined by
Ber. R. 67:4 as Torah learning. This is consonant with Ps-Jons inter-
pretation of verse 25 and his view of Jacob as a wise man.66
Verse 40
And in your sword you shall be trusting, entering every place and going
to sow terror; and you shall be in submission to your brother. And it
shall be that, if you go astray and make his sons decline from keeping the
commandments of the Law, then you shall break the yoke of his servitude
from your neck.
Ps-Jon brings into high relief the picture of Esau as a violent terrorist:
he goes everywhere bringing terrible fear by means of his sword.67 The
other Targumim of this verse do not share Ps-Jons view, although Ngl
of Gen. 25:27 portrays Esau as a brigand, . Esau may be able to
make Jews apostatize from the Torah, presumably through his use of
sword and terror tactics: Ps-Jon has achieved this understanding by a
double interpretation of Hebrew , first taking it as deriving from
, to wander, and then as if from the hiphil of , to bring down.
Long ago Geiger pointed out that the Septuagint had understood
in this second sense, and compared their rendering with Ps-Jon.68
65
Cf. Ber. R. 65:22, 67:2; Shir R. 4:11; Tanhuma B. Toledot 10, 22; Tanhuma Toledot
11; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55.
66
See Shinan, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 318, and the literature cited there.
67
For the translation of this awkward verse I have followed le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, p. 265.
68
See A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), p. 459.
148 chapter eight
The other Targumim are quite different, and may well be repre-
sented by FT(P), which reads:
And by your weapons of war you shall live, and before your brethren the
Jews you shall serve; and when the sons of Jacob labour in the Torah and
keep the commandments, they shall set the yoke of their subjection on
your neck; but when the sons of Jacob restrain themselves from labour-
ing in the Torah and from keeping the commandments, behold! then
you shall be breaking the yoke of their bondage from your neck.
Pace Shinan, Ps-Jon has only superficial points of contact with the
other Targumim.69 It does not use the root to express the idea of
servitude, which is characteristic of the other PTgg and TO, but the
form , as in verse 29. It lacks the expression to labour in the
Torah, which it uses elsewhere once only, Gen. 49:15, and all refer-
ence to Jacobs sons restraining themselves from Torah study.
Further, Ps-Jon includes material not found in the PTgg and TO.
The PTgg view Esau as being in subjection while the Jews observe the
Torah, but when the latter fail to observe it, Esau will escape their
yoke. The material peculiar to Ps-Jon makes for a quite different argu-
ment: if Esau makes the sons of Jacob go astray from the Torah, then
he will break the Jewish yoke from his neck. It is Esau, not Ishmael as
representing Islam, who may lead Jacob into apostasy. Does Esau here
represent Christianity, offering conversion by the sword? Or may Esau
stand for pagan Rome, whose appalling atrocities during the Second
Revolt caused some Jews to desert their ancestral faith? Definite his-
torical conclusions are almost impossible,70 but Islam seems quite
excluded from the picture.
Verse 41
And Esau kept hatred in his heart against Jacob his brother because of
the order of the blessings with which his father had blessed him. And
Esau said in his heart: I am not going to do as Cain did, who killed his
brother during the lifetime of his father, and his father went again and
engendered Seth. But I shall restrain myself until the time that the days of
69
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 311.
70
The picture of Esau as a violent man of terror who makes Israel turn aside from
the Torah does, however, fit well with the persecutions after the Second Revolt against
Rome. See Schrer, op. cit., vol. 1 ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973), pp.
550557.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 149
the mourning of my fathers death arrive; and then I shall kill Jacob my
brother; and I shall be found as a slayer and an inheritor.
Ps-Jon here stands very close to TO, Ngl and FT(P), which interpret
the first Hebrew word of the verse (, and [Esau] bore a grudge)
in much the same way as Ber. R. 67:8, understanding it by notarikon
to mean , hating, avenging, and keeping.71 The image
of Esau is as powerful as in the preceding verse: he hopes to be slayer
and inheritor, violent, aggressive and vengeful, but also cunning and
contriving, waiting until his father dies lest reprisals befall him. Again,
it is difficult to draw historical conclusions, but we may note that a
post-Islamic date is unlikely.72
Verse 42
And there were told to Rebecca by the Holy Spirit the words of Esau her
elder son, who planned in his heart to kill Jacob. So she sent and called
Jacob her younger son and said to him: Behold, Esau your brother lies in
wait in ambush for you and is taking counsel against you to kill you.
As in verse 5, Ps-Jon presents Rebecca as a prophetess. Thus she knew
that Esau planned murder in his heart, a fact heavily stressed by verse
41. It may also be inferred from Jubilees 27:1 that Rebecca enjoyed
prophetic inspiration, since Esaus words were told her in a dream,
itself a form of prophetic revelation. Ps-Jons version of her words
to Jacob are produced by a double translation of the Hebrew word
: Esau is lying in ambush and making plans.73 Understanding
of as lying in ambush was known to Philo, who, in De Fuga
et Inventione 24, refers this verse allegorically to the worse part of the
soul which sets an ambush and lies in wait for the better part.
Ps-Jon uses forms of , lie in ambush, eight times: twice it occurs
here, and in other contexts it speaks of violence and stealth. Thus at
Lev. 26:37 (cf. N) it refers to men waiting in ambush who stumble
before the edge of the sword; at Num. 21:14 it describes Edom and
Moab who hid in the mountains to ambush and destroy Israel; in Gen.
71
See also yer. Abodah Zarah 1.2; Wayyiqra R. 22:28; Pesiqta deRab Kahana 9; and
Shinan, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 99.
72
In Ber. R. 67:8 the whole emphasis is on EsauRome: to this day they shout
, the vindictiveness of Rome. It is also important to note that TO renders
the Hebrew as to keep.
73
TO also states that Esau is lying in ambush, , thereby rendering Hebrew
, but it does not understand the latter word as taking counsel.
150 chapter eight
Verse 45
The end of this verse receives the following addition:
so that you should be put to death and be banished, as Eve was bereft of
Abel whom Cain killed, and the two of them were banished from the faces
of Adam and Eve, all the days of the life of Adam and Eve.
This aggadah is peculiar to Ps-Jon, and introduces an implicit com-
parison of Isaac and Rebecca with Adam and Eve, Esau and Jacob with
Cain and Abel.75 According to our Targum, Cain and Abel quarrelled
over a sacrifice offered at Passover (Gen. 4:3), when there was debate
74
For the definition of Splanskys conflates see above, n. 62. He seems unwilling to
accept the fact that the Targumists often sought for as many meanings in single words
of Scripture as they felt appropriate to the context of their exegesis.
75
See above, p. 148.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 151
about which brother should receive acceptance from God. The cultic
dimension of the story is once again brought to the fore.
Verse 46
Rebecca worries lest Jacob select a wicked wife from the daughters of
Heth. In this Ps-Jon is at one with Jubilees 27:6; and N, like Ps-Jon, is
further concerned lest such a wife be like one of the daughters of the
people of the land.
Concluding Remarks
Very few exact parallels between the two works can be demonstrated
for this chapter; and, given the overwhelming preponderance of cat-
egories (a), (b) and (c), the sketchy material in category (d) is not
of itself sufficiently strong to bear the weight of an argument that
Ps-Jon is dependent on PRE. Even where exact parallels between the
two works are found, we have been able to offer explanations for
them which do not involve theories of dependency. We conclude that
Ps-Jon of Gen. 27 is not to be regarded as dependent on PRE for its
aggadic exegesis; and, consequently, that claims for the dependence
of the whole Targum on that late midrashic work require much more
firm and detailed prosecution before they can be accepted.76
76
Such claims are advanced with a fair degree of confidence by Chester, op. cit.,
p. 254, n. 131; Splansky, op. cit., pp. 155156; and Shinan, The Aggadah, especially the
English Summary, vol. 2, p. xvi: PsJs remarkably close connection to Pirke deRabbi
Eliezer comes to light wherever the Ag. Mt. [= Aggadath HaMeturgemanim] is added
to, a phenomenon which demonstrates PsJs dependency upon that late and unparal-
leled work. Of late, however, he has advanced more cautious conclusions: see The
Palestinian Targumim, p. 87.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 153
77
See especially The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 284285.
154 chapter eight
5. Splanskys Conflates
The two examples of conflates which occur in this chapter call into
question the usefulness of this term and its application. In verse 29,
Ps-Jon simply records the readings both of TO and also of the PTgg.
In verse 41, his double translation of ( lie in ambush; take
counsel) does not produce an additional word having the same mean-
ing as the word supposedly taken from TO (lie in ambush); nor does
it render a word which TO does not translate (take counsel). On the
basis of these two examples, nothing can confidently be asserted about
the relationship of TO and Ps-Jon.
We have, of course, discussed only one chapter of Ps-Jon, and have
restricted ourselves to study of its aggadic material. But we should
maintain that the results of our investigation are significant for an
estimate of the whole Targum, in that we have been able to show, time
and again, how evidence which has been used to support a late date
for Ps-Jon is patient of other equally reasonable interpretations. In the
light of our observations it cannot simply be maintained that a late,
post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon is one of the assured results of modern
scholarship. Consequently, those who favour such a late date for the
Targum must bring forward more adequate proof.
CHAPTER NINE
The contribution which Geza Vermes has made to the study of the
Aramaic Targumim needs no documentation. Indeed, he has been
intimately associated with the revival of scholarly interest in these
texts which began over forty years ago, and which shows few signs
of losing its impetus. In considering the relationships of the various
Pentateuchal Targumim to one another, Vermes has for long sug-
gested the possibility that Ps-Jon., either in its present or some earlier
form, constitutes the basis of Targum Onqelos: Ps-Jon. would thus,
in essence, preserve material of great antiquity, even though its final
redaction took place in the Islamic period. In recent years, however, it
has become fashionable amongst students of the Targumim to regard
Ps-Jon. as a late, literary composition, produced in the Islamic period
as an anti-Islamic polemic. It is seen as depending on the Palestinian
Targumim and late midrashic collections like the Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer
(PRE) for much of its exegetical paraphrase, its language having been
modified under the influence of the official and authoritative Targum
Onqelos.1
* The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, New York: Ktav, 1984 (Ps-Jon.);
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos,
Leiden: Brill, 1959 (TO); A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I, 5 vols. Madrid-Barcelona,
19681978 (TN); M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to
their extant Sources, 2 vols., Rome, 1980 (FT); Geniza Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum, 2 vols., Cincinnati, 1986 (GM).
1
See G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.316, Annual of the Leeds
University Oriental Society 3 (19611962), pp. 81114, reprinted in Post-Biblical Jewish
Studies, Leiden: Brill, 1975, pp. 92126. The notion that Ps-Jon. is an anti-Islamic
polemic was argued by M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal
dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15
(1975), pp. 367387. The consequent late date of the Targum is argued by A. Shinan,
The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Jerusalem, 1979 [in
Hebrew]; The Palestinian TargumsRepetition, Internal Unity, Contradictions,
JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship
to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date (unpublished dissertation, Hebrew
156 chapter nine
Verse 2
And Jacob said to the men of his house and to all who were with him:
Remove entirely the idols of the nations which are among you, which
you took from the idols house of Shechem, and purify yourselves from the
impurities of the slaughtered men whom you have touched, and change
your garments.
Following Gods command that he go to Bethel and build an altar to
the One who appeared to him when he fled from his brother (Gen.
35.1), Jacob orders his entourage to dispose of foreign gods and to
purify themselves. The Bible clearly links Jacobs second visit to Bethel
with his previous journey recorded in Gen. 28 and, as we shall see,
Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.7 is keen to do the same. The Bible gives as a rea-
son for this second visit Jacobs desire to build the altar to the God
Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation
and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, Tbingen, 1986, pp. 252256.
2
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 7793;
and The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp.
730.
jacobs second visit to bethel 157
who answered him when he was in distress and who was with him;
the Targumim follow suit.3 The Midrashim, however, discuss the vow
which Jacob had made on his first visit to Bethel (Gen. 28.2022),
and note that he had not fulfilled it; like the pre-Christian book of
Jubilees, they warn against delay in carrying out vows, and present
Jacobs return to Bethel as necessary for the vows completion.4
Such lack of interest in the matter of vows on the part of the
Targumim serves to underline their evident concern with the business
of foreign gods. Ps-Jon. renders the Hebrew expression lhy hnkr as
the idols of the nations (or: Gentiles), as does Onqelos (TO); Neofiti
(TN) speaks of idolatry, and its censored marginal gloss (Ngl) probably
refers to images of idols. At a very early period the question of the
origin of these idols arose: Jubilees states that they were the property
of Laban which had been with Jacobs family since he had fled from
his father-in-law, and some later sources agree with this.5 But Ps-Jon.
is quite specific in saying that they came from Shechem, in particular
from the house of idols which was there. Indeed, this Targum goes
out of its way to stress Shechem as their home, as may be seen in its
rendering of v. 4.
Verse 4
So they gave over into the hand of Jacob all the idols of the nations which
were among them, which they had taken from the idols house of Shechem,
and the rings which were in the ears of the inhabitants of the city of
Shechem, on which were depicted the likeness of its image; and Jacob hid
them under the oak which is near to the city of Shechem.
One immediate effect of Ps-Jons. exegesis is to establish a firm link
between Jacobs second visit to Bethel and the events of the preceding
chapter, which tells of the notorious attack on Shechem by Simeon
3
See Gen. 35.1, 2. In Ps-Jon. of v. 3 Jacob plans to build an altar to God who
received my prayer on the day of my distress, and whose word has been for my help on
the journey which I have made, thereby referring back to his vow recorded in Gen.
28.20. In the latter verse, Ps-Jon. has Jacob make his vow conditional upon Gods
keeping him free of idolatry (inter alia); cf. Gen. R. 70.4 (ed. J. Theodor and Ch.
Albeck, Berlin, 19031936), and Tanhuma Wayyilah 8.
4
See Jub. 31.29; Gen. R. 81.1; y. Nedarim 1.1; Tanhuma Wayyilah 8.
5
See Jub. 31.2; Midrash Sekhel T ov to this verse cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah,
vol. 5, Jerusalem, 1935, p. 1337.
158 chapter nine
and Levi. The Targumim of Gen. 34.31 leave one in no doubt that
Shechem was full of idol-worshippers; indeed, Simeon and Levi give
this as a reason for their action on behalf of their sister Dinah.6 Ps-Jon.
appears to assume what Rashi later states openly, that the idols came
into Jacobs possession as part of the spoils of the victorious war against
Shechem.7 The Targum reinforces this understanding by speaking fur-
ther of the purification needed after contact with the bodies of those
killed in the battle.
The idols, then, are not some family heirloom, but plunder taken
from a city which has a house of idols, byt t wwt. This expression is
used only here in the whole of Ps-Jon., and suggests that the Targum
regarded Shechem as having once been a supreme metropolis of
paganism. Even the earrings of its inhabitants are idolatrous; and the
abominations are there to this very day, albeit buried by Jacob under
an oak tree near to the city. The meaning of this is evident, in that
Ps-Jon. is heaping calumnies on the people who regard Shechem and
nearby Mount Gerizim as a holy place. These are the Samaritans; they
are not directly called idolaters, since the idols have been removed.
But they are the object of contempt; and the Targums strong language
must, presumably, have been forged at a time when relations between
Jews and Samaritans were more than usually strained.
Ps-Jon. is fairly precise about the kind of idols which were buried.
They are the statues which had been kept in the idol-house, and ear-
rings painted with the likeness of what, one may presume, were the
same statues. This precision contrasts, to some extent, with the rather
general terms in which the Talmud and Midrash speak of what Jacob
buried. Thus Talmud Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 7.5.4 has R. Ishmael
tell in the name of R. Jose how he went to Neapolis and encountered
the Kuthim, the Samaritans.
He said to them: I see you, that you do not worship (at) this mountain,
but rather the images which are under it, for it is written, And Jacob hid
them (the foreign gods) under the terebinth which is with Shechem.8
6
See Ps-Jon. of Gen. 34.31, where Simeon and Levi assert that it would not be
proper for Israelites to say that uncircumcised and idolaters had defiled Jacobs daugh-
ter; and cf. TN, its marginal gloss (Ngl), and FT of this verse.
7
See Rashi on Gen. 35.2, and cf. Midrash Ha-H ephetz cited by Kasher, op. cit.,
p. 1337.
8
Quoted by Kasher, op. cit., p. 1340.
jacobs second visit to bethel 159
The text goes on to tell how the Rabbi heard the Kuthim plotting to
kill him, so he fled from the city. Similarly, in Gen. R. 81.4 R. Ishmael,
again in the name of R. Jose, takes one of the Samaritans [hd mryy]
to task as he passes by the Palatinos, the site of the Samaritan temple
on Mount Gerizim:
I say to you, Why are you like a dog which has a passion for carrion
[nblh]? It is so, since you know that idolatry is hidden beneath it: and
Jacob hid them . . . (Gen. 35.4). That is why you have a passion for it.
From the first century ce we have the testimony of the Liber Anti-
quitatum Biblicarum, falsely attributed to Philo, which indicates a
strong tradition of idols buried in the vicinity of Shechem. The tribe
of Asher, asked by Cenez to reveal their wrong-doings, announce:
We found seven golden images which the Amorites called holy nymphs,
and we carried them off with the most precious stones which had been
put on them, and we hid those things. And now behold: they have been
laid down under the summit of mount Sichem.9
Earlier in the same section of the LAB, the tribe of Naphtali say that
they wish to make what the Amorites made, and that these things are
hidden under the tent of Elas, a Latin transcription of the Hebrew Elah
[lh], the oak or terebinth, probably a covert reference to the terebinth
of Gen. 35.4.10 According to LAB, all these items were deposited later
than the time of Jacob, in the period of the Judges; and they are a
powerful means of bringing into disrepute the cult which was offered
at Shechem. Indeed, anti-Samaritan polemic has long been recog-
nized, at least by some authorities, as an element in the LABs general
programme.11
9
LAB 25.10. For recent discussion of LABs date, see E. Schrer, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III.1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar,
and M. Goodman, Edinburgh, 1986. We have used the text of LAB edited by D.J.
Harrington, Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquits Bibliques, vol. 1 (Sources Chrtiennes, 229),
Paris, 1976.
10
LAB 25.8. On these passages, see the important comments of C. Perrot, P.-M.
Bogaert, and D.J. Harrington in Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquits Bibliques, vol. 2 (Sources
Chrtiennes, 230), Paris, 1976, pp. 152, 154156. M.F. Collins, The Hidden Vessels in
Samaritan Traditions, JSJ 3 (1972), pp. 114115, suggests that the material which we
have quoted from the Rabbis and LAB may have been a direct response to Samaritan
claims that sacred vessels of their cult had been buried by Moses on Mount Gerizim.
11
See especially A. Spiro, Samaritans, Tobiads, and Judahites in Pseudo-Philo:
Use and Abuse of the Bible by Polemicists and Doctrinaires, PAAJR 20 (1951), pp.
279355; A. Zeron, Einige Bemerkungen zu M.F. Collins, The Hidden Vessels in
160 chapter nine
While the LAB seems to refer only in passing to the events of Gen.
35, it is nonetheless illuminating in two respects. First, it shows that
by the first century ce the idolatrous cache in and near Shechem had
become part of a general anti-Samaritan polemic. Second, the idols
themselves are described in some detail as nymphs; and Bogaert has
suggested that this designation may have arisen from confusion of the
word byt l, baetyl, sacred stone, with Hebrew btwlh or Aramaic btwlt,
virgin, nymph. In any case, statues or figurines are, it seems, presup-
posed, and it may be that LAB is in fact expounding the text of Gen.
35.4 in a discreet and indirect manner.12
Given the Jewish material at our disposal, it is not easy to see what
light it may cast on Ps-Jon.s exegesis of these two verses. The view
that Shechem was the original home of the idols is found again at
the earliest in Rashis commentary on v. 2. The LAB, while indicating
that idolatrous statues and figurines were buried at Shechem, offers no
real help, since the burials are not directly associated with Jacob. We
might, therefore, be tempted to conclude that Ps-Jon. presents us with
late and largely unparalleled musings on the text of these two verses.
Such a conclusion, however, would be both hasty and intemperate.
For if we extend our investigations beyond Rabbinic and pre-Rabbinic
Judaism, into the writings of the early Church Fathers, we shall find
three authors who offer vital evidence for the history of exegesis of
these verses. First is Procopius of Gaza (c. 456c. 538 ce), who lived
and worked in the land of Israel, and who thus had access to Jewish
exegetical traditions. Commenting on Gen. 35.2, he explains that the
foreign gods were not only those which Rachel had taken from Laban,
but also those captured from the Shechemites. Thus he demonstrates
the currency in his day both of the pre-Christian tradition that the
idols were Labans and the notion that the gods were booty from the
sacked city of Shechem.13
Samaritan Tradition, JSJ 4 (1973), pp. 165169; and the considered views of Bogaert
and Harrington, Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, p. 29, who quote Vermes, La Figure de Mose
au tournant des deux Testaments, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), p. 89, linking LABs
polemic with that of the Targumim.
12
See Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, pp. 154155.
13
Procopius of Gaza, Commentarii in Genesim 35.2 in PG LXXXVII Part 1 (Paris,
1865), section 184. Cf. also Epiphanius, Panarion Haer. 9.2.4, who describes the
Samaritans as unwitting idolaters, since the idols of four nations are concealed on
Gerizim.
jacobs second visit to bethel 161
Verse 5
So they journeyed from there, giving thanks and praying before the Lord,
and there was trembling from before the Lord upon the nations who were
in the cities round about them; and they did not pursue the sons of
Jacob.
14
John Chrysostom on Gen. 35.16 in Homily LIX.4.
15
Augustine, Quaestionum S. Augustini in Heptateuchum I.cxi: Ergo illae inaures
quaecum idolis datae sunt, ut dictum est, idolorum phylacteria fuerunt; cf. Epistle
ccxlv.2.
16
On the revolts of the Samaritans in Justinians reign, and earlier rebellions quelled
by Rome, see M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar
Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, Oxford, 1976, pp. 214243.
162 chapter nine
In this verse, Ps-Jon. links hands with old and well-established inter-
pretations found in Jewish texts from before the Christian period. Jub.
30.25 specifies that it was the Lords terror in particular, and that it fell
on the cites surrounding Shechem, a significant note given Ps-Jon.s
interest in that city. The terror of the Lord also features in other, later
works, and came to be elaborately expounded in such a way that some
sources speak of Israels full-scale victories over the Gentiles.17 Ps-Jon.
does not allude to these tales, and its sober exegesis is in keeping with
the restrained language of Jubilees as it re-writes this verse.
Verse 7
And he built there an altar, and called the place El who caused his Shek-
hina to dwell in Bethel; for there the angels of the Lord had been revealed
to him when he had fled from before Esau his brother.
Ps-Jon. here directly recalls Jacobs first visit to Bethel recorded in
Genesis 28. There the angels are a biblical datum (Gen. 28.12); and
the Fragment Targum likewise recalls their presence.18 The mention
of Gods Shekhina as dwelling in Bethel is intended to remind us
that Bethel has already been identified as the place of the Temple: so
much is made clear in Ps-Jon. Gen. 28.11, 12, 17, 19 and 22. The
Targums intention is to indicate the consistency and unity of the bib-
lical revelation.
Neither TN nor its marginal gloss (Ngl), however, refers to the
angels; nor do they allude to the dwelling of the Shekhina in Bethel.
According to the latter, Jacob set up an altar
and worshipped and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the Lord,
the God who had appeared to him in Bethel; for there the Glory of the
Shekhina of the Lord had been revealed to him at the time when he had
fled from before Esau.
The interpretation of this verse in the Targumic tradition has been
well discussed by Andrew Chester, who notes the use made of it by the
minim and the concerns of Rabbinic authority to counteract the heresy
of the two powers in heaven. The Ngl, quoted above, firmly rules out
17
See the treatment of this in Yalqut Shimoni, Midrash Wayyissau, and other texts
quoted in full by Kasher, op. cit., pp. 13411345.
18
So FT according to Mss. Paris 110 and Vat 440 of Gen. 28.12.
jacobs second visit to bethel 163
Verse 8
Then died Deborah, the tutor of Rebekah and she was buried beneath
Bethel in the extremity of the plain. And there the news was also told to
Jacob about the death of his mother Rebekah; so he called its name Other
Weeping.
That the news of his mothers death reached Jacob at this point is
a well-known and widespread tradition, represented not only by the
Fragment Targums (FT), but also by Gen. R. 81.8 and other midrashic
sources.21 The Bible does not report Rebekahs death; but from the first
century ce at the latest it was believed that it had happened during
Jacobs second visit to Bethel: so much is plain from Josephuss state-
ment that, on his arrival in Hebron, Jacob found that she had died.22
Since, by this exegesis, two deaths are involved, Ps-Jon. joins with the
Midrashim in expounding the Hebrew ln, oak, as if it were Greek
allon, other.23
Verse 9
And the Lord was revealed to Jacob again when he came from Paddan
of Aram, and the Lord blessed (him) in the Name of His Word after his
mother had died.
19
See A. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 2327.
20
Chester, op. cit., p. 27.
21
TO, TN, and Ngl make no mention of her death, which is recorded by FT Ms.
Paris 110 of the following verse. The Targum of Geniza Ms. C to this verse is very
close to Ps-Jon.; see Klein, GM, vol. 1, p. 75; and cf. Pesiqta Rabbati 12.4; Pesiqta deRab
Kahana 3.1; Kasher, op. cit., p. 1347.
22
See Josephus, Antiquities 1.345.
23
Cf. R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1. Gense (Sources Chrtiennes,
245), Paris, 1978, p. 325.
164 chapter nine
24
See Gen. R. 815 (R. Aha in the name of R. Jonathan).
25
See M. Zulay, Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, Stuttgart, 1933, pp. 6365;
A. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 6970, 117; vol. 2, pp. 235, 305; and Chester, op. cit.,
pp. 3945.
26
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155160.
27
See Chester, op. cit., p. 45.
jacobs second visit to bethel 165
need only consider texts like Tobit 1.1618; 4.12, 1617. The wish to
root them in Scripture, then, would be natural and compelling. Ps-Jon.
does that very thing, showing how God taught them not by a verbal
commandment, but by his actions. The thrust of the paraphrase in TN,
Ngl, the Geniza Manuscripts (GM) and FT is quite different, having
a strongly liturgical character not found in Ps-Jon., and a tendency,
beginning in TN and gathering force in FT and GM, to provide explicit
Scriptural proof-texts for Gods actions. It is thus possible to argue
that the paraphrase in Ps-Jon. is related only superficially, or even not
at all, to the paraphrases in TN and the other Targumim.28 If such be
the case, there is then little likelihood that Ps-Jon. moved a tradition
from its rightful place in Gen. 35.9, and Shinans observations based
on this suggested transfer of texts have to be evaluated accordingly.
Second, a long paraphrase of the sort found in TN fits uneasily with
the overall aims and objectives of Ps-Jon. in this chapter. As we shall
see in the next verse, those aims are quite specific, and may have their
roots in very ancient preoccupations indeed.
Verse 11
And the Lord said to him: I am El Shaddai. Grow and multiply. A holy
nation and an assembly of prophets and priests shall be from your sons
which you shall beget; and again, two kings shall go forth from you.
Comparison of this verse with the interpretations of the other
Targumim will, we believe, highlight the peculiar concerns and ulti-
mate purpose of Ps-Jon.s exegesis of the whole of this chapter. In
the Hebrew original Gods promise to Jacobs consists of two parts: a
nation and a congregation of nations (gwy wqhl gwym) will come from
him; and kings shall issue from his loins. Ps-Jon.s rendering of the first
promise as referring to a holy nation and an assembly of prophets and
priests is unique among the Pentateuchal Targumim. TO speaks of a
28
Even where items listed by Ps-Jon. agree with those in TN and FT, there are clear
differences between the paraphrases. TN speaks of the blessing of bride and groom and
Gods blessing of Jacob as a mourner; it uses the stock phrases our father Abraham,
our father Jacob; and it attempts to use Gen. 35.9 as a proof text, an attempt carried
further by Ngl and FT. None of these things appears in Ps-Jon., whose lack of liturgical
interest only strengthens the halakhic value of his paraphrase. He has the angels pres-
ent at the burial of Moses: with this, compare the presence of the archangel Raphael
when Tobit buried the dead (Tob. 12.13).
166 chapter nine
29
The reasons for this are set out in Pesiqta Rabbati 3.4; Eykhah Rabbah Petichta
33. Gen. R. 82.4 refers gwy to Benjamin and qhl gwym to Ephraim and Manasseh. But
Ps-Jon. does not allude to this, and seems unaware of the problems which prompted
the exegesis.
30
See also Klein, GM, vol. l, p. 75, for the same interpretation.
31
They are variously identified: in Gen. R. 82.4, R. Berekhiah and R. Helbo in the
name of R. Samuel b. Nahman state that they are Jeroboam and Jehu; but the Rabbis
understand them to be Saul and Ish-bosheth. See further Kasher, op. cit., p. 1352.
32
This departure of Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11 from the common Targumic understand-
ing is thus all the more striking.
33
Notice how TN, using the root tqp, has God say to Abraham, I will make you
exceedingly powerful for the Hebrew I will make you fruitful at Gen. 17.6. It uses
tqp again at Gen. 28.3; 35.11; and 48.4; with the last two verses, cf. also Klein, GM,
vol. 1, pp. 75, 151.
jacobs second visit to bethel 167
Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11, however, looks not to Israels rule over the
nations, nor to righteous peoples and tribal groups. Its language clearly
recalls Gods command of Exod. 19.6, that Israel shall be for him a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation, interpreted there by Ps-Jon. to
mean that Israel shall be kings binding on the crown and minister-
ing priests and a holy nation.34 And Ps-Jon.s description of Jacobs
progeny follows immediately the Scriptural verse (Gen. 35.10) which
tells how God had changed the Patriarchs name to Israel, a fact which
Ps-Jon. reports without any exegetical elaboration. The Targum here
stands side by side with Philo, who remarks that Jacob, prepared by
the angels of reason for struggle with the passions, is the source of the
twelve tribes whom Scripture calls a royal house and a priesthood of
God (De Sobrietate 6566). We should note also most particularly that
Philo clearly associates the change of Jacobs name to Israel with the
description of the nation in Exod. 19.6 as a royal house, a priesthood,
and a holy nation (De Abrahamo 56). Philos direct linking of Exod.
19.6 with the patriarch Jacob and his descendants is remarkable, and
points to the antiquity of Ps-Jon.s exegesis of Gen. 35.11, an exegesis
not represented elsewhere in rabbinic literature.
In fact, Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11 sets out to anticipate the setting up
of Israels formal structures of lawful government and worship. The
prophets belong to the very same structures, as Ps-Jon. of Deut. 18.14
explains, contrasting Israel with other nations:
For these people whom you are about to dispossess pay attention to
deceivers of the eye and practisers of divination; but you are not like
them. Rather, priests consulting Urim and Thummim and upright proph-
ets the Lord your God has given you.
Ps-Jon. of Exod. 33.16 also shows how Israels possession of the spirit
of prophecy differentiates it from the nations of the world:
And by what means shall it be known that I have found mercy before
you, except when your Shekhina speaks with us, and miracles are done for
us when you take up the spirit of prophecy from upon the nations, and
when you speak in the Holy Spirit to me and to your people, so that we
are different from all the peoples who are on the face of the earth?
34
For further comment on this and what follows, see J. Potin, La Fte Juive de la
Pentecte, vol. 1, Paris, 1971, pp. 207226.
168 chapter nine
Verse 14
And he set up there a pillar in the place where He had spoken with him,
a pillar of stone; and he poured a libation upon it, a libation of wine and
a libation of water: for thus his sons are destined to do on the Feast of
Tabernacles; and he poured out upon it olive oil.
This verse receives very little attention in rabbinic literature.35 The rit-
ual of Sukkoth as required by rabbinic law, not by the written Torah, is
explicitly described (cf. m. Sukkoth 4.9), and Ps-Jon. fixes the incident
in relation to this Feast; Jub. 32.329 likewise places this, and a whole
complex of related events, at Sukkoth.
At the end of the last century, Adolf Bchler listed numerous points
of contact between Jubilees and Ps-Jon. in matters of cultic and priestly
law and traditions.36 Much more recently, Joshua Schwarz has care-
fully analysed Jubilees 3132, and has concluded that its traditions
of Jacobs cultic activity during his second visit to Bethel were pos-
sibly known to the Rabbis, although in garbled form. Thus he specifi-
cally notes that Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.14 refers, like Jubilees, to Sukkoth.37
Points of contact between aspects of the Jubilees tradition and Ps-Jon.
should not, therefore, surprise us. It seems to us that such contact does
exist; although it should be made clear at once that Ps-Jon. of Genesis
35 is far from being directly dependent on Jubilees. The relationship
between the traditions recorded in the two texts is much more com-
plex. Thus, while there are major areas of agreement between the two
35
See A. Hyman, Sefer Torah Haketubah Vehamessurah, 2nd edn rev. by A.B.
Hyman, vol. 1, Tel-Aviv, 1979, p. 67; and Kasher, op. cit., p. 1355.
36
See A. Bchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschal-
mischen Tempels, Vienna, 1895, pp. 151159.
37
See J. Schwarz, Jubilees, Bethel, and the Temple of Jacob, HUCA 56 (1985), pp.
6386, especially p. 84.
jacobs second visit to bethel 169
texts, they also diverge at various key points. We must now turn to
fuller discussion of these matters.
What Ps-Jon. shares with Jubilees is substantial. The events sur-
rounding Jacobs second visit to Bethel take place at Sukkoth; dur-
ing this period, Jubilees relates that Levi was chosen in heaven for the
high-priesthood (30.1820) because of his right conduct in sacking
Shechem (30.117). Ps-Jon.s comment that priests would come forth
from Jacob is in line with this general tradition, as is his reference to
the kings; in Jubilees, Isaac blesses not only the future tribe of Levi as
priests, judges, and rulers, but also Judah as a prince, as well as one of
his sons (31.520).
While both Ps-Jon. and Jubilees stress the link between the attack
on Shechem and Jacobs visit to Bethel, the nature of the link is by
no means the same in both sources. Here Ps-Jon.s insistence that the
idols removed by Jacob were of Shechemite origin finds no place in
Jubilees, which says nothing of Shechemite idolatry. In this respect,
Jubilees tallies with other pre-Christian sources.38 So far as I am aware,
the earliest datable written source which makes polemical use of the
idols hidden at Shechem is the first-century ce Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum. Further, in re-writing Genesis 35 and the surrounding
chapters, Jubilees says nothing about prophets as a major constituency
in Israel along with kings and priests.39 Neither does Ps-Jon. refer to
Jacobs visit to his father Isaac at this time, a prominent feature of the
narrative in Jub. 31.530.
Some tentative conclusions and suggestions may now be offered.
Much of what we have examined may be explained if we are prepared
to envisage Ps-Jon. as engaged in an attack on the Samaritan commu-
nity based at Shechem. Taking the outlines of a very old exegesis on
Genesis 35 of the kind extant in Jubilees, the Targum re-arranges them
in order to deal with a new situation. It emphasizes the Shechemite
38
Idolatry does not feature in the condemnations of Shechem found in Ben Sira
50.26; Test. Levi 7.14; or Theodotus, Fragment 7 in Alexander Polyhistor apud
Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.22.9. See also R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews,
Oxford, 1975, pp. 9193.
39
In this respect, cf. 1 Clement 31.432.2, which speaks of the dignity of Jacob,
noting that all the priests and Levites who serve the altar come from him, as do the
Christ according to the flesh, and the kings, rulers and leaders who arise from Judah.
In the preceding section (31.3), Clement has referred to the sacrifice of Isaac, and
shows knowledge of Jewish exegesis of Genesis 22 by stating that Isaac went willingly
and knowingly to be sacrificed. It is thus possible that his treatment of Jacob owes
something to Jewish opinion current in his day.
170 chapter nine
origin of the idols still buried in the vicinity of the mountain, and
goes on to assert that at Bethel, which it is careful to identify with
the Jerusalem Temple on Mount Zion, God promised that kings and
priests and prophets would come forth from Jacob. This happened
at the Feast of Sukkoth, whose ritual is described in terms explicitly
required by rabbinic law: libations of wine are accompanied by water
libations, the latter not demanded by the written Torah, so that they
became a notorious bone of contention among Jewish groups.40
The promise of a future legitimate priesthood is firmly located in
Jerusalem: the localization of the promise in Bethel-Jerusalem is sig-
nificant, in view of the Samaritans claim to possess the true priest-
hood ministering on Mount Gerizim, and their contention that the
Jewish priesthood originated improperly in Elis unlawful migration
from Shechem to Shiloh, where he set up a false sanctuary in the days
of the Judges.41 Furthermore, Ps-Jon. says that there will be prophets
arising from Jacobs sons in the future, a telling prediction given the
Samaritans rejection both of the prophets who succeeded Moses and
of the sacred books ascribed to them. About the identity of the kings to
come forth from Jacob Ps-Jon. is discreetly vague, avoiding the names
of the northerners Jeroboam and Jehu suggested by some midrashim.42
And it may also be that the Targums interpretation of Migdal-Eder,
to which Jacob eventually repairs (Gen. 35.21), as
the place from where the King Messiah is to be revealed at the end of
days
is intended to put the Messianic hopes of Israel firmly in the tribal
area of Judah and outside the sphere of the territories once occupied
by Ephraim, Manasseh, and the other Northern tribes.43
The apparently anti-Samaritan nature of the Targums interpreta-
tion of these verses is therefore quite strongly marked, and is directed
at a number of fundamental beliefs and practices over which Jews and
Samaritans were in profound disagreement. Ps-Jon. seems to have a
very negative view of Shechem and, by implication, the mountain of
40
See R. Patai, Man and Temple, New York: Ktav, 1967, pp. 2453.
41
See J. MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, London, 1964, pp. 1617,
310313.
42
See above, n. 31.
43
See R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, Rome, 1963, p. 277. Ps-Jon.s exegesis is found
in T. Micah 4.8; otherwise Gen. 35.21 is hardly referred to in rabbinic literature: see
Hyman, op. cit., p. 156, and le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 329.
jacobs second visit to bethel 171
44
On this point, cf. most recently M. Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in the Targums,
JJS 39 (1988), pp. 234250.
45
On Marqah and Baba Rabba, see MacDonald, op. cit., pp. 3640.
CHAPTER TEN
1. The Problem
1
See M. Prez Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia, 1984),
pp. 3136. He also notes (p. 33) M. Ohana, La Polmique judoislamique dIsmal
dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15
(1975), pp. 367387, an essay dealing with Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 21:921, and
which has been influential in promoting the view that the Targum largely depends
on Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. For a critique of some of Ohanas arguments, see most
recently C.T.R. Hayward, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS
34 (1989), pp. 7793.
2
See G. Friedlnder, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (London, 1916), Introduction pp. xxi
lii, for parallels between PRE and the Pseudepigrapha, and p. xix for his comments
on PRE and Targum Ps.-Jon.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 173
seems less reserved in seeing PRE and Ps.-Jon. as coming from the
same ambiance and, in some cases, even from the same hand.3
Avigdor Shinans recent comments leave no doubt that the relation-
ship between PRE and Ps.-Jon. is fundamentally important for dating
the Targum.4 Seeking to counter the present writers view that argu-
ments for the simple dependence of one document upon the other are,
on close examination, quite unjustified, he brings as evidence for close
contact between the two works the list of coincidences drawn up by
Prez Fernndez, without offering comment upon it.5 This essay will
attempt to show that almost every item on that list affords no reliable
evidence of connection between PRE and the Targum, and that, even
in cases where some affinity between the texts may appear to exist, the
Targums exegesis may be explained satisfactorily without recourse to
PRE. Time and again we shall notice how a relationship between PRE
and Ps.-Jon. has been posited quite inappropriately and incorrectly,
as a result of inadequate and superficial readings of the two docu-
ments; along with this tendency, we shall observe how material in the
Talmuds and early Midrashim which has clear affinity with Ps.-Jon.
has been passed over in silence.
Our task must necessarily require systematic analysis of every item
which Prez Fernndez lists: nothing less would be adequate. We
shall make every effort to avoid laboured long-windedness, however,
by dealing first with items where the issues are fairly clear. The more
complex matters will be reserved for the end of the essay. All the tar-
gumic verses for discussion are, therefore, listed by Prez Fernndez,
but will not necessarily be dealt with in the order of his list.
3
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 36. His remarks should be read carefully. It is
not entirely clear how he envisages the relationship between the two documents, but
he appears to deny that the Targum is simply and directly dependent on PRE, or vice
versa.
4
See A. Shinan, Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some More Comments, JJS 41
(1990), pp. 5761. This is a response to my earlier essay The Date of Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730.
5
See Shinan, op. cit., p. 59.
174 chapter ten
PRE 3:2 naming the Messiah as youth or little one on the basis of
Micah 5:1, notes that Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 49:10 offers the same designa-
tion, and comments that the Targum does this without any basis in the
biblical text itself, and counter to the remaining targumic witnesses.
Analysis of both texts reveals that there is no connection between
them, that the Targums exegesis does, indeed, have a biblical basis,
and that Ps.-Jon. is in tune with targumic material. The verse in ques-
tion reads:
Kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah, nor
scribes, teachers of the Torah, from his seed; until the time that there
come King Messiah, the youngest of his sons ( ;) and on his
account the peoples shall be wasted.6
By contrast, PRE 3:2 speaks of the seven things created before the
world, which include the name of the Messiah.7 For each of these
seven, PRE adduces a scriptural proof-text which, in the case of
Messiah, is Ps. 72:17. In this case alone, however, PRE adds a second
proof-text, namely Micah 5:1, which is quoted in abbreviated form.
It does not state that Messiahs name is youth or youngest, but that
Bethlehem, the home of the Messiah, is little, . Neither text proves
that Messiah is called youth: they demonstrate the pre-existence of his
name.8 Targums description of Messiah as youngest or youth, there-
fore, does not feature in PRE, which quotes a biblical text describing
Bethlehem as little.
Reasons for the Targums exegesis can be discerned clearly within
the original Hebrew text of Gen. 49:10.
6
The text of Ps.-Jon. is cited from E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht,
J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and
Concordance (Ktav, 1984). Deviations from the Hebrew text in the Targum are itali-
cised in the translations, which are ours. PRE will be quoted from the translations
of Friedlnder and Prez Fernndez where textual variations are apparent; we have
checked these translations against the Hebrew text in M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah
(Jerusalem, 1930 onwards: in Hebrew).
7
The list of pre-mundane creations is famous, and occurs (e.g.) also in b. Pes. 54a,
Gen. R. 1:4, jer. Ned. 39b, and ARNb 37.
8
The Targum of Micah 5:1 has the same purpose: And thou, O Bethlehem Ephrath,
wast like a youth (little one) to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah:
from thee shall go forth before Me the Messiah, to be exercising rulership over Israel;
and whose name has been uttered from of old, from days everlasting. The text is
quoted from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. III: The Latter Prophets (Leiden,
1962), and the translation is ours.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 175
:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his
feet, until Shiloh come; and his shall be the obedience of the peoples.9
Ps.-Jon.s biblical basis for interpreting this verse is Deut. 28:57, which
includes the words from between her feet ( ) and the expres-
sion and towards her afterbirth, which has consonants in
common with the of Gen. 49:10.
And towards her afterbirth ( )which comes out from between
her feet () , and towards her children whom she shall bear; for
she shall eat them for lack of all things, in secret . . .
This is the biblical passage which has allowed Ps.-Jon. to interpret Gen.
49:10 as it does: , the enigmatic Shiloh of that verse, has been
understood in the light of towards her afterbirth, , in Deut.
28:57. And this is in accordance with targumic tradition, for Targum
Onqelos (Tg. Onq.) translates the opening of Deut. 28:57 as follows:
And towards the youngest of her daughters ( ) who shall come
forth from her, and towards her daughter whom she shall bear . . .10
The very close relationship between Ps.-Jon. and Tg. Onq. has long
been recognized, and if Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 49:10 is truly dependent on
any source for its understanding of Shiloh as youth, we need look no
further than the targumic tradition itself.11
The case for a link between PRE 7:2 and Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 40:4b is
feeble.12 The Targum interprets the divine command to Moses, that he
9
The translation of the Hebrew is that given in M. Rosenbaum and A.M.
Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary
(New York), p. 245.
10
See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. I: The Pentateuch According to Targum
Onkelos (Leiden, 1959); the translation is ours. See also J. Bowker, The Targums and
Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969), p. 278, who also relates this verse to Gen.
49:10; and B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos of Deuteronomy (The Aramaic Bible, vol.
9) (Edinburgh, 1988), p. 81. Rashi, commenting on the occurrence of ltk in I Sam.
1:17, points out that the word means children and is to be understood in the same
way as lyth in Deut. 28:57.
11
For the close relationship between these two Targums, the problems involved
and relevant bibliography, see most recently R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature
Targumique, Premire Partie (Rome, 1988), pp. 98101.
12
It is discussed by A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the
Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979: in Hebrew), vol. 2, p. 325.
176 chapter ten
bring the seven-branched candlestick into the sanctuary and set up its
lights, with a splendid paraphrase:
And you shall bring in the candlestick on the south side, because from
there are the paths of the sun and the moon, and from there are the paths
of the luminaries; and there are the treasures of wisdom which are likened
to the luminaries; and you shall light its seven lamps corresponding to the
seven planets which are likened to the righteous who enlighten the world
through their merits.
The supposed coincidence with PRE 7:2 amounts to very little. In the
course of a long discourse on the New Moon, PRE observes that all
the days serve the moon, that all the constellations also serve it, and
that all the hours (or planets) serve it, two each in the south, north,
east and west. All the great and radiant luminaries are situated in the
south, except the Wagon, which is in the north. A disquisition on evil
spirits follows.
It is hard to see how the Targum might be related to all this. For a
start, the two texts present radically different settings for their infor-
mation about the planets: PRE gives us a turgid, astronomical-cum-
calendrical treatise, while the Targum of Exod. 40 has a sustained
exposition, grounded in Scripture, of the parts and furnishings of the
Sanctuary, comparing them symbolically with individuals and groups
of people in Israel. The Targum describes the south as encompass-
ing the paths of sun, moon and planets; this is lacking in PRE, but
is known to Philo, who explicitly states that the planets travel in the
south. He also, like the Targum, compares them with Wisdom.13 The
comparison of the seven lamps of the menorah with the seven lumi-
naries is very old, attested by both Philo and Josephus. It does not
occur in PRE 7:2, but almost certainly underlies Christian writing in
the Apocalypse of John which bears a striking similarity to Ps.-Jon. The
whole matter has been thoroughly discussed by Martin McNamara.14
Finally, the righteous are compared with the stars in the Bible at Dan.
12:3, and in early writings such as II Baruch 51:10 and I Enoch 39:7.
13
See Philo, Quaestiones in Exodum I.79, II.103. That the south is the region of
wisdom is found in the Bible (Jer. 49:7) and in post-biblical texts like Baruch 3:22.
Wis. Sol. 7:1819 associates wisdom with the sun, moon and planets.
14
See Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit 221; De Vita Mosis II.102103;
Josephus, War V.217; Antiquities III.123; Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 39:37; Num. R. 15:7; and
M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Rome, 1966), pp. 196199, for full discussion and bibliography.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 177
It is highly improbable that a tiny detail, which does not precisely cor-
respond with its targumic counterpart, has been transferred from PRE
into Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 40:4b. Other sources provide much closer and
more reliable points of comparison with the Targum.
The potentially misleading character of coincidences in small detail
between PRE and Ps.-Jon. is evident in the matter of Leviathans cre-
ation. Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:21 records that, on the fifth day of creation,
God created the great sea-monsters, Leviathan and his partner, who
are destined for the day of consolation; and every living creature which
swarms . . .
PRE lists events which took place on the fifth day. They include the
plague on the Egyptians when their waters were turned to blood; the
Exodus; the parting of Jordan before the Ark; and Hezekiahs diversion
of the water in Jerusalem. PRE 9:3 notes:
On the fifth day he brought forth the Leviathan from among the waters,
that flying serpent. His dwelling is in the lowest waters, and between his
two fins is the middle column of the earth. All the great monsters of the
sea are food for the Leviathan . . .
The Targum places the creation of Leviathan and his partner on the
fifth day. PRE 9:3 notes only the creation of Leviathan then; his mate
Behemoth was not created until the sixth day, according to PRE 11:1.
There were different opinions on this. Gen. R. 7:4 agrees with Ps.-Jon.
that both monsters were created on the fifth day (R. Pinchas in the
name of R. Iddi), but Gen. R. 11:9 restricts Gods creation on that day
to Leviathan (R. Levi in the name of R. Hama bar Hanina; cf. PRE
9:3). Behemoths creation separate from Leviathan on the sixth day was
favoured by late texts, which Friedlnder has assembled.15 By contrast,
Ps.-Jon. and R. Pinchas in Gen. R. 7:4 are exactly in line with the Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch 29:4, which was composed in the first part of
the second century ad:
And Behemoth shall appear from his place and Leviathan shall ascend
from the seathose two great monsters I created on the fifth day of
creation and have kept until then; and then they shall serve as food for
all that survive.16
15
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 75, citing Chronicles of Jerahmeel v, vi; Yalqut
Shimoni Genesis 12; Num. R. 21:18; and Lev. R. 22:10.
16
Translated by R.H. Charles, revised by L.H. Brockington in The Apocryphal Old
Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford, 1984), pp. 856857. For the date of this text,
178 chapter ten
Like the Targum, Apoc. Bar. also refers to the destiny of the monsters.
They will serve as food at the banquet for the righteous on the last
day, the day of consolation.17 Far from establishing a close connection
between the Targum and PRE, Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:21 helps positively to
indicate the independence of the two texts, and the information from
Gen. R. 7:4 helps to place the Targum firmly in the line of a particular
tradition evidently favoured by earlier authorities before the later views
espoused by PRE gained the ascendancy.
The paraphrase of Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:22 must be quoted at length,
since Prez Fernndez seems to have misunderstood it.
And the Lord God said to the angels who minister before Him: Behold,
Adam is unique in the earth as I am Unique in the heavens of the height;
and there are destined to arise from him those who know how to distin-
guish between good and evil. If he had kept the commandments which I
had commanded him, it is the case that he would have lived and endured
as the Tree of Life, for ever. But now, because he has not kept what I have
commanded him, we decree against him, and banish him from the Garden
of Eden, before he stretch out his hand and take from the fruits of the
Tree of Life. For behold, if he eats of it, he will live and endure for ever.
The Targum is interpreting an original Hebrew text which reads:
And the Lord God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us
( ) to know good and evil; and now, lest he stretch forth his
hand and also take from the Tree of Life, and eat and live for ever . . .
Prez Fernndez believes that the phrase like one of us has been inter-
preted by PRE 12:2 in the light of Gen. 2:18, where God states that it is
not good for Adam to be alone; and he compares Ps.-Jon.s paraphrase
with PRE. On the other hand, he notes another exegetical tradition
which understands one as a reference to the uniqueness of Adam,
found in Targum Neofiti (Tg. Neof.) of Gen. 3:22 and in m.Sanh. 4:5.
This, it seems, is lacking in Ps.-Jon.18 PRE 12:2 offers the following:
see most recently discussion in E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III.2, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 752753. Tg. Neof. of Gen. 1:21 also records the creation of
both monsters on the same day, and see also b.Baba Bathra 74b75a.
17
PRE 10:3, 11:1 states that the righteous shall feast off Leviathan and Behemoth,
but this is not related directly to their creation, as it most certainly is in Ps.-Jon. and
Syr. Apoc. Bar. The idea that these beasts provide food for the final banquet is very
old: see I Enoch 60:24; and cf. b.Baba Bathra 74b; Targum Sheni of Esther 3:7; Lev.
R. 22:10.
18
See his brief comments, op. cit., p. 31. But I cannot trace in Ps.-Jon.s para-
phrase any sense that God needs to provide the one Adam with a partner lest the
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 179
While he (Adam) was at leisure in the Garden of Eden like one of the
ministering angels, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am alone in my
world and this one is alone in My (or: his) world. Before Me there is nei-
ther propagation nor growth, just as there is no propagation or growth
before this one. In future the creatures will be able to say, since there was
no propagation or growth before him, it is he who created us. It is not
good for Adam to be alone, as it is said: And the Lord God said: it is not
good for man to be alone; I will make a help meet for him.
We should notice first that, in the Targum, God addresses the angels;
Adam is thus clearly differentiated from them, as the divine speech
emphasises and the divine decree confirms. Quite different is PRE,
which actually compares Adam with a ministering angel.19 Next, the
Targums comment about Adam owes nothing to Gen. 2:18 as found
in PRE 12:2. The very exegetical line which understands this verse as
a reference to Adams uniqueness is clearly stated in Ps.-Jon. in lan-
guage virtually identical to that found in Tg. Neof. and the Fragment
Targums of this verse in the Paris and Vatican Manuscripts (FTP and
FTV). Likewise, Tg. Onq. states that Adam is unique in the world.20
Third, there is nothing in Ps.-Jon. suggesting that the animals may
come to look upon Adam as their creator because he appears to be
uncreated. Finally, PRE lacks reference to those destined to arise from
Adam who will know good and evil; nor does that text make any dis-
tinction between the life which Adam would have merited had he kept
the commandments, and the death implied in his banishment from
the Garden following his failure to observe them. All these, however,
are part of the common stock of targumic tradition represented by Tg.
Neof., FTP and FTV.
It is not PRE which relates to the Targum of this verse, but texts
such as Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallah 7:7278, Gen. R. 21:3, and
Song R. 1:9.2. In Mekhilta, R. Pappias interprets the words that Adam
animals mistake him for their creator, which is the point of PREs exegesis quoted
here below. The verse is discussed by Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 9091; vol. 2,
pp. 207208.
19
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 174175, notes that Ps.-Jon. alone of the Targums
makes God address the angels; he regards this an an anti-Christian device directed
against the doctrine of the Trinity and thus disagrees with A. Geiger, Urschrift und
Uebersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 212213, about its antiquity. Adam is also
distanced from the angels in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:26; cf. Bowker, op. cit., p. 130.
20
See G. Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, JSS 8 (1963), p. 165; le Daut,
Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1: Gense (Sources Chrtiennes 245) (Paris, 1978), p. 97;
and Bowker, op. cit., p. 130.
180 chapter ten
has become like one of us to mean that he has become like one of
the angels; this is exactly the view of PRE 12:2 and Yalqut Shimoni
Genesis 34. R. Akiba, however, powerfully refutes this view, stating
that means that Adam had the choice of one of two ways.
The one would lead to life, the other to death. This same exegesis fea-
tures in Pesiqta Rabbati 7:2, although R. Akiba is not named there. It is
precisely R. Akibas exegesis of like one of us which all the Targumim,
including Ps.-Jon., follow in their paraphrases. Adam could have kept
the commandments and lived for ever, but he did not, and thus mer-
ited expulsion from Eden, and death. Ps.-Jon. seems as concerned as
R. Akiba to dispel the idea that Adam was like an angel: he restricts
Adam to the earth, while placing the angels in heaven where God
addresses them. Ps.-Jon. and PRE, in truth, represent two opposing
exegeses of this verse, not coinciding interpretations.
Angels figure again in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:6, which Prez Fernndez
and Shinan21 relate to PRE 13:3.
And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and was afraid; and
she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was healing of light
for the eyes, and that the tree was delightful so as to understand with it:
so she took of its fruit and ate, and gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
The differences between the two texts outweigh the similarities. In PRE
13:1, the angels are jealous of Adam who is able to name the animals,
while they cannot. They realize that they will have no power over him
unless they can make him sin. None of this occurs in Ps.-Jon., but it is
necessary background to PRE 13:2, where Sammael goes to the earth
in rebellion, finds the serpent which then had legs and resembled a
camel, rides on it, and elicits a rebuke from the Torah. Two parables
follow, and in PRE 13:3 the serpent, with Sammael riding on it, debates
whether to induce Adam or Eve to sin. It chooses Eve, and asks why
she has not eaten from the tree. She replies in the words of Gen. 3:3,
but the serpent dismisses this as a case of the evil eye on Gods part,
since He knows that when she eats from the tree she will be like Him,
able to create and destroy, to bring to life and to kill.
21
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 31, and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 272273,
who notes a parallel with material in Tanhuma B. Introd. p. 155; he believes that PRE
is closely related to the Targum or its source.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 181
Ps.-Jon. knows none of this. Rather, the serpent tells Eve that Gods
command that they should not eat from the tree is the product of a
natural resentment which every creator feels towards his handiwork.
If they eat, they will be like mighty angels, who are wise to distinguish
between good and evil.22
In PRE 13:3, the serpent tricks Eve by touching the tree, which cries
out in the words of Ps. 36:1112. Eve cannot have heard this excla-
mation, since nothing untoward happens to the serpent, and she is
thereby convinced that she may safely approach the tree.
The woman went and touched the tree, and she saw the angel of death
coming towards her. She exclaimed: Now I shall die, and the Holy One,
Blessed be He, will make another woman and give her to Adam.
For this reason she resolves to implicate Adam in her sin, and gives
him some of the fruit.
At this crucial point in primeval history, the Targum understands
events quite differently from PRE. Eve needs no demonstration that
the tree is safe, and it is before she has touched it that she sees Sammael
and is afraid. Eves experience of fear is the direct opposite of the scene
in PRE, where the serpent gives her courage; fear is nowhere on the
agenda, even after she realizes what she has done. In PRE, it is only
after touching the tree that she sees the angel of death and imagines
that God will create another woman, a notion utterly foreign to the
Targum.23 Given this evidence, any idea that Ps.-Jon. might represent
a resum of PRE seems out of the question.
Sammael appears again in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:1, where he is held
responsible for Eves conception of Cain. The single manuscript of Ps.-
Jon. reads:
And Adam knew Eve his wife, that she had conceived from Sammael,
the angel (of the Lord).
The text of the manuscript ends here, but the editio princeps has a
translation of the whole verse:
22
See Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:5, which further demonstrates that Targums indebtedness,
not to PRE, but to stock targumic tradition. Tg Neof. has the serpent promise that they
will be like angels. Tg. Onq. that they will be like mighty ones. Ps.-Jon. has combined
these two understandings and contrasts strongly with PRE at this point, which sug-
gests that they would have divine powers to create and to destroy.
23
It is found in (e.g.) Gen. R. 19:5 and ARNb 1. This last text again stresses that the
angel of death appeared after Eve had eaten.
182 chapter ten
And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she con-
ceived and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man, the angel of
the Lord.
Sammael is named as Cains father in PRE 21:1. The editio princeps
of Ps.-Jon. relates the tradition, which is much older than PRE and
very widespread, that an angel engendered Cain. The reasons for the
origin and development of this aggadah are clear, and convincing argu-
ments for its antiquity have been rehearsed elsewhere; they need not
be repeated here.24 The further statement of the editio princeps that Eve
lusted after the angel is, however, incompatible with anything found
in PRE. Mention of Sammael in the manuscript of the Targum seems
to be a scribal addition to the original text as preserved in the editio
princeps, designed to identify the angel. There is no reason to suppose
that the scribe derived the name from PRE, since Sammael as the name
of the one who seduced Eve was widely known by the second cen-
tury adit was used by the Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, Adversus
Haereses I.30:9.
The textual variant in the tradition of Ps.-Jon. should also be noted
here. In the same way, careful attention will be paid below to textual
variants in PRE. Claims that one text is dependent on the other have
not always paid sufficient attention to such textual evidence which
may, as in the present verse, prove illuminating. For here we confront
a tradition, attested by sources of unimpeachable antiquity, that Cain
was sired by an unnamed spirit-angel; with this, the editio princeps of
Ps.-Jon. agrees. Later sources, like PRE, name the angel, and the suspi-
cion must arise that a copyist might have imported into the completed
Targum text a piece of information current in his day and with which
he was familiar. The textual evidence argues for a complexity in the
supposed relationship between Ps.-Jon. and PRE which has not hith-
erto been sufficiently appreciated.25
24
See IV Maccabees 18:9; II Esdras 4:30; John 8:3145: I John 3:812; further New
Testament and early patristic evidence cited by Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 150151;
b.Yeh. 103b; Shabb. 146a; Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 35; and A.M. Goldberg, Kain:
Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?, Judaica 25 (1969), pp. 203221; N.A.
Dahl, Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7 1 und Joh 8 44),
in Apophoreta: Festschrift fr Ernst Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 7084, both cited by
le Daut, Targum, p. 101.
25
According to a text included in M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum
Jonathan ben Usil zum Pentateuch) (Berlin, 1903), Eve saw that Cain was like the
ones on high, and not like those below. This is not found in the manuscript or
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 183
editio princeps of the Targum, but is derived from a Targum quotation of Menachem
Recanati. It is far from certain that it forms a part of Ps.-Jon. Both Prez Fernndez
and Friedlnder accept it as such, but without discussion of its textual history: the for-
mer believes that PRE 21:1, where the same tradition is found, derived it from Ps.-Jon.
(op. cit., p. 162), while the latter regards Ps.-Jon. as having taken it from the Midrash
(op. cit., p. 150). See also Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2. pp. 273274, and Bowker,
op. cit., p. 136, who compares it with a similar type of statement in I Enoch 106:5.
26
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 127.
27
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos (Corpus Christianorum
Series Latina LXXII) (Turnhout, 1959), ad. loc.; and cf. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 465467.
28
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 134. For Eliezer, see further Gen. R. 59:10;
b.Sanh. 95ab; Baba Bathra 130a; H ullin 91b. The Targum does not identify him with
Og, king of Bashan, which is a feature of PRE 16:3, and PREs view that Eliezer was
set free from his service to Abraham finds no place in the Targum.
184 chapter ten
PRE 17:1 is a confusing text, which seeks to show that God ordered
kindness to mourners by referring to His burial of Moses. Prez
Fernndez invokes as a parallel Ps.-Jon. of Deut. 34:6, which tells of
Gods burial of Moses, but does not use it to prove that concern for
mourners is a divine command.29 The comforting of mourners is a
feature of Ps.-Jon. of this verse, but the proof of it is related to Gods
dealing with Abraham. Two talmudic passages, b.Sot ah 14a and Sanh.
46b, are clearly very similar to the Targum, and the confusion in PRE
is easily explained if the compiler of that Midrash, familiar either with
Targum or Talmud, garbled his source in an attempt to abbreviate
what, in both, is a fairly lengthy aggadah. In any event, it is impossible
that the ordered aggadah of Ps.-Jon. should have been developed from
PRE 17:1.
The expulsion of Adam from Eden is expounded by Ps.-Jon. of Gen.
3:23 in detail:
And the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden, and he went
and dwelt on Mount Moriah to till the land from which he had been
created.
Prez Fernndez refers to PRE 20:1, which, in his translation, records
Adams dwelling on Mount Moriah, which is the Temple Mount, after
his banishment. This is not found, however, in the manuscripts of PRE,
but only in the first editions; Friedlnder notes the fact, and comments
that Adams dwelling in this spot is taken from Gen. 3:24 understood
as the LXX have interpreted it.30 What has shaped the Targums ver-
sion here is not PRE, but ancient exegesis of the kind found in LXX
and assumed by Jubilees 3:27, according to which Adam offered sac-
rifice on the very day of his departure from Eden.31 In this. Gen. 3:23
was read in the light of Gen. 3:24, with its note that God made the
Cherubim to dwell east of Eden. The further detail of Adams creation
29
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 114, who correctly points to the oddity of PRE 17:1
invoking the Hebrew of Deut. 34:6 at this point.
30
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 156; Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 143. The LXX inter-
prets Gen. 3:24 (which is 3:25 in that version) as And he expelled Adam, and made
him dwell over against the paradise of delight . . . .
31
The meaning attributed by the LXX to Gen. 3:24/25 was evidently widely known:
Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. on Gen. 3:24, strongly attacks it and insists that the Hebrew
refers to Gods placing the Cherubim, not Adam, over against the garden.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 185
32
It is found, e.g., in Gen. R. 14:89 and jer.Nazir 7:2, and is related in Ps.-Jon. of
Gen. 2:7 to Adams creation from red, black and white dust, a tradition which PRE
11:2 does not agree with according to Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 35. Adams creation
from dust of the Temple Mount was directly connected to his requirement to till the
ground, understood as an obligation to study the Torah and keep its commandments;
see Gen. R. 16:56; Sifre Deut. 41; and Bowker, op. cit., p. 119.
33
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 162; cf. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 152, n. 4.
34
The agreement between Ps.-Jon. and LAB in this matter is of some interest, given
the variations within the rabbinic tradition. For the date of LAB see, most recently,
Schrer, op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 328329.
35
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44; vol. 2, pp. 120121; A.N. Chester,
Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen, 1986),
pp. 102104.
186 chapter ten
36
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44, notes Jubilees 10:23, but not Philo. Friedlnder,
op. cit., p. 176, gives the passage from Augustine and adds references to Clement of
Alexandria, Stromateis 6:17; Clementine Recognitions 2:42; and Hippolytus in Acheliss
edition, II, p. 243. These Christian uses of the verse serve to underline the traditional
and popular character of the exegesis.
37
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 176.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 187
acquisition of Israel at this very time. Only then is Gods descent with
the angels to confound mens speech recorded.
Finally, the witnesses to PREs text state that God confused men
into seventy nations and languages. The first editions add a reference
to each nation having its own writing and language, while Israel fell
to God.38 This features in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:8, and suggests that PRE
may, at some stage in its textual development, have borrowed material
from the Targum. Indeed, a good case can be made for arguing that
PRE has assembled its account of the Babel episode from pre-exist-
ing material, some of it related to traditions in Ps.-Jon. In accepting
this material, PRE needed to explain to his readers when it was that
God allocated Israel to himself, if at this time he confused the seventy
nations. He does this by introducing into his account of Babel the divi-
sion of the nations recorded in Deut. 32:8 as traditionally understood,
where Israels part is explicit, and has a firm anchor in the biblical
text. In our opinion, Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:7 is clear and fully compre-
hensible in its own terms; it is only when PRE attempts to introduce
Israel into the picture of the confusion at Babel that Deut. 32:8 needs
to be invoked. That is to say, it is PRE, not Ps.-Jon., which can only
properly be understood in the light of the traditional understanding of
both Gen. 11:7 and Deut. 32:8.
We have discussed elsewhere Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 27:12, which has no
connection with PRE.39 Equally mistaken is any attempt to relate Ps.-
Jon. of Gen. 17:3 to PRE 29:1. The Targum reads:
And because Abram was not circumcised, he was not able to stand up;
and he bowed down upon his face.
PRE understands Gods command to Abraham to be perfect (Gen. 17:1)
as a command that he circumcise himself, and discourses on the
uncleanness of the foreskin following principles laid down in m.Neg.
3:11, Gen. R. 46:4 and 47:8, and Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Amalek 3:106 ff.
R. Gamaliel says that Abraham called Shem to perform the circum-
cision on Yom Kippur; this contradicts Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 17:26, that
Abraham was circumcised on 14th Nisan. All this happened at the site
of the future altar, and PRE continues by remarking on the pain of cir-
cumcision, averring that one who separates himself from circumcision
38
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 177, n. 6; Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 180.
39
See Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, pp. 1618.
188 chapter ten
40
For the translation, cf. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 205; Prez Fernndez, op. cit.,
p. 203, gives a slightly different version, which is similar to that quoted by Shinan, The
Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 47.
41
See further le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. III: Nombres (Sources
Chrtiennes 261) (Paris, 1979), p. 229, who cites L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
7 vols. (Philadelphia, 19111938), vol. III, p. 366; vol. VI, p. 128.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 189
42
See the Eucharistic Liturgy ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome (mid-second century
ad), edited by B. Botte, La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte (Munster, 1963),
pp. 1617; the ancient East Syrian rite (between the second and fourth centuries),
ed. B.D. Spinks, Addai and MariThe Anaphora of the Apostles: A Text for Students
(Bramcote, 1980), p. 19; Apostolic Constitutions VIII.38; Justin Martyr, Apology I.65.
Early Christian writers heavily stress the priestly character of the Christians and associ-
ate this with pre-Levitical characters in the Bible, whom they consider uncircumcised.
See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 19:24; and 28:25, which also uses the prophecy of
Malachi 1:11. They attached particular importance to Melchizedeks uncircumcision:
see Jerome, Epist. 73, and Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 2. That Abraham was blessed
while still uncircumcised is noted in Dialogue with Trypho 11:5 drawing on Romans
4:1012.
43
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 210; the addition is made by the first editions.
190 chapter ten
44
See R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 209211; G. Vermes,
Circumcision and Exodus IV.2426, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd ed.
(Leiden, 1973), pp. 178192.
45
For Ps.-Jon. as motivated by anti-Islamic concerns, see especially Ohana, art. cit.;
D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use
of Midrashim and Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union CollegeJewish
Institute of Religion, 1981), pp. 155156; Chester, op. cit., p. 254, n. 131.
46
For Abrahams marriage to Hagar, see our discussion of Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:1
below, p. 231. The Targums method of procedure here seems reminiscent of the
devices used by pre-Christian Hellenistic Jewish apologists: see G. Vermes, La Figure
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 191
The story that Pharaoh loaded Sarah with gifts has very ancient roots:
a form of it occurs in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, col. 20
lines 3032. It is a fragmentary text, but already Hagar may be listed
among Pharaohs gifts to Sarah and Abraham. Gen. R. 45:1 tells how
Pharaoh gave Hagar to Sarah when he had been smitten with plague,
which Ps.-Jon. both here and in 12:17 regards as the result of a word
from before the Lord, an idea absent from PRE. It is almost impos-
sible to maintain that PRE has informed Ps.-Jon. of this verse; rather,
given PREs quotation of Gen. 16:1 as a proof-text for its own aggadah,
a good case could be argued that PRE is indebted to the Targum and
other sources of the kind catalogued above.
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:1 identifies Keturah, Abrahams wife, as Hagar,
who was bound to him from the beginning. PRE 30:4 tells that, after
Sarahs death, Abraham took again his divorced wife (Hagar), because
Gen. 25:1 (Hebrew) says that he again took a wife, whose name was
Keturah, because she was perfumed (Hebrew root qtr) with all kinds
of perfumes. PRE is not related to the Targum of this verse. It fastens
on the fact that Abraham again took a wife; this is absent from the
Targum, which, rather, concentrates on her name Keturah as deriv-
ing from the root qtr to bind. This tradition finds no place in PRE,
where her name is firmly linked to perfume and incense.47 Ps.-Jon. is
clearly one representative of common targumic tradition on this verse,
found also in FTP, FTV and two marginal glosses of Tg. Neof., that she
was bound to Abraham, an interpretation known from Gen. R. 61:4
(R. Jehudah, but disputed by R. Nehemiah) and Tanhuma 9,
and familiar to Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. on Gen. 25:16.
Isaacs age at the time of his sacrifice is given by the manuscript of
Ps.-Jon. as thirty-seven years; the editio princeps reads thirty-six. PRE
31:2 likewise gives his age as thirty-seven, as do other sources listed
by Friedlnder.48 Ps.-Jon. sets this in a lengthy dispute between Isaac
and Ishmael about their respective merits and rights of inheritance
from Abraham; PRE gives Isaacs and Ishmaels ages, and then relates
a dispute between Eliezer and Ishmael, who should inherit when Isaac
de Mose aux tournant des deux Testaments, Cahiers Sioniens 23 (Paris, 1955),
pp. 6392. It certainly does not support an alleged anti-Islamic stance on the part of
Ps.-Jon.
47
See Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 219220; and cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim
IV.147, for the same derivation of the name. PRE has made use of an ancient tradi-
tion, but whether wittingly or not is difficult, perhaps impossible, to decide.
48
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 225.
192 chapter ten
49
See further C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic
Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), p. 132.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 193
in PRE the reason for Jacobs mourning is not primarily the death of
Abraham: it is the ascendancy of Esau. Thus the Targums exegetical
foundations involve an understanding of the biblical text which PRE
does not share, and Abrahams death appears in the latter merely as a
stray detail, awkwardly introduced into the aggadah. In the Targum,
however, it is integral to the interpretation of the whole verse. Far
from supporting the view that the Targum has derived the detail from
PRE, the evidence indicates that there is a strong argument in favour
of PRE having borrowed this note from another source, possibly from
Ps.-Jon. itself.
That Zilpah and Bilhah were both daughters of Laban from a con-
cubine is found in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 29:24, 29. It is an old tradition,
found in Jubilees 28:9; cf. Test. Napht. 1:9, 11. A scriptural basis for
the view that they were Labans daughters is given in Gen. R. 74:13,
as is the case in Ps.-Jon.s rendering of the two verses under consid-
eration. PRE 36:3 takes Gen. 29:29 as proof of the general statement
that a mans daughters by his concubine are called handmaids, but the
Hebrew of this verse, And Laban gave to his daughter Rachel Bilhah
his handmaid, to be her handmaid, does not in fact support the state-
ment of PRE. Clearly, PRE has in mind the traditional, and presum-
ably authoritative, understanding of Gen. 29:29 set out here, not the
Hebrew text pure and simple. Thus Ps.-Jon. and Gen. R. stand as rep-
resentatives of that tradition on which PRE bases its case.
The account of the evil report made by Joseph to Jacob about his
brothers in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 37:2 reads:
He had seen them eating flesh torn from a living animal, the ears and
the tail. So he came and told his father.
According to PRE 38:4, Joseph had seen the sons of his fathers con-
cubines eating flesh from live sheep and lambs. The Targum does not
specify the animal, but PRE does, and while the Targum lists the parts
of the animals eaten, PRE does not.50 Furthermore, in the Targum,
all Josephs brothers are guilty, whereas in PRE it is only the sons of
his fathers concubines who are to blame, a tradition attested earlier
in Test. Gad 1:6; but they merely kill the best of the sheep without
Reuben and Judah knowing. The tearing of limbs from live animals,
50
So in Friedlnders translation, op. cit., p. 291. Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 267,
gives a text which reads the flesh of the tail of living sheep, noting the variant read-
ings. Cf. also Bowker, op. cit., p. 241.
194 chapter ten
51
So Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 269. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 294, n. 5, specifies
this as the readings of the first editions, regarded by Luria as a gloss. The reading
which PRE attributes to Tg. Onq. is, in fact, more akin to Ps.-Jon., which has spirit
of prophecy for Tg. Onq.s spirit of holiness.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 195
that the Holy Spirit dwelt on Jacob their father; thus Ps.-Jon., with its
special relationship to Tg. Onq., stands firmly within targumic tradi-
tion and need owe nothing to PRE.
In Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 3:5, God says of the holy ground were Moses
receives the revelation in the burning bush:
on it you are destined to receive the Torah, to teach it to the sons of
Israel.
Once more, PRE 40:2 quotes the Hebrew of Exod. 3:5 as proving the
very matter predicated by Ps.-Jon.:
Moses! Stand where thou art standing, for there in the future will I give
the Torah to Israel, as it is said, And He said: Draw not nigh hither . . .
for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground . . . Hence (the sages)
said: Anyone who enters the Temple must remove his shoe . . .52
The first editions of PRE vary the last statement, to the effect that all
who enter a holy place should remove their shoes.53 Targums Neof.,
Onq. and Ps.-Jon. indicate that Moses was standing in a holy place;
perhaps the first editions of PRE have been influenced by the official
Targum. The site of the burning bush is the place of the giving of the
Law in Josephus, Antiquities III.62. Furthermore, PRE in this section
has a sentence in Aramaic: on seeing the bush, Moses asks, What kind
of glory is there in its midst? The glory of Gods presence features
prominently in the Targums of this chapter, in Tg. Neof., Tg. Ps.-Jon.
and Tg. Onq. of verses 1 and 6. These facts suggest that PRE has used
well-known ancient material, current particularly in targumic sources,
to construct its exposition.54
Before the Torah was given at Sinai, Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 19:17 tells
that the Lord uprooted the mountain and lifted it into the air. It was
transparent, like a mirror. PRE 41:1 says nothing of the mountains
being lifted into the air, nor of its transparency, but it does say that
the heavens were opened and that Sinais summit went into them,
details absent from Ps.-Jon. The first editions of PRE add that Sinai
was torn from its place, which may bear some slight resemblance to
52
Translated Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 314. See his textual notes: the citation of the
scriptural verse in his manuscript does not extend beyond the words draw not nigh
hither.
53
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 314, n. 10.
54
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 314.
196 chapter ten
55
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 318, n. 5.
56
For the tradition of two commandments delivered in one Divine utterance, see
Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Shirta 8:3441; Bahodesh 7:61; Sifre Num. 42, 102; Num.
R. 11:7.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 197
The aggadah about Jochebed in Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 2:1 says that Amram
divorced her because of Pharaohs decree; she was 130 years old when
he again took her to wife, and her youth was miraculously restored.
PRE 48:1 discusses the length of Israels stay in Egypt, calculating the
years and noting that Jochebed was 130 when she bore Moses. The only
point of contact between these two texts is Jochebeds age. PRE has no
reference to her betrothal to Amram, their divorce, Jochebeds return
or her renewed youth. By the same token, the Targum says nothing
of the length of stay in Egypt, which is PREs only concern; the latter
uses Exod. 7:7, not Exod. 2:1, to give Jochebeds age, which is plucked
from the air without scriptural authority. The Targums true affini-
ties are with texts such as b.Sotah 12a, Baba Bathra 119b120a, Exod.
R. 1:19, and Num. R. 13:20, all of which fully share the aggadic con-
cerns of Ps.-Jon., including Jochebeds age.57
57
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 46:27 notes that Jochebed was born at the moment when Jacob
entered Egypt, so as to make up the exact number of seventy persons who went into
198 chapter ten
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:7 says that Adam and Eve were naked of the gar-
ment of , nail-skin or onyx, in which they had been created.60
They sewed together fig-leaves, Aramaic , to make girdles.
PRE 14:2 describes the dress of the first man as
a skin of nail, and a cloud of glory covered him. But when he ate of
the fruit of the tree, he was divested of his skin of nail and saw himself
naked.
Friedlnder has translated a text which also records that the cloud of
glory departed from him;61 see also Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 27. But Ps.-
Jon. has, very strikingly, no reference to a cloud of glory, even though
this cloud is a favourite theme of that Targum.62 This omission may be
compared with the view of R. Isaac in Gen. R. 20:12 that Adam was
clothed only in nail-skin; there is no talk of a cloud of glory. Further,
we should note the possibility for a play on words in the Aramaic here:
Adams original clothing of tw pr is replaced by trpy, leaves, of figs.
It is possible that a play on words of this kind actually produced the
tradition which Ps.-Jon. records, although R. Isaacs comment strongly
suggests that he and the Targum represent a point of view which PRE
has gone on to embroider with a cloud of glory.
The sacrifice of Cain and Abel took place on 14 Nisan accord-
ing to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:3, PRE 21:1 and Yalqut Shimoni Genesis
35. Friedlnders note on this suggests that the Palestinian syna-
gogue lectionary began its first-year cycle of readings in Nisan and
thus determined the date of the brothers sacrifice.63 Long before PRE
was composed, there was dispute whether the world was created in
Nisan or in Tishri, and this was related to the length of Abels life;
Gen. R. 22:4 records one such debate between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua,
the latter arguing that the world was created in Nisan and that Abel
lived from Passover to Pentecost. Ps.-Jon., however, has a clear prefer-
ence for placing important events in Nisan which PRE does not share,
60
Ps.-Jon. may here present a textual problem. If le Daut is correct in reading
garments of , beauty, then any possible link between the Targum and PRE
dissolves; see Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 91. Given the indubitable reference
to garments of nail/onyx in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:21, however, support for reading the
same expression in this verse is not entirely absent.
61
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 98.
62
Clarke et al. list at least forty-five uses of this expression in their concordance,
op. cit., p. 469.
63
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 153, n. 1. But his reference to Chrysostomus c. 175
c.e. must be a typographical error!
200 chapter ten
and introduces this month no fewer than eighteen times into para-
phrase where the Hebrew original does not require him to do so. It
must frankly be admitted that PRE could easily have acquired this
detail from Ps.-Jon.
In Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 6:20, God tells Noah that the animals for the Ark
shall come in to you by the hand of the angel, as of one taking and bring-
ing them to you to preserve them alive.
Shinan regards this as a digest of material found in PRE 23:1, but if this
is the case, not only pruning but also substantial alteration has taken
place.64 In PRE, the very complex problem facing Noah is described.
Where is he to put which animals? There were 366 kinds each of cattle,
fowls and reptiles; there were more beasts unclean than clean; how
was he to distinguish them all? Noah protests to God that he has no
strength to gather them, so the angels appointed over each species went
down and gathered them together, and brought them and all their food
into the Ark.
PRE speaks of angels appointed over each kind of animal. If Ps.-
Jon. has truly made a summary of PREs aggadah, why has he omitted
this detail, which is precisely in line with Ps.-Jon.s recognized inter-
est in the various classes and duties of the angels?65 More important,
it is also the very detail which would give a clue to his audience that
he was referring specifically to a tradition known in PRE. There are
considerable differences between the two texts as they stand, and the
Targum on its own gives no hint of Noahs perplexity, the vast prob-
lems confronting him and his lack of strength. If the Targum had
wished to intimate to cognoscenti that it was referring to a fuller tradi-
tion found in PRE by giving a hint of a digest of that tradition, would
it not have said that the animals should go into the Ark by the hands
of the angels appointed over each kind? The matter would surely have
been simplicity itself. It is far more probable that Ps.-Jon. presents not
a digest of PRE, but a variant of one aspect of a tradition of which
PRE happens to be a representative. The Targum itself needed to
explain the differences between Gen. 6:19, where God orders Noah to
bring the animals, and the following verse, which says that they would
come to him. The angel is the Targums device for eliminating the
64
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 261.
65
Sec above, pp. 226228 on Gen. 11:7.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 201
The story of the girl Pelitit and the wicked men of Sodom appears
briefly in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 18:21. God says:
I shall be revealed now, and see whether they have acted entirely accord-
ing to the complaint of the young girl Pelitit which has come before Me
(lit.: Him). (If so), they are guilty; but if they have performed repentance,
are they not righteous before Me as if I did not know it? Then I will not
punish them.
The Targums discussion of repentance, which takes up most of the
exegesis, is closely related to Tg. Neof. of this verse, and has been anal-
ysed by Chester.66 It plays no part in PRE. Mention of Pelitit is found
in PRE 25:3, with a long account of her charity towards a poor man of
Sodom and her subsequent discovery and torture by the wicked towns-
folk. Ps.-Jon. may assume that this story is so well known as merely
to require a hint of it in his paraphrase.67 But it is open to question
whether this mention of Pelitit constitutes proof that the Targum has
borrowed the story from PRE.
The aggadah about a girl who shows pity to the poor in Sodom
is represented outside PRE in b.Sanh. 109b and Gen. R. 49:6 where,
however, she is unnamed. The name Pelitit is the only item in which
PRE and the Targum agree, and in actual fact we have no means of
knowing whether the name was borrowed by PRE from the Targum or
vice-versa, or by both from some common source. For the Targum is
entirely silent on the whole aggadah, and may only hint that it knows
66
See Chester, op. cit., pp. 105109; FTP, FTV and Tg. Onq. of this verse; Gen.
R. 49:6; Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallah 5:4657; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2,
pp. 214216.
67
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 162; vol. 2, p. 214; and discussion in Bowker,
op. cit., pp. 212213; le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 191; and Yalqut
Shimoni Genesis 83.
202 chapter ten
more than it expresses. Neither can the possibility that the name Pelitit
was added by a copyist be entirely ruled out.68
The long account of Esaus death in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 50:13 exists in
a number of different versions, and the evidence suggests that Ps.-Jon.
represents a particular form of a tradition which developed in differ-
ent ways in different documents; there is no reason to suppose that it
must depend on PRE 39:3, since the differences between the texts are
very great. Thus (1) in the Targum, Jacobs sons carry their dead father
to Canaan and Esau sets out from Mount Gabla to go to Hebron for
the funeral. In PRE, Esau comes from Horeb or Seir to stir up strife
and claims ownership of the burial cave; this is lacking in the Targum.
(2) The Targum has Esau refuse to let Joseph bury Jacob in the cave;
this is found in PRE, but also in other texts, notably b.Sot ah 13a and
Gen. R. 97 on Gen. 49:21. (3) Naphtali went to Egypt, and on the same
day brought back the title deed to the cave; so the Targum, Gen. R. and
b.Sota h. PRE says that Joseph sent him to subdue the constellations;
otherwise, he is noted as a swift messenger.69 These details are missing
in the Targum. (4) The Targum has Joseph hint to H ushim ben Dan:
the latter cut off Esaus head with a sword. PRE, Gen. R. and b.Sotah
note that H ushim was deaf, a point lacking, though probably assumed,
by the Targum. PRE makes H ushim ask questions about Esau at this
point, which are not found in the Targum. The Targum alone presents
Joseph as the one who indicates to H ushim that he should kill Esau.
(5) In the Targum, Esaus head rolled into the cave and came to rest in
Isaacs bosom. In PRE, however, H ushim takes the head into the cave.
According to the account in b.Sotah, Esau was struck by H ushims
club so that his eyes were dislodged and rolled out, a detail found also
in Gen. R.; both these sources relate the incident to Jacobs laughter.
(6) In the Targum, the sons of Esau buried their fathers body in the
field of the cave; PRE notes that they, Jacobs sons, sent his body to
Mount Seir. (7) PRE adds that Isaac grasped Esaus head and prayed
68
It is quite possible that the name Pelitit has been added by a copyist to a com-
plete Targum text which, like b.Sanh. 109b and Gen. R. 49:6, originally referred to an
unnamed girl.
69
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 309, and Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 279280, who
compares Test. Naph. 3:24; 5:18. The tradition that Naphtali was the swift runner
who brought news to Jacob that Joseph was alive and who went to Egypt to fetch the
deed of the burial cave to refute Esaus claim is part of the stock of targumic lore,
and is not borrowed from PRE: see Tg. Neof. and FT of Gen. 49:21, and Ps.-Jon. of
Gen. 31:4; 49:21.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 203
that mercy be shown to him, a request which God firmly denies. This
does not figure in the Targum.
This brief survey of what is an extended aggadah in different texts
is enough to indicate that simple dependence of one document on
another is not sufficient to account for the variations in the same tradi-
tion represented in the sources. We have here an aggadah used by dif-
ferent authorities for different purposes at different historical periods,
and Ps.-Jon.s version has its own integrity.70
When God instructed Moses to return from Midian to Egypt, Ps.-
Jon. of Exod. 4:19 (cf. also Exod. 10:29) makes Him say that the men
who sought to kill Moses
have become nothing and have gone down from their possessions, and lo,
they are accounted as dead persons.
In PRE 40:2, we read:
Were they dead? Were they not alive? Only they had gone down from
their wealth. Hence you may learn that all who lose their wealth are as
though they were dead as it is said: For all the men who sought your life
are dead (Exod. 4:19).
Those who sought to kill Moses had been identified as Dathan and
Abiram, and the biblical statement for they are dead has been
understood as they are as if they were dead.71 Dathan and Abiram
play a part in later narratives, so their death here is not meant liter-
ally but figuratively. The marginal gloss of Tg. Neof. interprets in the
same way as Ps.-Jon., and this understanding of the verse is also known
from texts such as b. Avodah Zarah 5a, Exod. R. 5:4 and Tanhuma
13. Again, PRE appears to assume the very interpretation of the verse
which the other texts, including Ps.-Jon., establish as valid; there are,
therefore, no grounds for supposing that the Targum owes its exegesis
to PRE. Finally, Ps.-Jon. has the detail that the men have become noth-
ing, which PRE lacks.
According to PRE 46:1, Israel received the commandments on a
Friday, the sixth day of the month, at the sixth hour; there is a variant
70
The Targum is much gentler to Esau than is PRE, which has a harsh conclusion,
possibly reflecting bitter hostility to Rome in a particular period. See also Tanhuma
6; Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 162; and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 143;
vol. 2, p. 286.
71
This matter is discussed by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 2: Exode,
p. 38, where further bibliography is listed.
204 chapter ten
reading to the effect that this happened on the ninth day at the sixth
hour.72 Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 19:16 places the giving of the Law on the
sixth day of the month at morning time, that is, before the sixth hour,
which is noon. The Targum and PRE agree that the Law was given on
the sixth day, but this is a view held also by Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Bahodesh 3:3334, b.Shabb. 88a and Sefer Ha-Yashar 82:6. It is a well-
known tradition and it is improbable that the Targum has borrowed
it from PRE, where the hour of the day, made precise in a manner
foreign to Ps.-Jon., has a particular exegetical part to play.73 Direct
dependence of the Targum on PRE is hardly likely, given the existence
of the tradition in other authoritative texts.
Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 2:13 identifies the two Hebrews who were con-
tending as Dathan and Abiram: Moses saw that Dathan had raised his
hand to strike Abiram and checked him. PRE 48:4 quotes the Hebrew
of the same verse as proof that the men were Dathan and Abiram,
but has no reference to Dathans lifting his hand. While Friedlnder
regarded this Targum verse as dependent on PRE, Prez Fernndez
suggests that PRE may have used Ps.-Jon.!74 The Targum is hardly
likely to depend on PRE, however, since the latter regards Exod. 2:13
as a proof-text that Dathan and Abiram were the men in question, and
this can be gleaned, not from the Hebrew text itself, but only from the
traditional understanding of that verse, of which Targum Ps.-Jon. is a
representative, along with b.Ned. 64b, ARNAa 20 and Exod. R. 1:29.
Num. 16:2526 describes these two as wicked men, on the basis of
which they are identified as the contenders in Exod. 2:13.75 Finally,
PRE stresses that Moses killed the Egyptian in the land of Midian by
a word, and this is not recorded in Ps.-Jon.76
Most famous is the note in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 21:21 about Ishmael:
And he dwelt in the desert of Paran, and took as wife Adisha (;)
and he divorced her, and his mother took for him Fatima, a woman of
the land of Egypt.
Much has been made of this verse, as indicative of the Targums anti-
Islamic stance and of its dependence on PRE 30:3, so much so that
72
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 319.
73
Thus Israel received the Torah at the sixth hour, returned to their tents at the
ninth, ate the prepared manna, and rested on the Sabbath.
74
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 380, n. 2; Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 335.
75
See le Daut, Targum du Penlateuque, vol. 2: Exode, p. 23.
76
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 379, who points to the antiquity of this notion.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 205
Shinan seems to believe that this verse can only properly be under-
stood in the light of PRE.77 In the latter text, Ishmaels wife is called
Ayesha; there are variants of the name but none correspond to the
Targums Adisha.78 Although the point is a minor one, it may prove
useful as an indicator to the independence of the texts. Both texts,
however, agree that Ishmaels second wife was Fatima.
PRE has a long aggadah which explains why Ishmael took two wives.
Abraham visited Ishmael and encountered his first wife Ayesha, who
was a Moabitess. Ishmael was absent from his tent, so Abraham asked
for refreshment; Ayesha refused to supply food or water. Abraham
therefore asked her to give Ishmael a cryptic message, and on his return
Ishmael understood his fathers enigmatic words; as PRE points out,
the son of a wise man is half a wise man, so Ishmael was not lacking
intelligence, and divorced his wife. His mother took for him Fatima, a
woman of Egypt. Later Abraham paid another visit and Ishmael was
again absent, but Fatima provided food and refreshment for Abraham,
who stood and prayed to God for Ishmael. Thereupon Ishmaels house
was filled with good things and blessings, and Ishmael knew that his
father still loved him.
The story as told by PRE carries no anti-Islamic thrust. The opposite
is the case, since Abraham ends by praying that Ishmael be blessed,
and it is clearly stated that Abraham still loves him. Those who regard
Ps.-Jon. as informed by anti-Islamic polemic are presented with a
severe problem, if it be truly the case that Ps.-Jon. can only be under-
stood in the light of PRE, for PREs message is pro-Islamic, praising
Fatima and putting into Abrahams mouth prayers for the blessing of
Ishmael. Ohana especially has asserted that Ps.-Jon. adoped from PRE
mainly negative aspects of the latters portrait of Ishmael,79 but if Ps.-
Jon. is anti-Islamic, and dependent on PRE such that this verse can be
properly understood only through PRE, how are we to interpret this
piece of pro-Islamic material in Ps.-Jon.?
But not all are agreed that Ps.-Jon. is in reality anti-Islamic, or even
that it has Islam in view at all, and it may be argued that the names
of Ishmaels two wives were introduced late into the completed text
of the Targum by a modernising scribe. The curious targumic spelling
77
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 163, and literature cited there.
78
Variants include Essah, Ephah, yysh: see Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 218, n. 7; and
Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 211.
79
See Ohana, art. cit., pp. 384385.
206 chapter ten
of the first wifes name suggests that the copyist of that manuscript
was unfamiliar with the PRE names in their various forms. That these
names are the additions of a late copyist is not at all improbable. The
wives would originally have been unnamed, and an exegesis of this
kind would have provided the springboard for the developed aggadah
of PRE. A modernising copyist of the Targum later added, incorrectly
in one case, the names of the wives known to him from PRE or some
other source. This explanation of the Targum, we submit, is as con-
vincing, if not more compelling, than that which sees it as an anti-
Islamic text which can only be correctly understood in the light of a
pro-Islamic original.
The description of the teraphim in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:19 has mate-
rial in common with PRE 36:4, but a similar description appears in
Tanhuma 12 , which has details lacking in the account of PRE also
found in the Targum. Thus Tanhuma and the Targum refer to the div-
inations or incantations put beneath the tongue of the salted head of
a first-born which makes up the teraphim; this is lacking in PRE, and
it is noticeable that some texts of the latter omit the whole extended
description. Two other collectionsYalqut Shimoni Genesis 130,
Zechariah 578 and Sefer Ha-Yashar 31:41have the same description,
but with some variations of detail. Indeed, a glance at Friedlnders
translation and his notes of the textual variants, and a comparison
of these with the material given by Prez Fernndez, shows that this
material, which is of a potentially very dangerous sort for religious
orthodoxy, was subject to a good deal of attention in the early Middle
Ages.80 Consequently, it would be extremely hazardous to venture any
opinion about the relationship of the various descriptions of the tera-
phim to one another, although the agreement of the Targum in detail
now with PRE, now with Tanhuma, might suggest that a common
source lies behind all the present versions.
PRE states that one of Rachels motives for stealing the teraphim
was to extirpate idolatry from Labans house; this does not feature in
Ps.-Jon. But Jacobs statement that whoever had stolen the idols would
die before his proper time found in PRE 36:4 does find a place in
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:32, as also in Tanhuma 13 and Pesiqta de Rav
Kahana 14, 116b. Finally, we may note that Ps.-Jon. of Num. 22:5 and
80
See Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 273274: Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 254255.
Two witnesses lack almost the entire passage.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 207
6. Concluding Remarks
81
For the identification of Laban with Balaam, see further le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, vol. 3: Nombres, p. 208.
208 chapter ten
Holy Spirit resting on Jacob; the place of the burning bush as the site of
the Giving of the Torah; dwelling in the tent as a metaphor for sleep-
ing with ones wife; and the ancestry of Hagar. In all these cases and
in many others, PRE assumes such interpretations of the Hebrew text
as well-known, lawful and authoritative. It follows that the idea that
Ps.-Jon. may depend in some way on PRE in these particular instances
is so highly improbable as to be without real foundation.
Third, Ps.-Jon. is seen to share with the other Targums interpreta-
tions and details of exegesis which may figure in whole, in part or in
small point in PRE. Very many items which we have discussed show
this to be the case, and, where Ps.-Jon. is so clearly linked to the com-
mon stock of targumic tradition, possible influence from PRE is effec-
tively reduced to vanishing point.
Fourth, discussion of apparent similarities between Ps.-Jon. and
PRE has hitherto paid little or no attention to the textual state of these
documents. PRE itself exists in a number of witnesses which some-
times differ markedly from one another, alleged parallels with Ps.-
Jon. occurring in only one or two of the manuscripts or editions. The
question arises as to what constitutes PRE, given that the work appears
to be composite, is possibly incomplete, and is undoubtedly indebted
to traditional source material which it has utilised for its own par-
ticular purposes.82 The strong and evident possibility that individual
scribes and copyists, throughout the history of the text of PRE, con-
tinued to lift material from other documents and insert it into PRE
must never be forgotten. Ps.-Jon., indeed, may have been one such
document from which material was derived.
Fifth, we have encountered a number of extended traditions which
are found not only in Ps.-Jon. and PRE but also in other documents.
Examples include the lengthy account of Esaus death and the making
of the teraphim. In these and in many other items of aggadah, we have
found that Ps.-Jon.s version may have as much, if not more, in com-
mon with documents other than PRE. We have noted how the under-
lying exegetical principles of the two texts are often radically different
and completely unconnected: a case in point is the matter of the 613
commandments in Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 24:12. And the survey has shown
again and again how the fundamental thrust of the Targums exegesis
82
See Friedlnder, op. cit., Introduction pp. xiiixvi; and Prez Fernndez, op. cit.,
pp. 2526.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 209
differs radically from that found in PRE. There are also clear indica-
tions in this catalogue of supposed points of contact between Ps.-Jon.
and PRE that the texts are independent of each other: one need only
recall the matter of Leviathans creation on the fifth day.
In all this, we have reckoned without the undoubted differences
between PRE and Ps.-Jon. which Prez Fernndez has listed.83 Neither
have we taken account of the necessary requirements for proof that
one text is dependent on another. This latter concern must be taken
seriously. Before ever we may assert that one text depends in some
way upon another, there must be clear and unequivocal evidence that
this is truly the case. There must at least be substantial borrowings
of material; regular use of identical phraseology and vocabulary over
wide portions of text; the use of the same material for the same general
purposes; firm grounds for holding that the texts in question are not
themselves dependent upon sources prior in date to them which they
might have drawn upon independently; and good reason to believe
that minor similarities between the documents are not, in fact, the
result of coincidence or the work of later copyists. To the best of our
knowledge, no claim that Ps.-Jon. stands in such relationship to PRE
has been convincingly put forward. When these considerations are
added to the results of our analysis of Prez Fernndezs list of co-
incidences in small details between Ps.-Jon. and PRE, we feel justified
in reiterating our original conclusion that the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
is not simply and directly dependent upon Pirqe de R. Eliezer.
83
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 3536.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
1
An excellent survey of nineteenth century opinions is offered by R. le Daut,
Introduction la Littrature Targumique, Premire Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 89101,
with a critique of more recent views. A date in the Islamic period is championed by
D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: its relationship to the other Targumim, use
of Midrashim, and Date, thesis (Hebrew Union College, 1981), and largely accepted
by A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim
(Tbingen 1986), pp. 252256. But the most impressive arguments for the lateness of
this Targum are marshalled by A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to
the Pentateuch, 2 vols, (Jerusalem 1979) (in Hebrew): see especially 1, pp. 119146;
2, p. xvi.
2
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: some comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730, and the response of Shinan, Dating Targum Pseudo- Jonathan:
some more comments, JJS 41 (1990), pp. 5761; Hayward, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 7793; and Jacobs Second Visit to
Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish
and Christian Literature and History, ed. P.R. Davies and R.T. White (Sheffield 1990),
pp. 175192.
3
See A. Shinan, The Palestinian TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity, Contra-
dictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287, and the discussions of this matter which follow.
inconsistencies and contradictions 211
The Targum first speaks of Eliezer in its rendering of Gen. 14:14. The
Hebrew text, which has no reference to him, reads as follows:
And when Abram heard that his brother had been taken captive, he led
forth (wyrq) his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and
eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.
Difficulties here include the word wyrq, which may be translated in
different ways. Furthermore, this is the only verse which refers to three
hundred and eighteen servants of Abraham: there has been no preced-
ing record of their birth, and they take no further part in the narrative
of Genesis. Their appearance was bound to arouse comment, given that
Abrams household at this time was not renowned for its high birth
rate.4 PJ has the following interpretation: deviations from the Hebrew
text are italicized.
And when Abram heard that his brother had been taken captive, then he
armed his young men [wzyyn yl wlmwyy] whom he had trained for war
out of those who had been reared in his house; but they were unwilling
to go with him. So he chose from them Eliezer, the son of Nimrod, who in
strength was likened to all of them, three hundred and eighteen; and he
pursued as far as Dan.5
4
See Gen. 15:23, with specific reference to Eliezer, and 18:1115. The childlessness
of Abraham and Sarah laid them open to Gentile taunts, according to the midrashim:
see, e.g., Ber. Rab. 53:10; Deb. Rab. 1:25; and PJ of Numb. 21:34.
5
The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.G. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and E. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New Jersey 1984); A. Sperber,
The Bible in Aramaic, 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden 1959);
A. Dez Macho, MS Neophyti I, 1, Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona 1968); M.L. Klein, The
212 chapter eleven
8
See PRE 16:3, according to which Nimrod gave him to Abraham when the lat-
ter left Ur. For the text of PRE, we have used the Spanish translation in M. Prez
Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia 1984).
9
See below, p. 223 ff.
10
The story of Aner, Eshchol, and Mamre, Abrahams disciples, is found also in
Midrash Ha-Gadol, Genesis, ed. M. Margoliouth (Jerusalem 1967), pp. 234235.
11
See also, e.g., b. Ned. 32a; Wayy. Rab. 28:4; Bem. Rab. 18:21; Pesiqta de Rab
Kahana 8:2; Tanhuma 13; and Mid. Teh. on Ps. 110:1.
12
See J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969), p. 195,
quoting Epistle of Barnabas 8:9 and Clement, Stromateis 6:11; R. le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, I, Gnese (Paris 1978), p. 162; and L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
5 (Philadelphia 1934), p. 224. See also Ambrose, De Fide, Prologue. This number was
214 chapter eleven
Eliezer, not Jesus, is the hero of the story.13 But Shinan gives good
reasons for rejecting Levines suggestion;14 and we may strengthen his
observations by noting that PJs exegesis is implicit already in a pre-
Christian source. Philo, in De Abrahamo 230233, presents Abraham
as without allies: he dismisses his servants (oiketas) as unreliable, and
organizes those born in his house into an army. He did not, says Philo,
trust in these, but in God, the champion and defender of the just (alia
ti hupermachi kai proagnisti tou dikaiou theou).15 In other words,
Abraham knows that God is my helper, which is a meaning of the
name Eliezer.16
On the one hand, PJ is familiar with pre-Christian understandings
of individual words in this passage which have, to some degree, deter-
mined its exegesis of the whole verse. The Targum owes nothing to
PRE; and its presentation of Eliezer conforms to that expressed also in
Ber. Rab. and the Babli. On the other hand, it is only in the medieval
Midrash Ha-Gadol that we encounter Eliezer as Nimrods son. This
may be accounted for in different ways. It might be argued that here
we find evidence for the late, post-Islamic composition of the Targum,
or that the text, while incorporating very ancient material, has under-
gone substantial redaction in the early Middle Ages. Again, it might be
argued that this note is a mere scribal gloss introduced by one familiar
with the Midrash Ha-Gadol, and that it is therefore of little evidential
value for determining the date and place of the Targum. Or we may
here have evidence that PJ is like a Yalqut , gathering materials from
different sources and places, whose final date must be determined by
also said to be the total of the Fathers assembled at the first Council of Nicaea in 325:
see Athanasius, Ad Afros 2.
13
See E. Levine, Some Characteristics of Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to Genesis,
Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 93.
14
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 2, 346.
15
Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 224, also draws attention to Philos interpretation; it may
well be based on the observation that the three hundred and eighteen play no fur-
ther part in the story, and the further deduction from this that Abraham must have
received help which could have come only from God.
16
Further confirmation of Shinans contention that anti-Christian polemic is not
at work in the Targum and related texts comes from the Christian documents them-
selves. Ep. Barn. 9:8 conflates the three hundred and eighteen men of Gen. 14:14 with
the note in Gen. 17:23 that Abraham circumcised all the men of his household to
show that Abraham, the first to be circumcised, looked forward in spirit to Jesus, since
the 318 in Greek numerals may be represented as I H for eighteen, and T, a symbol
of the cross, standing for three hundred. The Targum does not even begin to engage
with this assertion.
inconsistencies and contradictions 215
17
The meanings of mq and dmsq lyzr are quite uncertain. The former is hapax
legomenon, and the latter is scarcely intelligible. The problems, and attempts of the
Versions to solve them, are set out in J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Genesis (Edinburgh 1912), pp. 278279.
18
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim on this verse: he cites Aquila, who
reads the son of the one who gives drink to my house, and Theodotion, the son of
the one who is over my house. These interpretations do not, however, entirely agree
with PJ and TO, who rather understand Eliezer himself as the one in overall control
of the household. Nonetheless, all these sources seem to represent him as a steward
of Abraham, understanding mq in that sense. See further PJ of Gen. 24:2, discussed
below, p. 217 f.
216 chapter eleven
the exegesis. But the Palestinian Targums, including PJ, do not specify
these wonders: they are spoken of as simply as nysyn. Perhaps we are
meant to think of Eliezers part in Abrahams conquest of the four
hostile kings recorded in Gen. 14:14. Thus in Ber. Rab. 44:9 R. Simon
b. Lakish in the name of bar Kappara interprets dmsq lyzr as mean-
ing the one by whose hands I pursued kings as far as Damascus, and
Eliezer was his name; but nothing is said here of wonderful deeds. PJ
stands entirely within the tradition of the Palestinian Targums of this
verse, and does not elaborate it in any way. While the victory over the
kings may be implied by PJ, it is certainly not stated, and need not be
part of the exegesis at all.19
PJ next refers to Eliezer in its account of the Aqedah. Alone among
the Targums, it gives the names of the two young men who accompa-
nied Abraham and Isaac as Eliezer and Ishmael (Gen. 22:3).
And Abraham arose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took
with him his two young men, Eliezer and Ishmael, and Isaac his son.
And he cut wood of olive, fig, and palm, which are fitting for the whole
burnt-offering, and arose and went to the place which the Lord had said
to him.
The same identification of the youths is found in Wayy. Rab. 26:2, 7;
Qoh. Rab. 9:7.1; Midrash Ha-Gadol of this verse; and later collections.20
PRE 31:2 names them, and has them dispute during the journey to the
Aqedah which of them shall be Abrahams heir. PJ owes nothing to this
tradition, having already (Gen. 22:1) recorded a serious disagreement
between Isaac and Ishmael over the same matter: it is presented as the
direct cause of Gods command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But the
question who shall be Abrahams heir is forced on us by the Bible itself,
which has already hinted that Eliezer stands to inherit (Gen. 15:2), and
goes on to speak of Ishmaels birth as a natural son of Abraham (Gen.
19
See also the Targumic material preserved in Bereshith Zutta , quoted by
M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, Part 1 (Ramat-Gan 1983), pp.
4243 (in Hebrew). The complex narrative of Abraham and Eliezer pursuing the kings
to Damascus, found, e.g., in PRE 27:2, is entirely lacking in the Targums; on the other
hand, Josephus, Ant. I. p. 183 makes Abraham question God about what benefit he
may derive from the divine favour when he is childless, a ploy found also in the
Targums. It should not too readily be assumed that the wonderful deeds refer to the
defeat of the kings: Jerome, Heb. Quaest. ad. loc., says that they (probably his Jewish
sources) relate this verse to the founding of the city of Damascus.
20
See Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed. Margoliouth, p. 351; Theodor-Albeck, Bereschit
Rabba, 594, notes; Sefer Ha-Yashar, 44b; and Rashi on this verse.
inconsistencies and contradictions 217
21
For the Aramaic fragment of Test. Levi, see R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 (Oxford 1913), p. 364.
22
Eliezer is also presented as a Torah scholar in b. Ned. 32a (R. Abbahu in the name
of R. Eleazar), which expounds Gen. 14:14 accordingly.
218 chapter eleven
23
Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 136, n. 15, believes that the identification of Eliezer
with Og, king of Bashan, depends on PJ of Gen. 14:13. This cannot be correct, since
PJ never identifies the two men, and clearly distinguishes between them. Again, in PJs
version of Gen. 14:13, Og is named as the fugitive who tells Abraham of Lots capture,
while according to PRE 27:1 the archangel Michael performs this task.
inconsistencies and contradictions 219
The Targum does not explain why Laban thought that Eliezer was
Abraham. Possibly it takes for granted the view of Ber. Rab. 59:8
(cf. 60:7), that the splendour of his appearance (lit.: eikn) was compa-
rable with Abrahams, and therefore Laban confused the two men. We
should also recall the remark of b. Yoma 28b, that Eliezer was a Torah
scholar. Furthermore, in Biblical Hebrew, the verb pnh may have the
force of clear away, put out of the way as well as the more common
meaning of turn.24 Not only PJ, but also TN and the marginal gloss of
TN understand that Laban had rid the house of idolatry, the marginal
gloss of TN adding incest and shedding of innocent blood as well.25
But they do not follow PJ in suggesting that Laban thought that Eliezer
was Abraham. Unlike LXX, Vulgate, and Peshit ta, which render the
verb as prepare, these Targums have taken it to mean get rid of ; and
they must consequently supply it with an object. Now Abraham was a
monotheist, and his household must also be worshippers of the One
true God. A visit from a member of Abrahams entourage would there-
fore require Laban, a known idolater (Gen. 31:19, 30, 34), to remove
his cult objects from the house. Once the removal of the idols had
been established as a Targumic interpretation, the identity of the visi-
tor could be considered: and PJ may have developed its understanding
in purely Targumic terms, without reference to other sources.
Laban offered Abrahams servant hospitality:
There was set (wyysm) before him to eat. But he said: I shall not eat until
I have spoken my words. So he [Laban] said: Speak. (Gen. 24:33)
The form of the verb set, wyysm, is curious: the Massorah records
wayyisem as Kethib and wayyusam as Qere. What should be noted is
the consonantal form of the word, which is spelled with two letters
yodh.26 The Targum translates:
And they set before him a dish to eat in which was the like of something
fatal (kmdqtwl): but he sensed it, and said, I shall not eat until I have
spoken my words. So he said: Speak.
24
See, e.g., Isa. 40:3; 57:14; Mal. 3:1. The Aramaic cognate verb, pny, is used by PJ:
in Pael, it means remove, empty.
25
For pnyty as meaning the removal of idolatry, see also Ber. Rab. 60:7; b. Yoma
28b; b. Baba Bathra 16b; ARNa 8; Aggadath Beresith 68; Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed.
Margoliouth, p. 401. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, p. 170, suggests that PJ may depend on
Ber. Rab. for exegesis of this verse: it is not clear that such is necessarily the case, given
the different emphases of PJ on the one hand and the Midrash on the other.
26
On the Kethib-Qere variant, see Skinner, op. cit., p. 345.
220 chapter eleven
PJ specifies what was set before Eliezer, as do LXX and Vulgate with
their addition of bread. That the food was adulterated is expressed
differently, however, in the text of PJ edited by Ginsburger, which
states that there was sm dqtwl, fatal poison contained in it.27 This lat-
ter reading co-incides with the statement of the Midrash Ha-Gadol on
this verse that they put sm, poison, in the food, and is repeated in
other late Midrashim. This detail is not recorded in early texts.28 It can
be understood only in the light of PJs interpretation of 24:55, which
reports that Rebekahs brother and mother suggest that she remain
with her family for some time. The Targum adds to the Hebrew text
the information that
while they were speaking in the evening, Bethuel was eating from that
dish; and they found him with lips compressed, for behold, he was dead.
It is evident that the Targum is attempting to resolve difficulties inher-
ent in the Biblical text. Foremost among these is the fact that Rebekahs
father, Bethuel, appears once only in the whole story: in verse 50, he
readily agrees with Laban that it is Gods will that Rebekah go with
Eliezer to become Isaacs wife. However, when the time comes for
Rebekah to leave home, her father is not in evidence; it is her brother
and mother who grant permission for her to leave, but at the same
time request that she delay the journey for ten days. These curious
details could easily be explained if it were assumed that Bethuel had
died after his conversation with Laban; and, from the first century
ad onwards, a tradition is known to this effect. Thus Josephus, Ant.
I. 248, has Rebekah herself declare that Bethuel is dead, and that her
brother and mother are now her guardians.29 Likewise Ber. Rab. 60:12
asks where was Bethuel, and reports laconically that he had been smit-
ten in the night. Given this death, we might reasonably suppose that
27
See M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan. Thargum Jonathan ben Usil zum Pentateuch
nach der Londoner Handschrift (Berlin, 1903), p. 41. The same reading is attested by
B. Walton, SS Biblia Polyglotta (London 1657).
28
See Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed. Margoliouth, p. 403, and the references to Bereshith
Rabbati, Midrash Aggadah, Sekhel T ov, and Leqah T ov cited there; Yalqut Shimoni
on Proverbs 1047; and Rashi on this verse, and Shinan, The Aggadah, 2, p. 286, note
208, for the restriction of this detail to recent texts.
29
H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, p. 4, Jewish Antiquities Books 14 (Harvard 1967),
p. 123, notes that Bethuels death is also implied by Gen. 24:28, which already speaks of
her mothers house rather than her fathers. See also S. Speier, The Targum Jonathan
on Genesis 24.56, JQR (n.s.), 28 (19371938), pp. 301303.
inconsistencies and contradictions 221
30
This observation strengthens Shinans view that Josephus and Ber. Rab. 60:12 do
not themselves refer to the aggadah of PJ: see The Aggadah, 1, p. 51. The evidence of
these sources, however, is clear proof that the tradition of Bethuels death was old and
widely known: the Targum equally knows the tradition, and sets out to explain it.
31
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 51, citing S. Thompson, Motif Index of Folk
Literature, 8 (Copenhagen 1955), p. 582, for the theme of the poisoned meal and its
claiming the wrong victim.
32
See, e.g., Ber. Rab. 14:4; b. Ber. 61a; PJ of Gen. 2:7. But the repeated yodh was
also understood as referring to other types of twofold creation: see Ber. Rab. 14:23,
5; and Bowker, op. cit., pp. 116117.
222 chapter eleven
33
Eliezers journey to and from Paddan-Aram on the same day is, however, implied
by Gen. 24:42, where he says And I have come today to the well . . .: so b. Sanh. 95a.
inconsistencies and contradictions 223
34
See J. Bowker, op. cit., pp. 179180; and L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
5, p. 198.
224 chapter eleven
35
For the most recent and comprehensive discussion of this work and its date, see
E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1, rev. and ed.
by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh 1986), pp. 325331.
36
For TOs treatment of this verse, see J. Bowker, Haggadah in the Targum
Onqelos, JSS 12 (1967), pp. 5758, and Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, p. 140.
37
See, for example, M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashis Commentary (London 1946).
inconsistencies and contradictions 225
38
See L. Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 5, p. 214; Z.Y. Gottlieb, Targum Jonathan ben
Uzziel on the Torah, Melilah 1 (1943), p. 29 (in Hebrew); Shinan, The Aggadah,
vol. 1, pp. 140141. I have failed to find anything in the medieval midrashim, quoted
by Shinan, which corresponds to PJs exegesis of this verse.
226 chapter eleven
who is the subject of the preceding verse.39 The Hebrew might then
quite properly be rendered:
From that land he (sc. Nimrod) went out to Assyria, and he built
Nineveh . . .
This reading was known in the fourth century ad. It lies behind the
comments made by Ephraem Syrus (c. 306373), which others have
correctly noted,40 that Nimrod waged war on the nations with Gods
approval. Ephraem does not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower
of Babel; rather,
according to the Lords will, he made war with each nation and perse-
cuted them from there, so that they should go and be gathered together
into their regions, allotted to them by God . . . Nimrod was the one who
scattered them; he also captured Babylon and reigned in it first, for if he
had not scattered all of them there would not have been a place which
could have held them all.41
Finally, a further point needs consideration. PJ altogether fails to attri-
bute the plan to build the Tower of Babel to Nimrod. It is not alone
in this, since all the other Targumim of the Pentateuch follow suit.
There is ancient precedent for their approach, for example in Jubilees
10:1826.
In the light of these facts, it seems to us most unlikely that PJs inter-
pretation of Gen. 10:11 is the result of a mistake. For if the Hebrew text
of this verse is taken as referring to Nimrod, then the question at once
arises, why he went out from that land? One might, indeed, make out
a case for arguing that the Targum preserves a very old understanding
of this verse, which was partly favourable to Nimrod; that this tradi-
tion was reflected in the other Pentateuchal Targumim, to the extent
39
See B. Grossfield, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible, 6
(Edinburgh 1988), pp. 6061: he also points out that Ber. Rab. 37:4 makes Abraham
the subject of the verb. See also the English renderings of the Revised Version and
Revised Standard Version.
40
For the similarity between Ephraem and PJ of this verse, see E.B. Levine, The
Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and Neofiti 1 to Genesis, Anexo III in
A. Dez Macho, MS Neophyti 1, 2 Exodo (Madrid-Barcelona 1970), p. 550; and Shinan,
op. cit., pp. 1, 140, who also cites L. Ginzberg, Die Haggadah bei den Kirchenvtern,
MGWJ 45 (1899), pp. 466467.
41
Our translation of the text in R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri In Genesim
et in Exodum Commentarii, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium p. 72
(Louvain 1955), on Genesis section VIII.
inconsistencies and contradictions 227
that they do not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower; and that
Ber. Rab. borrowed PJs interpretation, transferring it to Asshur and
making it conform to the general view that Nimrod was the planner of
Babel. Other information about Nimrod which we gather from PJ will
also presently lead us to conclude that this verse is not a mistake.
The Targums rendering of Gen. 11:28 has also caused problems for
commentators. In the Hebrew, this verse informs us that
Haran died before the face of (l pny) Terah his father in the land of his
birth, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous, since l pny might mean prior
to, or in the presence of . PJ has the following explanation:
Now it happened, when Nimrod threw Abram into the furnace of fire
because he would not worship his idols, that no authority was (given)
to the fire to burn him. And thus Harans heart was divided, saying, If
Nimrod gets the victory, I will be of his party; but if Abram is victorious,
I will be of his party. And when all the nations who were present saw
that the fire had no dominion over Abram, he [sic] said in their hearts:
Is not Haran Abrams brother full of divinations and sorceries? And has
he not cast a spell on the fire so that it should not burn his brother? At
once fire fell from the highest heaven and consumed him; and Haran died
in the sight of Terah his father, just as he was burned in the land of his
birth, in the furnace of fire which the Chaldeans had made for Abram
his brother.
This interpretation divides naturally into four sections, which it will be
convenient to discuss individually.
42
Cf. b. Pes. 118a; Avodah Zarah 3a. See G. Vermes, The Life of Abraham, Scripture
and Tradition in Judaism (2nd rev. ed., Leiden 1973), pp. 8590. His observations on
228 chapter eleven
the dating of these traditions are particularly relevant for this essay. See also le Daut,
op. cit., p. 146.
43
See Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, p. 46. n. 24; p. 175.
44
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46. He cites Midrash Ha-Gadol (ed. Margoliouth,
p. 306); Midrash Aggadah; Maaseh Abraham Abinu and other sources.
45
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46.
inconsistencies and contradictions 229
of PJs exegesis; that Harans death was caused by God, and that he
was burned in fire from the furnace. In Ber. Rab. 38:13, the bystanders
killed Haran by throwing him into the furnace: the Targum does not
reflect this tradition.46 Neither Midrash Ha-Gadol nor the Zohar, medi-
eval sources quoted by Shinan, speak of fire from heaven, and Midrash
Aggadah refers only to Gods sending a bolt of fire from the furnace
to kill Haran, this last being reminiscent of LAB.47 Shinan, however,
disagrees with Levines evaluation of this tradition as characteristic of
the spirit of later Judaism, and suggests that it is a popular story of
possibly ancient origin.48 His suggestion is, in our view, entirely valid,
and receives support from LAB 6:17.
What is more difficult to accept is Shinans argument that PJ has
quite negligently and carelessly combined two mutually exclusive
stories, one attributing Harans death to God, the other to Nimrod.49
But PJ does not state that Nimrod threw Haran into the fire, and the
Targums narrative is anything but careless: close attention to the text
shows that an important point is being subtly conveyed. Thus the
nations ascribe Abrahams safety to Harans occult powers, so that
God must prove immediately and directly that these are futile in the
face of His might. But the onlookers may still harbour the belief that
Haran, left to his own devices, might have been able to use sorcery to
protect Abraham; PJ, therefore, resorts to irony, reporting that Haran
himself ended up as a corpse in the very fire he was thought capable
of controlling. The fire from heaven killed him, while Nimrods fire
burned his corpse. This aggadah could have developed easily out of
stories of the kind still extant in LAB 6.
We have still to explain PJs description of Nimrod as King of
Pontus.50 The Targums version of Gen. 14:1, 9, identifies Amraphel,
king of Shinar, as Nimrod, king of Pontus. Nimrod is equated with
Amraphel in many sources as, for example, Ber. Rab. 42:4; b. Erubin 53a;
H agigah 13a; Tanhuma 6; Pesiqta Rabbati 33, and Midrash Ha-Gadol
(ed. Margoliouth), pp. 231232. But, to the best of my knowledge,
only this Targum refers to him as king of Pontus: and this must be
46
For a different view, see Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 175.
47
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46.
48
See Shinan, ibid., arguing against E.B. Levine, Some Characteristics of Pseudo-
Jonathan Targum to Genesis, Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 91.
49
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 175.
50
See above, p. 46.
230 chapter eleven
51
The standard treatment of Mithridates VI is still that of Th. Reinach, Mithridate
Eupator Roi de Pont (Paris 1890); but see now P. Green, Alexander to Actium. The
Hellenistic Age (London 1990), pp. 558564, who gives the most recent critical account
of ancient sources for our knowledge of this monarch. I am particularly grateful
to Professor P.J. Rhodes for his help in my work on Mithridates. For Jewish knowl-
edge of this monarch, see Josephus, War I.138; Ant. XIII.421; XIV.53; 112113;
XVI.18.
52
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 276.
53
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 5354, 276.
54
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 251, 295; and PJ of Gen. 10:1011. If we are correct in
arguing that PJ has modelled Nimrod on Mithridates, then the Targums version of
Gen. 10:11 discussed above is entirely comprehensible.
55
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 244, 288289.
56
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 250, 282; some authorities credited him with knowledge
of fifty tongues.
inconsistencies and contradictions 231
confiscated money from the Jews of Cos.57 He died, at his own request,
by the hand either of his son or of a trusted servant;58 but the ultimate
cause of his demise was Rome, against which he waged many wars:
PJ of Gen. 25:27 records that Esau, a famous Rabbinic code-name for
Rome, killed Nimrod and his son.59 Finally, it should be noted that the
Aramaic word mitreda means hunting dagger; and that in Hebrew
the names Nimrod and Mithridates easily lend themselves to puns on
the root mrd, to rebel.
It would seem, then, that PJs presentation of Nimrod draws on
popular stories about Mithridates VI. If this be the case, the Targums
elaboration of Nimrod as king of Pontus probably dates from the first
century ad at the latest. Such an early date would explain why PJ
describes Eliezer as son of Nimrod rather than his servant.60 For the
Targum would then stand in the tradition of pre-Christian apologists
for Judaism such as Artapanus (3rd2rd centuries bc), Eupolemus
(before 1st century bc), and Pseudo-Eupolemus (before 1st century
bc), who defended their nation by presenting the Patriarchs and great
people of Jewish history as the equals or betters of contemporary
Pharaohs and monarchs, with whom they often consorted.61
Another mystery may also be solved. At Gen. 16:5, PJ makes Sarah
speak to Abraham of the sons of Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh, the
son of Nimrod, who threw you into the furnace of fire. Many other
sources speak of Hagar as Pharaohs daughter; but nowhere else do
we hear that Pharaoh was son of Nimrod, and PJs version has caused
seemingly intractable problems for commentators.62 Matters may be
explained, however, once we perceive that PJ is moulding a common
57
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 281; Josephus, Ant. XIV. pp. 112113.
58
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 410.
59
This is not at all connected with PRE 24:5 (cf. Ber. Rab. 65:16), according to
which Esau killed Nimrod to gain possession of Adams garment. It is even further
removed from Ber. Rab. 63:13, which has Nimrod seeking to kill Esau for the robe. See
further C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 1618.
60
See above, p. 211 ff.
61
For the authors named here, their lives, translations of what remains of their works,
and probable dates, see J.H. Charlesworth (ed), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
II (London 1985), pp. 889903 (Artapanus); pp. 861872 (Eupolemus); pp. 873879
(Pseudo-Eupolemus); and cf. Schrer, op. cit., pp. 521525 (Artapanus); pp. 517521
(Eupolemus); and pp. 528531 (Pseudo-Eupolemus).
62
For Hagar as Pharaohs daughter, see Ber. Rab. 45:1; and for discussions of PJs
rendering of this verse, see Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 231; Gottlieb, art. cit., p. 33; and
Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, pp. 153, 159.
232 chapter eleven
3. Conclusions
This study suggests that too much may have been claimed for alleged
inconsistencies, contradictions, and mistakes in PJ as pointers to its
character, provenance, and date. Although we have examined in detail
only two biblical personalities, the results must lead us to question
whether other elements in the Targum, which are commonly regarded
as contradictory or mistakes, are truly so. For close and detailed exam-
ination of alleged mistakes and contradictions may indicate that they
are probably nothing of the kind; and that the Targum has a clear and
logical purpose in presenting material in the way it does. As a result,
the use of alleged contradictions and mistakes to give a date to the
Targum should be regarded with suspicion.
There can be no doubting the pre-Christian origin of much of PJs
interpretation of these two figures. We have seen how the Targum
seems to be refining, developing, and explaining not only the text of
Scripture itself, but also very old aggadah of the kind represented,
for example, by the notice of Bethuels death. In other words, it deals
with problems which would have occurred the moment serious study
of Genesis was undertaken by the Jews. As we have seen, there are
good reasons for supposing that PJ has modelled aspects of Nimrods
character on Mithridates VI of Pontus. Once this is recognized, puz-
zling features of the Targum, which might otherwise be regarded as
mistakes, begin to make perfect sense, and may be explained as pre-
Rabbinic interpretations faithfully preserved. Despite claims to the
contrary, I cannot find, in any of the verses examined here, convinc-
ing evidence that PJ depends for his exegesis on late Midrashim of the
vintage of PRE and later.
inconsistencies and contradictions 233
PJ also shares many traditions with Ber. Rab. and the Babylonian
Talmud. The affinities between this Targum and such major Rabbinic
writings must surely mean that the Targum was no stranger to the
milieux which produced these texts. Indeed, it is entirely possible, as
this study has shown, that PJ himself may be both a source of infor-
mation and a sparring partner for Talmud and Midrash in certain
items of exegesis. So, for example, PJs presentation of Eliezer is part
of an aggadic spectrum which extends from neutral and favourable
notices about him in pre-Rabbinic sources, through the mixed recep-
tion he receives in Ber. Rab., to hostile comments about him found
in the Babli and, most particularly, in PRE. Within this spectrum, PJ
seems to us to agree most easily with pre-Rabbinic material and with
those positive assessments of Eliezer found in Ber. Rab. and the Babli.
Thus it relays stories which, in interaction with Rabbinic debate, could
form the basis for later criticism of Abrahams servant. PJs stories of
Eliezer and Nimrod would therefore appear to fit convincingly into
the Judaism of the late fourth to fifth centuries ce; indeed, the differ-
ences between these stories and those related in medieval sources tend
to confirm our suggestions on this matter.
CHAPTER TWELVE
1
See especially A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch,
2 vols. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) (in Hebrew), see especially vol. 1, pp. 119146
and vol. 2, p. xvi; idem, The Palestinian TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity,
Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; idem, Live translation: On the Nature of the
Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 4149; D.M. Splansky,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: its relationship to the other Targumim, Use of Midrashim,
and Date, diss. Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1981; and A.N.
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1986), pp. 252256.
2
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34
(1989), pp. 7793; Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, A
Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed.
P.R. Davies and R.T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 175192. Shinan has
responded to the first of these articles in Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some
More Comments, JJS 46 (1990), pp. 5761; his criticisms are answered in Pirqe de
Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 215246.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 235
3
See, for example, A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzung der Bibel (Breslau:
Hainauer, 1857), pp. 170200.
4
So much is evident from the two volumes devoted to the subject by J. Neusner, A
History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part 9, Parah Commentary, and Part 10, Parah
Literary and Historical Problems (Brill: Leiden, 1976). His description of the targumic
handling of the heifer is to be found in Part 10, pp. 212216, and will feature in our
discussions below.
236 chapter twelve
of work or a bit or a cross-piece of a yoke; and which has not been spurred
by a goad, or a wooden prick, or a thorn, or anything which resembles
a yoke.5
The expression decree of the instruction of the law is found elsewhere
in PJ at Lev. 14:54, and the phrase the decree of the instruction occurs
at Lev. 14:32, 57 and 15:32. Where the Hebrew has a bold statement
this is the torah . . ., PJ tends to specify that what is referred to is a
particular instruction, as at Num. 6:13, 21 and Deut. 4:44, understand-
ing Hebrew torah, quite correctly, as an individual rule. The decree,
Hebrew hqh, is regularly translated as Aramaic gzrh: so also Targum
Onqelos (hereinafter, TO), and the Cairo Genizah manuscripts (here-
inafter, CG) along with Targum Neofiti (hereinafter, TN), render the
decree of the law. The marginal gloss of TN expounds it as the instruc-
tion of the law. PJ here stands within the tradition of the targumim
generally, a matter to which we shall have to return.
The first divergence from the Hebrew of any consequence is the
additional note that the heifer be taken from the heave-offering of the
chamber, that is, from Temple resources. This requirement corresponds
to the regulations laid down by the rabbis in Sifr Num. 123, stated in
general at m. Sheqalim 4:2, and means that the heifer is bought out of
public funds, not from the priests private resources.6 This agreement
with Sifr and the Mishnah is quite direct and uncomplicated.
Having added to the Hebrew a necessary note about the source of
the red heifer, PJ proceeds to interpret the next Hebrew word, which is
tmymh, complete, whole, as meaning two years old. This interpreta-
tion is possible first, because the targumim normally translate tmym as
slym, perfect, entire;7 and second, because of the opening statement
of tos. Parah 1:1 which defines a slm beast as two years old:
5
PJ of Num. 19:2. The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have
been used: E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.G. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and E. Spitzer,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ:
Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum
Onkelos, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959); A. Diez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I: Numeros, vol. 4
(Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1974); M.L. Klein, Genizah
Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1986). Translations are my own.
6
Cf. Neusner, Part 9, p. 226. R. Eliezers view in m. Parah 2:1 that it should not
be bought from the gentiles would certainly not contradict the rule that it be derived
from Temple property. See also Yalqut Shimoni (Wilna: Romm, 1909) vol. 1, p. 512.
7
See, e.g., PJ and TO of Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; TN usually
follows suit, adding the words without blemish to slm. These renderings are almost
invariable where Hebrew has tmym.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 237
As for an ox which is 24 months and one day oldlo, this is a slm ox,
This view is immediately corroborated by R. Eliezer here as well as in
Sifr Num. 123. This view of R. Eliezer and the targum is not in agree-
ment with the general view of other rabbis.8 It seems clear, however,
that PJ is indebted first of all to common targumic tradition, which it
then understands in the light of the meaning of slm attributed by other
sources to R. Eliezer. It is no doubt possible that R. Eliezer speaks in
tos. Parah 1:1 of a pr slm under targumic influence, since the Torah
nowhere refers to a beast as being slm. In any event, PJs understanding
of the heifer as a beast two years old indicates a most intricate associa-
tion between this targum, the other targumim, and halakhic discus-
sions in the academies, a point to which we must return.
We should notice, however, that PJ, by explaining tmymh with
reference to the heifers age, adopts an exegetical base different from
that of the Sifr, which makes this word apply to the heifers perfect
redness.
Heifer: I might understand a black or white one. Scripture says tmymh.
Does that mean perfect with regard to redness, or perfect in respect of
blemishes? When it says in which is no blemish, behold, blemishes
have been spoken of (in any case); so why does Scripture say tmymh? It
means perfect in regard to redness.9
The Scriptural phrase in which is no blemish is translated literally
by PJ, and follows immediately upon its rendering of tmymh as two
years old, (as is apparent from our quotation of it). To express the
requirement that the heifer be perfectly red, the targum adds, after in
which is no blemish, the words nor trace of any other (color of) hair
thus agreeing with the detailed ruling of Sifr and other sources, but
deriving its authority not from exegesis of tmymh, but possibly from
an extension of the significance of in which is no blemish. That is to
say, while the targum acknowledges that the beast be perfectly red, it
would seem not to owe this knowledge to interpretation found in Sifr,
Sifr Zutta, or Tosefta.
8
See m. Parah 1:1; Sifr Num. 123; Yalqut Shimoni p. 512; and Geiger, pp. 476477.
9
Quoted from H.S. Horovitz, Siphre dbe Rab (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966).
Translations are my own. See also Rashi ad loc. and Yalqut Shimoni p. 572. That the
heifer should be perfectly red is the opinion of R. Joshua b. Betera in m. Parah 2:5; cf.
Sifr Zutta on Num. 19:2.
238 chapter twelve
In the Hebrew, the last clause of the verse reads on which no yoke
has come up. PJ considerably elaborates this fact by stipulating that
no male shall have mounted the heifer. This is the view accepted by
the Sages in m. Parah 2:4, and is consonant with m. Parah 2:1, which
disqualifies a pregnant heifer; its exegetical springboard in the targum
is clearly the verb come up or mount. The Mishnah, however, does
not seek to anchor this rule in Scripture; and neither Sifra nor Sifr
even refer to it. Thus while the targumic ruling on this matter agrees
with the Mishnah, PJ does not necessarily depend on other sources
for the rule. The same may be said of what follows: the heifer must
not have been troubled by work. The statement is quite general, and
certainly includes the well-known requirement of the Mishnah that
any extraneous work involving the heifer makes the beast and the
ritual invalid; but the targum would seem, in fact, to go further than
the Mishnah in stipulating that the heifer do no work of any kind.10
She must not, we are told, have been burdened by anything which
resembles a yoke, implying that a yoke either for work, or not for
work, is prohibited; and with this agree tos. Parah 2:4; Sifr Num.
123; and b. Sotah 46a.11 We should note also the distance between PJ
and the Mishnah when it is a question of other prohibited activities.
The former forbids the heifer to have encountered bit, cross-piece of
yoke, goad, wooden prick or thorn. She must not have been used for
agricultural work (see also Josephus, Antiquities IV.79) or coerced in
any way. The Mishnah, in Parah 2:3, forbids a beast on which a man
had ridden or leaned or hung on its tail: it is invalid if someone had
crossed a river with its help, or doubled its halter on its back, or put his
cloak on it. This is quite a different list of prohibitions from that in PJ,
and serves to introduce the general rule of the Mishnah that work for
the sake of the heifer leaves her valid for the rite, whereas work with
her for any other purpose disqualifies her.12 Of this general rule, the
targum appears unaware, along with the distinction of work for the
heifer or not for the heifer. Before leaving discussion of this verse,
we should note that TO renders the Hebrew almost literally, and that
10
On extraneous work in general as invalidating the rite, see Neusner, Part 9,
pp. 138146 and Part 10, pp. 156161. The Mishnah, Parah 2:3 gives the general rule:
whatever is done for the heifers sake is valid, but work done not for the sake of the
beast invalidates the ritual.
11
For fuller discussion of the yoke, see Neusner, Part 9, pp. 229231 and Part 10,
p. 216.
12
See above, note 10.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 239
13
The only variations are minor ones of orthography. TN adds words not found in
PJ, some of which appear also in CG.
240 chapter twelve
Segan will always perform the ritual, and it is this particular point of
view which the Sifr, Tosefta, and Bavli are at pains to reject.
In explaining the Hebrew to mean that Eleazar shall bring out the
heifer on her own, PJ agrees exactly with R. Joses opinion stated in m.
Parah 3:7, and the same view expressed by Rabbi in Sifr Num. 123.14
But the restriction of the fuel for the fire to fig-wood is peculiar to PJ,
even though fig is one of the species enjoined as part of the arrange-
ment (the root sdr is used both in the targum and the Mishnah) by
m. Parah 3:8, which also includes cedar, pine and spruce. Further, the
Mishnah points to a dispute about the type of wood which may be
used.15 Fig-wood is not named in the dispute. The dispute does pro-
vide, however, evidence of early disagreements among the authorities
about the wood appropriate for the ritual. The unmishnaic charac-
ter of PJ on this point is noteworthy, and should be set alongside
the targums interpretation of Gen. 22:3. There, Abraham cuts wood
of olive, fig, and palm, which are said to be suitable for the whole
burnt offering, thus seemingly contradicting the rules of m. Tamid
2:3, which excludes olive.16 The insistence of the targum on fig wood
is strikingit occurs again in the following verseand may be the
result of the great significance accorded to the heifer; for fig wood par-
ticularly is used to burn the incense on the great altar in the Temple,
according to m. Tamid 2:5.
The note that another priest slaughtered the heifer is found also in
Sifr Num. 123, Sifr Zutta H uqqat 3, the gloss to TN, and CG. Once
more, PJ does not specify who the priest is; for tos. Parah 4:6, it should
be the high priest, but Rav Samuel in b. Yoma 42a permits a layman to
do it. The idea that someone other than Eleazar the priest slaughters
is very old, since the LXX of this verse states that they (unspecified)
shall slaughter her before him, and it also provides a fairly obvious
explanation for the rather curious Hebrew text. But the targums clos-
est allies remain the Sifr and Sifr Zutta. The former text seems to
assume what the targum makes explicit, that the slaughter is to be
14
The Hebrew and he shall bring her out is taken to imply this. See also b. Yoma
42b.
15
See m. Parah 3:8; 4:3; and Neusner, Part 10, p. 141.
16
Cf. R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Gnese, vol. 1. (Paris: Cerf, 1978),
p. 217. This Mishnah does indeed stress the suitability of fig wood, but along with
walnut and oleaster; see also m. Tamid 2:5. The Bodleian Aramaic Fragment of the
Testament of Levi translated by R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), p. 364 does, however, include
the olive tree, like PJ.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 241
17
See Sifr Num. 123: wsht thmgyd sm ntnblh bshyt h pswlh.
18
PJ differs from TO mostly in spelling. TN has a its own way of expressing out-
side the camp, Ibr mn msryth, which it shares with CG.
19
So Sifr asks: Why does Scripture say the priest? It means bkyhwnw, in his
white priestly robes. CG again specifies that Eleazar is high priest.
20
See below, p. 242, on the one immersion seven times.
21
See also Yalqut Shimoni, p. 514; and Horovitzs notes on the Sifr at this point,
vol. 1, p. 154.
242 chapter twelve
The Hebrew text does not say what is to be sprinkled by the blood.
PJ supplies the object by specifying the fig-wood arrangement, an
opinion which is most probably informed by the kind of discussions
recorded in b. Men. 26b27a.
What follows is confusing. The manuscript of PJ states that the
blood should be sprinkled from a jar, mn lgyn. As Le Daut points
out, no known source refers to a jar at this point. Indeed, Levy and
Jastrow long ago suggested that the targums text here was corrupt for
mn lgyw, from the midst.22 Since the targum otherwise agrees with
the Sifr that the blood should not be collected in a vessel, this simple
emendation has a good deal to commend it.
Both m. Parah 3:9 and tos. Parah 3:9 state that the heifer should
be burned on the Mount of Olives. PJ does not say this explicitly,
since the actual text of Numbers 19 envisages the law being laid down
for the period when Israel is still wandering in the desert outside the
land of Israel. Nonetheless, PJs interpretation of verse 9 speaks of the
Mount of Olives as one of the three places where the heifers ashes are
to be stored; and there is nothing in the directions which the targum
gives in verse 4 to contradict the details of the Mishnah. It is notice-
able, however, that the general rubric of Sifr Num. 123, that the priest
should stand directly and see the door of the Temple at the moment
when he sprinkles the blood, is very close indeed to the requirement
laid down by PJ.
All the more striking, then, is the targums clear disagreement with
Sifr Num. 123 on the manner of the sprinkling of the blood. PJ rules
that the priest immerse his hand once only in the blood, and then
sprinkle that same blood with seven sprinklings. The Sifr refutes this
very point with reference to Scripture:
I might understand seven sprinklings and one immersion (of the priests
hand in the blood); Scripture says, with its blood seven times, thus
declaring that he (the priest) returns seven times to the blood.23
In this case PJ actually records for us an important variant in halakhic
practice which we should, in any event, have been able to deduce from
the words of the Sifr. To my knowledge, it is the only extant text which
22
See Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, vol. 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1979),
p. 175.
23
See also m. Parah 3:9 and Sifr Zutta on this verse. The point is not discussed
in the Tosefta.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 243
makes such a ruling absolutely clear; and it is not the only occasion on
which the targum behaves in this way. We have already noted PJs dis-
agreement with the Sifr and other sources about the Segans part in the
ritual.24 Two other matters to be discussed presently will furnish fur-
ther examples of the targums acceptance of rulings specifically refuted
by the Sifr; and Baumgarten, in an important contribution concerning
the place of PJ in the history of the halakah, has drawn attention to
other targumic statements coinciding with variants in halakah which
might reasonably be inferred from statements in other sources such
as the Sifr.25 Indeed, Baumgartens observations will deserve further
consideration below, since they seem to us to furnish vital clues to
the place occupied by PJ in the complex history of the development
of halakah from Second Temple times onwards.26 Before leaving this
verse, we should note that the language of PJ, when translating the
actual Hebrew rather than paraphrasing, shows agreement now with
TO, now with TN; the wording of the Palestinian Targums now begins
to appear more clearly.27
In Hebrew, verse 5 reads:
. . . And he shall burn the heifer in his sight (lynyw): its skin and its flesh
and its blood upon its dung he shall burn.
The targums interpretation is as follows:
And they shall go out from the arrangement (of the fig-wood), and another
priest shall burn the heifer while Eleazar watches: its skin and its flesh
and its blood upon its dung he shall burn.
The Mishnah likewise requires the priest to remove himself from the
place of the pyre at this juncture (m. Parah 3:10); and the Sifr Num.
124 and b. Yoma 42b agree that another priest performs the burning. A
marginal gloss of TN specifies that this is done while Eleazar looks on.
24
See above, p. 239.
25
See J.M. Baumgarten, The Laws of Orlah and First Fruits in the light of Jubilees,
the Qumran writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan, JJS 38 (1987), pp. 195202. See espe-
cially his observations on p. 202.
26
See below, p. 18.
27
Thus And Eleazar shall take = TO and TN; some of her blood is mn dmyh which
= CG, and is similar to TNs mn dmh. PJs bdb with the finger is a variant of bysb
(TN) or bsbh (TO; cf. CG) altered to suit the paraphrase. And he shall sprinkle =
TO, GM; cf. TN; opposite the front of = TN exactly, not TO, which rather = CG;
tent of meeting = TO; whereas with its blood and seven times are not expressed in
exactly the same way in any other targum.
244 chapter twelve
Where PJ translates the Hebrew and does not interpret, the rendering
is almost identical to that of TN.28
We turn now to verse 6:
And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop and scarlet, and shall
cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
The targum renders:
And another priest shall take a chopped log of cedar (= golamish) wood,
and hyssop, and color which has been changed into scarlet,29 and he
shall cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer; and he shall
increase the fire to multiply the ash.
The notion that yet another priest should add these things is not, as far
as I know, attested elsewhere, but is peculiar to PJ. The chopped log,
however, features in Sifr Num. 124 and in Sifr Zutta on this verse. For
the cedar specified as golamish, see also Sifra Mesora Parashah 1:12.
Furthermore, all sources agree with PJ that the ash should be made
as voluminous as possible.30 But there was debate about how and
when the ash should be increased, as is evident from Sifr Num. 124.
R. Ishmael argues from the two occurrences of the verb burn in
the preceding verse (Num. 19:5) that a limitation is placed on those
burning the heifer not to increase the amount of wood beyond what
was in the original pile necessary to burn her. He brings this opinion
against that of R. Judah, who says that large amounts of wood and
hyssop should be thrown in once the burning has begun. Given the
targums attachment of the command to increase the ash to this verse,
rather than to the preceding, we may suggest a general agreement with
R. Judahs view.31 On the other hand, the targum may either be giv-
ing a digest of rabbinic views without precision, or it may represent
an ancient general rule which the named authorities of Sifr are in
the process of making specific. Finally, PJs translation of the Hebrew,
28
PJ agrees with TO, although there are variations in spelling. Certain expressions
are found in TN as well, and these are very similar to those used by CG.
29
With cochineal: see Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, p. 176.
30
See m. Parah 4:4; tos. Parah 7:20; Sifr Num. 124; Sifr Zutta on this verse.
31
PJ may also agree with R. Akiba in this midrash, if he means that wood may be
added to increase the ash after the burning has started; see Horovitz, vol. 1, p. 156.
The glosses of TN and the FT(V) make it clear that the cedar, hyssop, and scarlet are
to be added into the ash of the burning; i.e., they are not to be used in large quanti-
ties to increase ash. This would seem to agree broadly with the view of R. Ishmael,
against the sense of PJ.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 245
32
See J. Baumgarten, The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the
Qumran Texts, JJS 31 (1980), p. 160.
33
But he can still convey impurity to terumah and to Holy Things, i.e. sacrificial
food. Thus TN of this verse states: and the priest shall be unclean and kept away from
holy things until the evening. So also CG, thus implying (at the least) that he is pure
for other purposes, that is, tebul yom.
246 chapter twelve
although the phrase after this wmn btr kdyn agrees, against TO, with
TN verbatim.34
We turn to verse 8:
And he who burns it shall rinse his garments in water and shall wash his
flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the evening.
PJ interprets:
And the priest who has been occupied with the burning shall rinse his gar-
ments in 40 seahs of water, and shall wash his flesh in 40 seahs of water;
and he shall be unclean before his immersion until the evening.
The root to be occupied, sq, is common to Hebrew and Aramaic; and
it is used in this verse and in Sifr Num. 124, m. Parah 4:4, Num.
Rabbah 19:1, b. Hullin 29b and other texts to describe the activities
with the heifer. Once more, the priest who has burned the heifer is
ordered to undergo immersion in the correct amount of water: he is
then in the status of tebul yom, pure for all ordinary purposes.35
Verse 9 orders:
And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer, and put them down
outside the camp in a pure place; and it shall be preserved for the con-
gregation of the children of Israel as waters of purification (my ndh = lit.
waters of impurity); it is a sin-offering.
The targum elaborates this considerably:
And a man, a pure priest, shall gather the ashes of the heifer in a pitcher
of earthenware surrounded by a stopper of clay; and he shall divide the
ashes into three portions. One he shall set on the rampart; and one on
the Mount of Olives; and the other he shall divide between each guard of
the Levites. And it shall be for the assembly of the children of Israel for
waters of sprinkling: only, it is forgiveness for the sin of the calf.
PJ begins by contradicting all other sources in ordering a priest to col-
lect the ashes. Elsewhere, we are told that this may be done by any man
(see, e.g., Sifr Num. 124, Sifr Zutta on this verse, m. Parah 4:4, tos.
Parah 4:11, and b. Yoma 43a). Once more, however, the Sifr takes up
34
Otherwise, note the differences between PJ, and TN and CG, which are very close
to one another.
35
See above, what was said on verse 7. The translation language of PJ is here again
very close to TO, differing from TN; see note 34. TN and CG very similar.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 247
the question whether a priest should not perform this function, only to
prove that the ash must be gathered by a male lay-person.
By contrast, the targums clear description of the vessel into which
the ash is put corresponds almost verbatim with Sifr Num. 124; it is
a pitcher, qll, (see also m. Parah 3:3; 10:3, tos. Parah 9:5), stopped
with a clay seal, smwqp smyd ptyl, according to the Sifr. Likewise
the division of the ashes into the three portions and their places on
the rampart and Mount of Olives agrees with the information in m.
Parah 3:11; tos. Parah 3:14; Sifr Num. 124; and Sifr Zutta on this
verse. PJ places the information here because of the requirement of
the Hebrew text that the ash be lmmrt for Israel. This word suggests
to PJ the guard, watch, or ward of the Levites as described in I Chron.
23:32 and elsewhere.36 The waters with which the ashes are mixed are
termed water of sprinkling, exactly as TO, TN, and CG.
The idea that this ritual constitutes forgiveness for the sin of the
golden calf is found also in Tanhuma (ed. Buber) H uqqat 26; the
following section, H uqqat 27, points out that the rite had not been
entrusted to Aaron because he had been involved in the matter of the
calf.37 PJs paraphrase is very complex and divergent from the Hebrew;
but when the Targum offers straight translation of Hebrew words,
these agree with TO in substance. TO itself has much in common with
TN and CG on this verse.38
We find in verse 10 that
And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall rinse his garments and
be unclean until the evening; and it shall be for the sons of Israel and for
the stranger who sojourns among them for an everlasting statute.
PJ explains:
And the priest who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall rinse his gar-
ments and shall be unclean before his immersion until the evening; and
36
For a discussion of PJs attitudes to the Levites, see A. Bchler, Die Priester und
der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels (Wien: Holder, 1895),
pp. 151159.
37
See also Yalqut Shimoni, p. 512; Rashi on this verse, and the long sermon of
R. Moshe Ha-Darshan which he there reproduces; and further below, pp. 254256.
38
PJ and TO are virtually identical in stating and a pure man shall gather the
ashes of the heifer . . . and it shall be for the assembly of the Children of Israel waters
of purification. TO says of the ash gatherer that he shall conceal them outside the
camp in a pure place: this is similar to TN, but the latter agrees almost verbatim in
respect of language throughout this verse.
248 chapter twelve
it shall be for purification for the sons of Israel and for the proselytes who
shall be converted among them for an everlasting statute.
We must again note here the acceptance of the status of tebul yom for
the priest who has gathered the ashes, and the stress on the purifica-
tory aspects of the rite. This latter note may hint obliquely at what
was, in any case, generally known, that all those who took part in the
ritual of burning the heifer were ipso facto made unclean (see, e.g.,
Sifr Num. 124 and m. Parah 4:4), although the actual product of the
rite was ash designed to remove uncleanness from those defiled by
corpses.39 PJs translation of the actual Hebrew is once more almost
verbatim that of TO.
The detailed discussion of PJ set out above forms the basis for the
conclusions which this part of the essay will attempt to justify. PJ mod-
ifies the original Hebrew of Num. 19:110 on approximately 34 occa-
sions.40 The targumic modifications, as we have seen, include additions
to the original Hebrew; definite exegesis of what, in the original, may
appear vague; and the occasional omission of material in the original
in the interests of paraphrase. If we look carefully at the 34 items, we
find as follows:
A. Approximately 20 of these items are shared with other rabbinic
sources, such as the Mishnah, the Tosefta and Sifr: the heifer is taken
from terumah (1) and is two years old (2); she should not have a trace
of any hair other than red (3). No male should have mounted her (4);
and forbidden to her are any work (5) and anything resembling a yoke
(6). She is to be brought out to sacrifice on her own (7); a priest other
than Eleazar slaughters her (8), wearing white priestly robes (9); he
takes her blood in his right hand, not in a vessel (10), and sprinkles
it on the pyre (11) in the direction of the Temple (12). They leave
the pyre (13), and another priest burns the heifer (14) while Eleazar
watches (15). Logs of golamish-cedar are thrown in (16) and the ash
is to be increased (17): it is gathered in an earthenware vessel with a
39
The rendering of gr, alien, as proselyte, is a common targumic exegesis. See
especially M. Ohana, Proslytisme et Targum palestinien: Donnes nouvelles pour la
datation de Neofiti I, Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 317332; Agneau Pascal et Circoncision:
Le Problme de la Halakha Prmishnaique dans le Targum palestinien, VT 23 (1973),
pp. 385399.
40
I say approximately, because it might be argued that the targums listing of bit,
cross-piece of a yoke, goad, wooden prick, or thorn might be counted as one single
item, whereas I have counted the various objects separately.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 249
clay seal (18) and divided into three portions, each kept in a different
place (19). It is an atonement for the sin of the calf (20).
This material shared with other rabbinic texts makes it abundantly
clear that PJs exegesis of the red heifer is closely related to that known
from those texts, and hence is no stranger to the rabbinic milieu. The
world of Sifr Numbers, in particular, is apparently familiar to the
targum; and to the extent that PJ agrees on these twenty points with
the Mishnah and Tosefta, it is true to say, with Professor Neusner,
that our targum looks like a commentary or exegetical summary of
these sources.41 Any account of PJ and its date must take this volume
of evidence very seriously and explain it.
On the other hand, it must be made quite clear that the targum
does not simply copy material from the rabbinic texts which we have
discussed.42 This much is evident from the detailed analysis of the
sources given above. Several examples make this clear: the targum to
Num. 19:2 expounds the description of the heifer as perfect with ref-
erence to her age, while Sifr differs by understanding the adjective as
defining her color. Again, the heifer is to do no work; but the targum
expresses this in a way utterly different from the Mishnah, and with a
somewhat different aim, even though both texts agree on the matter
in general. Similarly the targum describes how the priest must stand
when sprinkling the heifers blood. Nothing in that description neces-
sarily contradicts what is said in the Mishnah or Sifr, but it is hard to
see how the targum might have copied from these texts, which have
many more minute regulations than PJ. Furthermore, the heifer must
be inspected for the signs of correct ritual slaughter and for the marks
of terefah; the Sifr and other sources do not state this in anything
like the unambiguous manner of PJ, even though they imply what
the targum demands. There is general agreement that the ash from
the burning be made as plentiful as possible; but the Sifr expounds
Num. 19:5 as requiring this, over against the targum, which interprets
Num. 19:6 as referring to the ash, thereby tending to side-step a dis-
pute about how and when it should be increased. We need not belabor
the point. Suffice it to say that careful reading of these texts shows
41
See Neusner, Part 10, p. 213.
42
This, however, is the view of M. Prez Fernndez, Midrs Sifre Nmeros (Valencia:
Institucin San Jernimo, 1989), p. 37, n. 44, who believes that PJ systematically copies
exegesis of Sifr Numbers. This blanket view is refuted by PJs use of halakah rejected
by Sifr, and by its manifest disagreements with the Sifr noted in this essay.
250 chapter twelve
43
See further above, pp. 242243, on Baumgartens comments.
252 chapter twelve
for PJ, the less likely it is that such a text would have passed through
the net of authoritys censure.
These matters aside, other weighty considerations support our anal-
ysis. First, we should examine the business of tebul yom. PJ is silent
about the ritual status of the Segan who presides over the slaughter
and burning of the heifer. This is in marked contrast to other texts
which require the (high) priest who burns the heifer to be tebul yom.
He is even specially put into this category before the ceremony begins,
according to m. Parah 3:78 and tos. Parah 3:78. The Mishnah and
Tosefta explain this procedure as a deliberate, public demonstration
directed against the views of the Sadducees, who, it seems, required
the priest who burned the heifer to be in the highest possible state of
purity.44 PJs silence on this issue, then, is distinctly unmishnaic.
Nonetheless, PJ does, by implication, refer to the status of tebul
yom. It insists that the priest who slaughters the heifer, the priest who
burns her, and the priest who gathers her ashes are all unclean before
their immersion but after they have participated in the ceremony. This
means that once immersed, they are in a state of tebul yom, and may
eat ordinary food.45 This halakah stands in flat contradiction to that
found in the Qumran Halakhic Letter 4Q Miqsat Maaseh Hattorah,
which states:
And (also) concerning the purity (ritual) of the (red) heifer of the sin
offering: he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers
its ash and he who sprinkles the water of purificationall these should
become pure (only) at sundown, so that the pure should sprinkle upon
the impure.46
44
Likewise none of the targumim says anything about the purity of any of the par-
ticipants in the rite; so Neusner, Part 10, p. 216. This well-known difference of opinion
between the rabbis and Sadducees has been often treated: see, e.g., L. Finkelstein, The
Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) 1:121128 and 2:661692; J. Baumgarten,
The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies, pp. 155161 and pp. 169170; and H. Mac-
coby, Neusner and the Red Cow, JSJ 21 (1990), pp. 7475.
45
See above, p. 242.
46
The translation is that of E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, An Unpublished Halakhic
Letter from Qumran, Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1985), p. 402. The text which they give reads as follows:
)( )(
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 253
This Qumran letter is clearly a polemic against the very practices pre-
scribed by PJ for the personnel involved in the red heifer ceremony.
Although the targum says nothing of the purity of the one who sprin-
kles the water, it does single out specifically the other three quite sepa-
rate individuals as being unclean before their immersion. The Qumran
writer was clearly opposed to the whole institution of tebul yom, not
only in general, but more specifically in relation to the purity of those
who had taken part (not those who were about to take part) in the rite
of the red heifer.47 The material from Qumran suggests that PJs state-
ment of an opposing halakah is of potentially very great antiquity.
Next we must consider another item which features in the Mishnah
and other sources, and which is apparently absent from the targum.
I refer to the firm conviction of the rabbis that any labour extrane-
ous to the ceremony makes the whole rite useless, a matter which has
been thoroughly investigated and explored by Neusner.48 The omis-
sion is puzzling, as Neusner states.49 The targum is, in fact, intent on
ruling out extraneous labour; but concentrates this rule and applies
it directly to the heifer itself. This is clear from its rendering of Num.
19:2, where we read that the beast must not have been burdened with
any labour or any yokes at all. We should, however, be alive to the
possibility that the targums silence about extraneous labour and the
personnel who take part in the ritual may be more apparent than
real. PJ is often capable of implying things rather than stating them
openly. It does so, in all probability, in this section, saying nothing
openly about the place where the heifer is to be burned, but naming
the Mount of Olives (Num. 19:9) as one of the places where the ashes
were to stored in conformity with rabbinic rules. The Mount of Olives
was, of course, the place designated by the Mishnah for the burning of
the heifer. Furthermore, PJ restricts the ritual to priests: no fewer than
five separate individuals are entrusted with its performance. That is to
say, each major component part of the ceremony is given over to one
man, who, when his task is completed, departs. In such a way the tar-
gum lessens the chances of the participants intentions and attentions
47
See Baumgarten, The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies, pp. 155161, who
introduces and discusses also passages from 11QTemp at pp. 159160.
48
Clearly expressed, e.g. in m. Parah 4:1, 4; 7:9; yer. Ber. 2:5; tos. Parah 7:6; Sifr
Num. 123124; Sifr Zutta to Num. 19:2, 5, 9; b. Yoma 42a; and Neusners work on
the heifer listed in note 4. His interpretation of the significance of the ban on extrane-
ous labour has recently been criticized by Maccoby, pp. 6064.
49
See Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 10, p. 216.
254 chapter twelve
50
See Geiger, Urschift, p. 477. It should be noted, however, that 4Q Miqsat Maaseh
Hattorah cited above (p. 242) does not specify that all the participants in the rite
listed in that document are priests: so correctly, Qimron and Strugnell, p. 407, n. 14,
criticizing Geigers view that PJ may represent a quasi-Sadducee opinion. See also
below, note 58.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 255
so that Satan do not speak about you (with) triple tongue, about the
matter of the calf which you made in Horeb.
Although the calf is not directly mentioned in Sifra Shemini 3 on
Lev. 9:2, Moses points out that while God has accepted Aaron, he
must nonetheless put into Satans mouth the sending of a gift before he
enters the sanctuary, so that Satan should not hate him when he does
so.51 The calf affects not only Aarons priesthood, but also Israels right
to offer sacrifice. Thus PJ of Lev. 9:3 explains that Israel should offer a
goat because it resembles Satan, lest he should slander them because of
the goat kid which their ancestors killed to deceive Jacob into thinking
that Joseph was dead,
and a calf because you were enslaved to the calf.
The Sifra Shemini 3 knows the same tradition, and points out that
the sacrificial calf is to come and atone for the sin of the golden calf.52
Later, in Lev. 9:7, PJ makes it clear that the calf is still a problem for
Aaron:
And when Aaron saw the altar with its horns resembling the calf, he was
terrified to approach to its midst. So Moses said to him, Take courage,
and approach the altar, and do not be terrified.53
On the day of Atonement, PJ of Lev. 16:4 explains why Aaron shall
enter the sanctuary in linen, not golden vestments: the latter are
forbidden
so that there be not remembered for him the sin of the calf of gold.54
The same sin may even later be remembered for the people; so that the
banner of Reubens group of tribes in the wilderness had depicted on
it the form of a young ram:
51
Perhaps we should emend Sifras text here, to read that Satan should not accuse
Aaron, following the reading of Nahmanides quoted by I. Mandelbaum, Tannaitic
Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, pp. 215, 222.
52
See also Num. Rab. 13:13.
53
The same tradition appears in Sifra Shemini 8: And there are those who say that
Aaron saw the altar as it were in the pattern of an ox, and was afraid of it; so Moses
said to him. . . .
54
See also b. Rosh Ha-Shanah 26a; Yoma 72b; Lev. Rab. 16:3., PJ of Num. 2:10.
256 chapter twelve
It would have been proper for there to have been on it the form of a
young ox. Moses the prophet changed it, so that there should not be
remembered for them the sin of the calf.55
The sin of the calf is one of those acts of disobedience which had
rightly provoked God to anger, according to Deut. 1:1 in TO, PJ, TN,
the Vatican and Paris Manuscripts of the Fragmentary Targumim, and
probably CG (the text has a lacuna at the point where the calf might
be expected); and God has forgiven this sin. Finally, and most signifi-
cantly, when the evil Balaam came to try to curse Israel, he looked
towards the desert, the place where they had made the calf, to bring
to mind that sin. This tradition is found in PJ, TN, and the Fragment
Targum in both Paris and Vatican Manuscripts of Num. 24:1. For PJ
and other targumim of these verses, the calf obviously posed a terrible
threat to Israels safety and well-being.
Irving Mandelbaum has recently demonstrated that, in those sources
conventionally labelled tannaitic and amoraic, the oldest accounts of
the golden calf episode always stress the gravity of this sin, Aarons part
in it, and his and Israels need of atonement and divine forgiveness. He
has examined all the materials which we have quoted from the Sifra,
and other similar traditions; and he has concluded that these repre-
sent an earlier strand of tannaitic interpretation of the calf as a disas-
trous sin, rather than the later amoraic exegesis of the story, which
attempts to excuse the deed and whitewash the participants.56 PJ not
only stands alongside the traditions of the Sifra, but even heightens
them, by making the red heifer ceremony another means of atonement
for the calf. Moreover, PJ sets out to emphasize the great fear which
the golden calf had inspired in Aaron, the first high priest, and quite
subtly indicates Aarons need of assurance that the sin is forgiven. The
performance of the red heifer ceremony by priests other than the high
priest offers such assurance: the sin of the calf is thereby forgiven, the
cleansing being carried out by priests other than the high priest on
behalf of all Israel and of the high priest himself.
Given this evidence, it is difficult to see how PJs account of the
red heifer ceremony can date from a period later than the final redac-
tion of the Sifra, Sifr, and Sifr Zutta in (probably) the late fourth
55
PJ of Num. 2:10.
56
See I. Mandelbaum, pp. 207223.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan 257
century ce.57 Its many agreements with the rabbinic sources show that
it is familiar with debates conducted in the academies, while its specific
disagreements with the Sifr point in the same direction, and indicate
that the Sifr was aware of divergent halakah found specifically in PJ.
Indeed, Baumgarten has pointedly drawn attention to PJs deviation
from normal rabbinic halakah as evidence for the existence of a wide
spectrum of halakhic interpretations in Second Temple times.58 To this
spectrum belong also PJs unique features in dealing with the heifer,
namely, its discussion of tebul yom which corresponds almost exactly
(although, of course, in reverse!) to the concerns of the pre-Christian
text 4Q Miqsat Maaseh Hattorah, and the priestly conduct of the
rite. The latter derives from PJs opinion of the golden calf: Aaron, as
maker of the calf, was unfit to preside over the ritual of the heifer. The
sin of the calf is so grave that succeeding high priests are also not fit to
take part in it, such that it must fall to the lot of the Segan, the priest
most senior in rank after the high priest (see m. Yoma 3:9; 4:1, 7:1;
Sotah 7:78; Tamid 7:3).
All the participants must be priests, a ruling which makes best sense
at a time when the purity and validity of the priesthood as such were
matters of the first importance, and were still live issues in discussion
and debate. Certainly the priesthoods legitimacy and purity were live
issues in Second Temple times, and they remained so in the period
down to and including the time of the Emperor Julian (361363),
when a restoration of the Temple and the sacrifices seemed likely. It is
in the second and third centuries also that Christian attacks on Jews,
using the golden calf to argue that Israel was no longer Gods people,
and claiming that Christians were the true high priestly caste, were at
their most bitter, as witness the writings of Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin
Martyr and Tertullian.59
57
On this matter, see most recently P.S. Alexander, Midrash, in A Dictionary of
Biblical Interpretation, ed. R.J. Coggins & J.L. Houlden (London: SCM, 1990), pp.
455456. M. Prez Fernndez, pp. 1516, argues for a date in the third century ad.
58
See especially The Law of Orlah . . ., p. 196, where he discusses the redemp-
tion of fourth year fruits and the interpretation of Lev. 19:24. His remarks about PJs
interpretation of that verse are, as we have seen already, entirely applicable to those
items in the red heifer ritual where Sifr clearly rules out of order halakah recorded
in PJ. His comments about Geigers assumption of an ancient, widespread halakah
represented at points in PJ are entirely justified in the light of evidence now available
from Qumran. See especially p. 202.
59
See Epistle of Barnabas 4:78; 14:16, where the calf is said to have annulled
Gods covenant with Israel; Tertullian, Adversos Judaeos 1, where the calf is used in
258 chapter twelve
anti-Jewish polemic; and Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 116:3, for the view that Jews
have ceased to have a priesthood, since it has now passed to Christians. From the
fourth century come strong objections to the Jewish cult voiced by John Chrysostom,
Adversos Judaeos I.7; IV.6; see especially V.12, where he insists that the Temple will
never be rebuilt, and later (V.4) quotes the episode of the calf as one proof of this.
The ill-fated attempt of the Emperor Julian to rebuild the Temple is bitterly described
(V.11); Chrysostom refers to the mysterious events which accompanied the failure
of the restoration, and in passing alludes to the sons of Aaron who were killed for
offering illegal sacrifices. Their death is seen as a parallel to the curious happenings
recorded at the time of the Emperor Julians attempt to rebuild the Temple.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
1
See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. I. The Pentateuch According to Targum
Onkelos (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959), p. 230. For an English translation of Targ. Onq. and
manuscript variants, see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers
(The Aramaic Bible, 8; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), p. 88.
2
On rabbinic discussion of verses which may, or may not, be put into Aramaic,
see A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 367370;
M. Ginsburger, Verbotene Thargumim, MGWJ 44 (1900), pp. 17; M. McNamara, The
New Testament and the Palestinian Targum (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966),
pp. 4649; P.S. Alexander, The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim, JJS 27 (1976),
pp. 177191; and M.L. Klein, Not to Be Translated in Public ,
JJS 39 (1988), pp. 8091.
260 chapter thirteen
Hebrew original of all three verses, one after another.3 In this respect,
the editio princeps may be attempting to indicate awareness that
Targum of these verses was forbidden, and that the rabbinic rules
applied.4 Certainly Targum Pseudo-Jonathan agreesup to a point
with other rabbinic texts when it paraphrases the introduction to the
blessing, Num. 6.23, as follows (divergences from the Hebrew are
given in italics):
Speak with Aaron and with his sons, saying: Thus you shall bless the
sons of Israel. When they spread out (their hands) upon the platform, they
shall say to them, in this form of words: (the blessing follows).
First, the priests are to spread out their hands: this refers to their hold-
ing up their hands with fingers spread out in the traditional manner.5
Such is implied by the regulations of m. Sot . 7.6; m. Tam. 7.2; Sifre
Num. 39; and Num. R. 11.10, that the priests give the blessing with
the raising up of their hands. Targum Pseudo-Jonathans note that they
spread out ( )their hands, however, shows that the Targum regards
this blessing as a prayer, since it often uses the phrase to spread out the
hands to speak of prayer (e.g. Exod. 9.29, 33; Deut. 32.31); and Targum
Pseudo-Jonathans paraphrase of Gen. 12.3 presents God as blessing
the priests who spread out their hands in prayer and bless your sons.
Secondly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans reference to the , the
platform, a technical term for the place where the priests stand to give
the blessing, agrees with information given in Num. R. 11.11. The word
indicates that priests should stand to give the blessing, a point empha-
3
On the manuscript and editions of Targ. Ps.-J., see R. le Daut, Introduction
la littrature targumique (Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1988), p. 101; and
U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (TSAJ, 48; Tbingen: J.C.B.
Mohr, 1995), pp. 182185.
4
The editio princeps presents the blessing in Hebrew as a single unit, as it might
appear in a Torah scroll. The Mishnah states (Sot . 7.6; Tam. 7.2) that the blessing,
when given in the Temple, was uttered as a single unit: outside the Temple its three
verses were pronounced as three separate blessings. These are customarily separated
from each other by a repeated Amen. While the editio princeps of Targ. Ps.-J. may
so wish to record the blessing as used in the Temple service, it is silent about the
Mishnahs other rules governing its Temple use, namely, the pronunciation of the
Divine Name, and the exact position of the priests and high priests hands when utter-
ing the blessing. See further J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (New
York: Jewish Publication Society, 5750/1990), p. 362.
5
On the arrangment of the priests fingers during the blessing, see the editorial
article Priestly Blessing, EncJud, XIII, col. 1062. For the meaning of this practice, see
PRK Pisqa 5.8.
the priestly blessing 261
6
The was the platform in the Temple from which priests would give the
blessing and Levites perform music: see m. Mid. 20.6; cf. b. Meg. 3a. The term was
transferred to the synagogue service: see F.L. Cohen, Blessing, Priestly, in The Jewish
Encyclopaedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1902), pp. 244247. Targ. Onq. of this
verse certainly has the synagogue service in mind: see Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos,
pp. 8889.
7
On this rendering, and for elucidation of Targ. Neof. to this verse, see further
R. le Daut, Nombres (Targum du Pentateuque 3; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 5859.
262 chapter thirteen
8
See Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 5052, and other authors there cited, especially D.N.
Freedman, The Aaronic Blessing, in J.W. Flanagan and A.W. Robinson (eds.), No
Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1975), pp. 411442; and M. Fishbane, Forms and Reformulation of the Biblical
Priestly Blessing, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 115121. See also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer
and Religious Poetry (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 145147. For use of the blessing in
magic, and the relationship between the number of letters in its component clauses and
secret forms of the Divine Name, see J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition:
A Study in Folk Religion (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961),
pp. 9293 and notes, p. 290. Magical use of Gods name as found in texts described
by M.D. Swartz, Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 7481, 131134, 196198, is not
apparent in Targ. Ps.-J.s version of the blessing.
the priestly blessing 263
24 The Lord bless you in all your occupations, and keep you from night
demons and from frightening demons and noon-day demons and
morning demons and damaging demons and shadow demons.
25 May the Lord make the splendour of his face lighten upon you when
you are occupied in the Torah, and may he reveal to you hidden things
and show consideration to you.
26 May the Lord make the splendour of his face shine upon you when
you pray, and may he grant peace for you in all your borders.
Targums procedure is clear: each clause of the Hebrew original is first
translated in a reasonably straightforward way, and then supplemented
with explanatory material. Thus the Targum reveals its concerns. First,
it associates the blessing with those engaged in Torah study. The addi-
tion of in all your occupations ( ) to v. 24 coincides with
the plea in the following verse, that the splendour of Gods face lighten
when you are occupied in the Torah () , and refers
principally to Torah study and keeping of the commandments: Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan regularly uses the root ( literally, to be occupied
with) to express occupation in matters of Torah (e.g. Gen. 30.18; Exod.
10.23; 40.5; Num. 19.8; Deut. 4.10; 15.4, 7; 29.5; 30.20; 32.4). Otherwise,
the root refers to occupation in some kind of work or business (e.g.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exod. 5.9; 22.7, 10); but it remains strongly
redolent of Torah study.9
The blessing is, next, interpreted as a plea for protection from
demons, particularly during the occupations of Torah study. First
stand , night demons, known also from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
of Deut. 32.24, Targ. Isa. 34.14, and Targ. Sheni Est. 1.2 where they
accompany demons and spirits which Solomon makes to skip before
him, and b. Erub. 18b. It is sometimes suggested the word be read as
, Lilith the night-demoness; but this is not certain.10 After the
self-explanatory frightening demons come noon-day demons (
), named again in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 32.24 and
9
It is not clear why M. Prez Fernndez, Midrs Sifre Nmeros (Biblioteca
Midrsica, 9; Valencia: Institucin San Jernimo, 1989), p. 151, associates this word
with possessions.
10
See further A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch
(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), II, p. 276; idem, The Embroidered Targum: The
Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1992), p. 129, and literature cited there (both works in Hebrew). The forms
, and often occur on Aramaic incantation bowls: see J. Naveh and
S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jeru-
salem: Magnes Press, 1985), glossary ad loc., p. 272.
264 chapter thirteen
Targ. Song 4.6, and sometimes explained as evil spirits which lie in wait
at twilight or night. Yet noon-day demons should be preferred as a
translation, since the Hebrew , noon, often appears in Targum
as .11 The morning demons (see also Targ. Psalm 121.6; Targ.
Song 4.6) precede the , damaging demons which were created
on the first Sabbath eve (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Num. 22.8;
m. Ab. 5.9; b. Pes. 54ab; Sifre Deut. 355) and are often named in Talmud
and Midrash.12 Finally come the , shadow demons, known also
from their appearance on amulets and charms.13 Shinan quotes this
verse of the blessing as evidence of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans inter-
est in evil spirits, destroying angels and demons; and there is force
in Ginzburgers suggestion that the rabbinic prohibition of Targum
of the blessing may have been motivated by anxiety that the naming
of such entities in an important liturgical text might encourage the
unlearned to believe in them.14 Yet Targum Pseudo-Jonathans mention
of demons may have a further purpose, to be investigated presently,
which may yield clearer insight into his interpretative strategy here.
Striking is the request in Targum of v. 25 that God reveal hidden
things, . This noun and the related are not common in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and their occurrence in other verses of the
Targum is suggestive. Thus Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 41.45
11
See Shinan, Embroidered Targum, p. 129, following Y. Reifman; and M. Sokoloff,
A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan: Bar
Ilan Press, 1990), p. 221.
12
See b. Ber. 6a; Qid. 29b; H ul. 105b; Targ. Song 8.3; Targ. Job 5.7; and further refer-
ences in Sokoloff, Dictionary, under and Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 276.
13
See Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 225, and Shinan, Embroidered Targum, p. 129. See
Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, pp. 57, 69, 70, 90, 99 for mention of them in amulets
(Amulets 4.15; 7.6, 13; 7b.13; 11.8; 13.8), often along with the either singular
or plural (Amulets 7.13; 11.8; 13.9).
14
See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, pp. 271279; idem, Embroidered Targum, pp. 128
134; and Ginsburger, Verbotene Thargumim, pp. 45. Targ. Ps.-J.s list of demons
is not replicated on the bowls and amulets discussed by Naveh and Shaked, who do
not name morning demons and noon-day demons. But the amulets do list types of
demon in order, like the Targum: e.g. Amulet 7a.1213, the evil spirit and the demon
and the shadow-spirit and the tormentor and the destroyer; Amulet 7b.23; Amulet
13.711 (see Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, pp. 7071, 99). This apparent similarity
between Targum and the amulets may also have encouraged Rabbinic reserve about
Targum of the blessingassuming that Targ. Ps-J. represents the kind of Targum the
Rabbis had in mind. Even so, what follows in this essay should indicate that Targ. Ps.-
J.s version of the blessing cannot be understood merely as an incantation or magic
formula. In any event, great care is needed in the use of terms such as magic in
discussion of ancient Judaism: see W.J. Lyons and A.M. Reimer, The Demonic Virus
and Qumran Studies, Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998), pp. 1632.
the priestly blessing 265
15
Gen. 41.1433. Targ. Ps.-J.s explanation of the name is paralleled in Targ. Onq.,
Targ. Neof. and Gen. R. 90.4, and is attested by Josephus, Ant. 2.91. See also Philo,
Jos. 121.
16
For discussion of this verse, see R. le Daut, Exode et Lvitique (Targum du
Pentateuque, 2; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 226227; M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), pp. 241242.
17
Cf. Maher, Exodus, p. 205. The original Hebrew verb is , which Targ. Ps.-J.
translates again with the Aramaic root at Exod. 33.19; Deut. 28.50; cf. Gen. 33.5, 11.
266 chapter thirteen
18
This is also the opinion of Sifre Num. 39 and Num. R. 11.10; but it is not based
on exegesis of v. 26 and its reference to peace. See below, pp. 267268.
19
See above, p. 262. Even if occupations is understood simply as business, Targ.
Ps.-J.s exegesis remains unrepresented in Sifre and Num. R.
the priestly blessing 267
20
But see Pes. K. Pisqa 1.5, where R. Johanan seems to assume that the natural inter-
pretation of The Lord bless you and keep you refers to protection from demons.
268 chapter thirteen
21
The prayer is commonly known as Binah, the relevant passage reading:
.
22
See above, p. 265.
the priestly blessing 269
23
According to Jub. 3.2627 Adam acted as priest, and the priestly office eventually
passed to Abraham (e.g. Jub. 13.89; 14.1020; 16.1931): see J.R. Levison, Portraits
of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1988), pp. 9395; C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook
(London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 8899. Possibly the author of Jub. thought that the
priesthood passed from father to eldest son, as rabbinic tradition believed (e.g. Lev.
R. 18.2; Num. R. 4.8; PRE 24.2, 5). If so, Terah might (at least in theory) have priestly
authority.
270 chapter thirteen
May the Lord be with you and protect you from every evil;
May He grant you kindness, mercy, and grace before those who see you;
And may no person have power over you to harm you.
Go in peace.24
This has little in common with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, except a
request for protection from evil, which hardly corresponds with the
Targums urgent plea for preservation from the demons. Rather, its
emphasis on peace, here named first and last, recalls the midrashim
with their praise of peace (Sifre Num. 42; Num. R. 11.14; Lev. R. 9.9).
The request for kindness, mercy and grace before those who see you
resembles an explanation of Num. 6.25 in Sifre Num. 41, May he grant
you favour in the sight of the creatures. The words may no person have
power over you are almost identical with the sentiment so that others
do not have dominion over you found in Sifre Num. 40; Num. R. 11.13
as an explanation of in Num. 6.24. While Jubilees might pro-
vide evidence for the antiquity of elements of the midrashim, it tells us
little about Targum Pseudo-Jonathans exegesis.25 Unlike that Targum,
which faithfully reproduces the thrice-repeated Divine Name of the
Hebrew original, Jubilees but once speaks of the Lord, substituting the
title eternal God for the Name when it first occurs, and altogether
omitting its last appearance.
All this notwithstanding, in one vital respect Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan and Jubilees coincide: both offer a paraphrase of the bless-
ing in a language other than Hebrew. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
is an Aramaic Targum; and Terah was born in Ur of the Chaldees
(Jub. 11.713), doubtless speaking Chaldee, that is, Aramaic. It would
seem that Aramaic paraphrases of the blessing were not unthinkable
in the mid-second century bce; and it may be significant that one
such is put into Terahs mouth specifically. Jubilees rails against the
24
Jub. 12.29, translated by J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO, 511,
Scriptores Aethiopici, 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), p. 74, who notes that the corre-
sponding Hebrew fragment 11QJub 5, 8.45 almost certainly lacks the line May He
grant you kindness . . . before those who see you; nonetheless, he translates the text of
Ethiopic Enoch (reproduced here) without emendation.
25
For discussion of the date of Jubilees, see E. Schrer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and
M. Goodman, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bcad
135), III.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 311314; K. Berger, Das Buch der
Jubilen (JSHRZ, 2.3; Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981), pp. 295301; G.W.E. Nickelsburg,
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981),
pp. 7879; J.C. VanderKam, Jubilees, Book of , in ABD, III, pp. 10301031.
the priestly blessing 271
26
See Schrer et al., History, III.1, pp. 311312; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature,
pp. 7180. Note Terahs response to Abrahams debunking of idols: I, too, know
[this], my son. What shall I do with the people who have ordered me to serve in their
presence? If I tell them what is right, they will kill me because they themselves are
attached to them so that they worship and praise them. Be quiet, my son, so that they
do not kill you (Jub. 12.67); see also 1 Macc. 2.23; 2 Macc. 6.19.
27
On the blessing at Qumran, see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 148171; D.K. Falk,
Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998),
pp. 222225; and cf. the observations of K.-E. Grzinger, Midraschisch erweiterte
Priestersegen in Qumran, Frankfurter Jdaistische Beitrge 2 (1974), pp. 3952. I am
indebted to Dr Alex Samely for drawing my attention to the latter. On the relation-
ship between 11QBer 12 and the priestly blessing in particular, see Nitzan, Qumran
Prayer, pp. 167170, and Grzinger, Midraschisch, pp. 4244.
28
My translation of Hebrew printed by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 150. On restruc-
turing of the blessing by Qumran Jews, see J.A. Loader, The Model of the Priestly
Blessing in 1QS, JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 1117; but note Nitzans modifications of the
model (Qumran Prayer, p. 152 n. 22). Nitzan (Qumran Prayer, pp. 156158; see
272 chapter thirteen
Grzinger, Midraschisch, pp. 4651 for similarities with rabbinic material) discusses
what she terms an expanded pattern of this 1QS blessing attested in 1QSb. The lat-
ter blesses at length those who fear God; the high priest; the ordinary priests; and the
prince of the congregation, and is quite unlike the compact blessing for the whole
Jewish people given in Targ. Ps.-J.
29
On the relationship of 1QS to the Rabbinic rules on these matters (see n. 4
above), see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 150.
30
Cf. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 161, and see above, p. 88. Ps. 91 was known to the
Talmudic Sages as an anti-demonic Psalm, and seems to have been so understood at
Qumran, influencing such texts as 11QPsa and 4Q510511 (Songs of the Maskil): see
Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 228229, 233238. Like Targ. Ps.-J. of Num. 6.24, 4Q510
lists classes of demons, namely spirits of the destroying angels and the spirits of the
bastards, the demons, Lilith, the howlers and [the yelpers . . .] they who strike suddenly
to lead astray the spirit of understanding and to appal their heart and their so[uls] . . .
(4Q510 1.56 in Nitzans translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 240; cf. 4Q511 4851); but
these texts do not use the blessing in their attack on the forces of evil.
31
See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 149.
the priestly blessing 273
all flesh. And justice shall rejoice up on high, and all sons of His truth
shall be glad in eternal knowledge [] .32
Echoes of the priestly blessing are evident in the language of light-
ing up, peace, blessing and lightall these being interwoven with
Michaels actions among the inhabitants of heaven and with Israels
struggle on earth. These things are his mysteries (, 1QM 17.9),
Gods heavenly secrets revealed to the Jews of Qumran. The supernatu-
ral dimension of the phrase is further emphasized by the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice. In 4Q405 13.5 we read:
. . . the wondrous [prin]ces shall bless, in the name of the po[wers of
the elim, all those powerful of insight with everlasting knowledge, with
seven powerful words . . .33
Here, heavenly authorities bless with those who have
insight, , in the course of a liturgy celebrated in the heavenly
realms. Although the interpretation of these Songs is a matter of intense
debate, no one seriously doubts that they purport to describe the work-
ings of the supernatural realms, the duties of the angelic princes and
the characteristic virtues of the heavenly world.34 Here, everlasting
knowledge is a supernatural quality, reminiscent of the ,
insightful knowledge, which the author of 1QH 11.27 perceives as a
gift of God allowing him to understand Gods wonders.
When Targum Pseudo-Jonathan asks that hidden things be revealed,
divine mysteries are in view.35 Despite differences in terminology and
view of the world, the Targum and 1QS 2.24 partly agree in taking
Num. 6.25 as a request for supernatural knowledge. The Qumran Jews
possibly also understood the blessing as a plea for protection from evil
spirits: what is evidently a reversal of the blessing into a curse uttered
by the Levites against the men of the lot of Satan threatens the latter
32
1QM 17.58, translation taken from Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of
Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 340.
33
For the Hebrew, restored in the light of the parallel text 4Q403 1.1.21, see
C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSM, 27; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 276277.
34
Discussion of the relationship of these Songs to Scriptural exegesis, worship at
Qumran, and mystical practices is offered by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 273318.
See also E. Hamacher, Die Sabbatopferlieder im Streit um Ursprung und Anfnge der
Jdischen Mystik, JSJ 27 (1996), pp. 119154.
35
See above, pp. 264265. Nitzan herself (Qumran Prayer, p. 162) also associates
Targ. Ps.-J.s hidden things with the supernatural gifts described in 1QS 2.3.
274 chapter thirteen
with terror through all those who breathe vengeance and destruction
through all those who take revenge (1QS 2.59). This may imply that
the blessing in some sense begs protection from these powers. It is not
certain, however, that these entities are evil in themselves: they may
be agents of divine wrath, in which case this curse is best left on one
side in considering the Targums version of the blessing.36 In truth,
the Qumran material may legitimately be used to elucidate only one
item of the Targums paraphrase, the plea for revelation of hidden
things.
36
See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 151153. Quotations from the curse are given
in her translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 151. Cf. also P. Wernberg-Mller, The Manual
of Discipline (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957), p. 52 (the avengers are angels), and in greater
detail A.R.C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London: SCM Press,
1966), pp. 130134.
37
Above, pp. 262263. In what follows, note how Targ. Ps.-J. stands apart from
the other Targums and Peshitta of Deut. 32.24, which speak of evil spirits, but do
not compare them with the hostile nations: see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to
Deuteronomy (The Aramaic Bible, 9; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 9697; R. le
Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. IV. Deutronome (Paris: Cerf, 1980), pp. 272273.
the priestly blessing 275
by evil spirits and to night demons [ ]inflated with evil spirits. And
I shall hurl against them the Greeks who bite with their teeth like wild
beasts; and I shall send them into exile through the Edomites who are full
of poison like venomous snakes, those crawling in the dust.
The house of Agag are the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15.20, 3233), of whom
it was said that the Lord would have war with them for generations
(Exod. 17.16). They are thus long-standing enemies of Israel; and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has no difficulty in describing them as three
classes of demon and malignant spirit represented in his version of
the priestly blessing. The demons named in that blessing, therefore,
must not be understood merely as disembodied supernatural forces:
they represent and incarnate on earth the most deadly of Israels politi-
cal and military foes, festering with ancient hatreds. The force of the
Targums re-working of the last clause of the blessing to read and may
he grant you peace in all your borders may now be understood more
clearly. God is petitioned to keep and preserve his people, as they pur-
sue Torah study and the requirements of the commandments, from
those evil forces, natural and supernatural enemies which would divert
them from and deprive them of both their religious duties and their
rightful land.
A similar understanding of the priestly blessing may also be traced
in the translation of Jesus ben Siras Wisdom, undertaken by his
grandson. Greek Sir. 36.117 is in the form of a prayer, which reaches
its climax with the words:
Give ear, O Lord, to the prayer of your suppliants,
According to the blessing of Aaron concerning your people;
And all those upon the earth shall know
That you are the Lord, the everlasting God.38
38
Sir. 36.1617 translated from Greek text in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, II (Stuttgart:
Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). The Greek of ch. 36 follows a different order
from the Hebrew text: Hebrew ben Sira 36.2223, which corresponds to Sir. 36.1617,
apparently did not refer to the blessing. A translation of the Hebrew in M. Sharett, The
Book of Ben Sira (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the
Book, 1973), p. 35, yields: May You hear the prayer of your servants (var.: servant),
according to (var . . . by) Your will . . . concerning our people; and all the ends of the
earth shall know (var.: see) that You are the [ever]last[ing] God. P.W. Skehan and
A.A. di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira (Anchor Bible, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987),
pp. 414, 423 take the Hebrew as the basis of their translation of and commentary
on these verses (signalled by them as 36.22): they do not refer to the Greek version
presented by Rahlfs.
276 chapter thirteen
The prayer opens with a plea for God to show mercy () and
look upon () Israel by sending his fear on the nations, lift-
ing his hand against them that they may see his power, so that they
may know him (36.24), a request reiterated in the closing lines of
the prayer. He is asked to show his wrath against Israels enemies as
in ancient times, especially against enemy rulers who claim there is
none beside them (36.59). This claim ( , 36.9) is a
blasphemous parody of Gods proclamation that there is none like him
(Isa. 45.5, 21), and marks these enemies as effectively demonic agents.
36.11 again pleads with God to show mercy () on the people
called by his Name, an indirect reference to the priestly blessing by
which Gods Name is placed upon Israel (Num. 6.27). Next come peti-
tions for Gods pity () on Jerusalem, the manifestation of
his glory in Zion, and the fulfilment of prophecies (36.1215), before
the final words of the prayer quoted earlier. In other words, Sirach
understands this prayer of Gods suppliants as encapsulating the sense
of Aarons blessing over Israel; that is, as a petition for Israels well-be-
ing and safety in her political and military dealings with other nations.39
That the blessing could be understood in this way is suggested by the
climax of Hebrew ben Siras Wisdom, where the high priests utterance
of the blessing at the end of the service in the Temple (50.2021) leads
to a request that God be among Israel in peace (50.23), confirming his
covenant with the high priest (50.24): to this, ben Sira adds a vehement
condemnation of Israels enemies.40
39
Both and may represent the Hebrew root : in lxx, the
former often does duty for it (e.g. Gen. 33.5; Exod. 33.19; Deut. 7.2, and frequently in
the Psalter, Pss. 9.13; 25.11; 29.10), and the latter renders it at lxx Pss. 4.1; 36.21; 58.5;
66.1; 76.9; 101.14; and elsewhere. Greek represents Hebrew at lxx
Dan. 9.17, in a verse strongly redolent of the priestly blessing, which runs in Hebrew:
And now, O our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications,
and make Your face shine upon Your sanctuary which is desolate . . .
40
On the blessing in Sir. 50.2021, see Skehan and di Lella, Wisdom, pp. 554555,
who suggest (p. 558) that the following attack on foreign enemies (50.2526) is in
no way related to it. Even if such were the case, there was nothing to prevent ben
Siras grandson from concluding that the blessing and the attack on foreign nations
were indeed related to each other, because they had been placed next to each other
in the text. An attack on the high priests enemies, however, is entirely appropriate
at this point, following the praise bestowed on him: see Hayward, The Jewish Temple,
pp. 6163.
the priestly blessing 277
5. Conclusions
41
See J. Heinemann, The Priestly Blessing . . . Is not Read and not Translated, Bar
Ilan 6 (1968), pp. 3341 (in Hebrew). His thesis is accepted by Klein, Not to Be
Translated, pp. 8081.
278 chapter thirteen
versions of the blessing; and Jubilees puts one into Terahs mouth. But
Jubilees depicts Terah as ignorant of Hebrew, and one whose commit-
ment to Judaism was weak and questionable. Possibly the association
of Aramaic versions of the blessing with Jews like Terah influenced
both the Rabbis eventual prohibition of such Targum, and the extant
Targums carefully orthodox paraphrase.
Hebrew rewriting of the blessing preserved in 1QS 2.24 shows
how some Jews in the Second Temple period understood the second
petition as a request for enlightenment in divine mysteries. In this,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan stands apart from midrashic expositions,
and shows affinities with earlier concerns about the heavenly world
and its secrets. Yet even here differences manifest themselves. The
Targums hidden things are divine mysteries involving the Torah and
Israels destiny: they seem to have a practical import, directed towards
Israels well-being in this world, whereas the Qumran writer is firmly
fixed on heavenly realities. Finally, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans appli-
cation of demonic characteristics to Israels ancient enemies gives a
political and military twist to his plea for peace in Israels borders,
another non-rabbinic sentiment reflected in Sirachs understanding of
the blessing as a prayer for Gods mercy in Israels defence against
hostile nations.
Beneath its rabbinic outer garments, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan pre-
serves older interpretations of the blessing which most likely originated
in Second Temple times and continued to influence exegetes for some
time thereafter. In this respect, the Targums exposition can appear sui
generis, the work of different interpreters transmitting ancient tradi-
tion, in ways acceptable to later generations and sensibilities. Thus an
interpretation that might once have emphasized the blessings almost
magical power to avert demons becomes, in this Targum, a petition
for Gods protection of his people as they study the Torah, keep its
commandments, and search for its hidden treasures in their own land,
safe from enemies natural and supernatural.
PART THREE
Jerome had an innate flair for languages. He lived at a time when the
linguistic cleavage between East and West was deepening: few Christians
in the East ever had known any Latin; and fewer and fewer in the West
now knew any Greek. By his indefatigable study of Hebrew Jerome
turned himself into a near-unique phenomenon at any period in the
history of the early Churcha trilingual (competent in Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew).1
If this alone were true of St. Jerome, it would be remarkable enough
in itself, since it enabled him to produce his famous Latin translation
of the Bible, the Vulgate. But St. Jerome is renowned, not only for his
translation of the Bible but also for his commentaries on the Biblical
books; indeed, in many respect he remains as a model exegete, with his
careful attention to text, language, context, and exposition.2
Particularly impressive in these commentaries is his knowledge and
use of Jewish exegetical traditions; indeed, he often frankly acknowl-
edges his debt to the Jews.3 In this, he was helped by his understanding
of Hebrew, and his learning of Syriac, which had been forced upon
him by his sojourn in the desert of Chalcis.4 He also knew Aramaic,
although it would seem that he found this language easier to read than
1
H.D.F. Sparks, Jerome as Biblical Scholar, in The Cambridge History of the Bible,
ed. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 517.
2
For general information on St. Jerome as commentator, see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome:
His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975), pp. 141167; H.D.F. Sparks,
op. cit., pp. 535541; A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell Esegesi di S. Gerolamo (Rome,
1950); and F. Cavallera, S. Jrme: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre (Louvain, 1922).
3
See, for example, the list of references cited by Sparks, op. cit., p. 539; S. Krauss,
article Jerome, Jewish Encyclopaedia vol. 7 (New York, 1904), pp. 115118; A. Penna,
op. cit., pp. 610; G. Bardy, Saint Jrme et ses Maitres Hebreux, Revue Bndictine
46 (1934), pp. 145164; S. Krauss, The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,
Jewish Quarterly Review 6 (1894), pp. 225261; H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei
den Kirchenvtern, Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3
(1854), pp. 311318.
4
For the details, see Kelly, op. cit., p. 49; Krauss, Jerome, p. 115.
282 chapter fourteen
5
See Sparks, op. cit., p. 517, citing the Preface to the commentary on Daniel, and
Krauss, Jerome, p. 116.
6
See Prefaces to Tobit and Judith in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 29 (Paris,
1865), col. 25: Now because the tongue of the Chaldeans is related (vicina) to the
Hebrew language . . .
7
See below, p. 292.
8
Kelly, op. cit., p. 285, suggests that he was unfamiliar with Aramaic, and used an
interpreter who knew both it and Hebrew for his translation of Tobit and, he conjec-
tures, of Judith. But the Preface to Tobit (PL 29, cols. 2526) says only that he used
a most skilled speaker (peritissimum loquacem) of both languages, who expressed in
Hebrew words that Jerome put into Latin. He refers to no such loquax in the Preface
to Judith (PL 29, cols. 3942), but notes that it is written in Chaldean.
9
For the Targum and its methods, see R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature
Targumique (Rome, 1966); J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cam-
bridge, 1969); M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1968); idem, article
Targum, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement volume (Nashville, 1976),
pp. 856861, and the bibliography cited there.
10
See Kelly, op. cit., pp. 7677.
11
See N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1977).
12
He wrote it probably in 414415. The preface to Book IV does not know of the
Dialogue against the Pelagians which was being composed in July 415 for publication
in the spring of 416. See Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 55; Kelly, op. cit., p. 316.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 283
1. Geographical Terms
13
Cf. F. Stummer, Beitrage zu dem Problem Hieronymus und die Targumim,
Biblica 18 (1937), p. 181; G. Bardy, art. cit., pp. 145164, esp. pp. 148153. For the
controversy, see Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 193286; Kelly, op. cit., pp. 195209;
and the list of heretical teachings which S. Jerome ascribes to Origen in Adversus
Ioann. Hier. 7.
14
Cf. Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174181; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966), p. 55.
15
See Krauss, Jerome, p. 117.
16
See, for example, his famous Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum and
his edition of Eusebiuss Onomasticon.
17
All quotations from S. Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah are taken from
the edition of S. Reiter, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri In Hieremiam Prophetam, Corpus
Christianorum Series Latina, vol. lxxiv (Turnhout, 1960), hereafter In Hier.; and quo-
tations from the Targum of Jeremiah from the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in
Aramaic, vol. 111 (Leiden, 1962).
284 chapter fourteen
wilderness. This same definition is used to describe those who cut the
corners of their hair (Tg. Jer. 9:25), thus identifying them as Arabs.
Similarly, Jerome, commenting on this latter verse, refers to
the whole region of the Saracens who dwell in solitude, and of whom it
is saidon all who cut their hair, dwelling in the desert. (In Hier. II.
lxxxiv).
Now the Ishmaelites and Saracens are the Arabs,18 and the identifica-
tion of Kedar as the place of the Arabs is attested by other Targumic
texts, especially Ps. Jon. Gen. 25:13. But the Septuagint of the verses
quoted here does not specify that Kedar refers to the region of the
Arabs; nor do the main Rabbinic texts which comment on them;19 and
Origen here is silent about the identification of the place.
A particularly interesting exegesis of the place-names Gilead and
Lebanon, which corresponds exactly to the Targum and Tannaitic
sources, is given by Jerome in his commentary on Jer. 22:6. In a threat
addressed to the king of Judah, Jeremiah says on Gods behalf
You are Gilead to me, the top of Lebanon . . .
This section of the verse is translated by the Targum as
Should you be as beloved before me as the house of the sanctuary, which
is high on the tops of the mountains . . .
Gilead here is understood as symbolising the Temple; elsewhere in
post-biblical Jewish tradition Lebanon, also named here, is taken as a
symbol of the Temple or the king.20 The Gilead-Temple identification,
however, is not common. The Targum of this verse has it, but it is not
found in the Targum of the Pentateuch, of the rest of the Prophets,
or of the Writings. Such a clear identification occurs in Mekhilta of
R. Ishmael, Amalek 2:8587, commenting on Deut. 34:1; Mekhilta
18
See Genesis 37:25, where Ishmaelites are named: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Ps.-
Jon) and Targum Onqelos (TO) render as Arabs (cf. Gen. 37:28); Targum Neofiti (N),
the Fragment Targum (FT) and the Geniza Fragments (G) render as Saracens. So
also at Gen. 39:1 Hebrew Ishmaelites becomes Saracens in N and G, Arabs in Ps.-Jon
and TO. See also Yalqut Shimoni (Wilna, 1909), vol. 2, p. 821: KedarThese are the
Ishmaelites.
19
On Jer. 3:2, see yer. Taan. 3:3.13; Qidd. 4:1.36; t.Qidd. 1:2; Num. R. 8:4; and on
Jer. 9:25 see b.Ned. 31a; Gen R. 46:5; Lev. R. 26:6; PRE 29.
20
See G. Vermes, Lebanon in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (2nd ed., Leiden,
1973), pp. 2639.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 285
21
Mekhilta of R. Ishmael is edited by J.Z. Lauterbach, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 193335);
and Mekhilta of R. Simeon b Yohai by J.N. Epstein (Jerusalem, 1955).
22
See Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina vol. lxxii (Turnhout, 1959), pp. 63, 86.
286 chapter fourteen
(1) Both Jerome and the Targum expound Jer. 5:12 with reference to
Gods providence. This verse, which is often quoted in late Rabbinic
literature,23 relates the treacherous words of Israel and Judah:
They have denied the Lord, and have said: It is not He; neither shall evil
come upon us . . .
The Hebrew lhw, it is not He, may also be translated as He is not and
be understood as a denial of Gods existence;24 or even as He is noth-
ing, a contemptuous dismissal of his power.25 The Targums exegesis,
however, is quite distinctive:
They have denied (or: lied to) the Word of the Lord, and have said: Not
from before him do good things come upon us; neither, indeed, shall evil
come upon us . . .
The italicised words represent Targums interpretation of the Hebrew
l hw. In this version, sinful Israel and Judah deny Gods providence.
The Targum of the prophets speaks often of good things which shall,
do, or have come from God. God brings good things on Israel because
she serves Him;26 He has done more and more good things in the land
of Israel for his people;27 and the good things which he had promised
in the past to Israels ancestors he will perform.28 There is a treasury
of Gods goodness,29 and in the future his power will be revealed to do
good for Israel.30 The biblical foundations of such teaching are evident,
and the Targums emphasis on Gods present and future goodness is
clearly reflected in such pre-Rabbinic works as the Psalms of Solomon,
composed in the latter half of the first century bc.31
23
See Ex. R. 30:5; Lev. R. 19:2; Num. R. 9:7; Song. R. 5:1; Tanhuma Naso 2; PRK
129; PR 28:4; 34:13; Mid. Sam. 5.
24
So New English Bible and the Vulgate.
25
So Jerusalem Bible.
26
Tg. Jer. 2:11 (First Rabbinic Bible, Venice 151517); 2:13; Tg. Hos. 8:3, The
house of Israel have gone astray from my service, for the sake of which I bring good
things upon them.
27
Tg. Joel 2:21; cf. Tg. Mic. 6:3, O my people, what good thing did I say that I
would do for you, and I have not done it?
28
Tg. Mic. 7:20, You will perform with us the good things which you swore to our
fathers from days of old; Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12; Tg. Jer. 31:6.
29
Tg. Isa. 33:6.
30
Tg. Isa. 33:21.
31
With Ps. Sol. 11:7, cf. Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12, where God says that he
will do good things; and with Pss. Sol. 17:44; 18:6, cf. Tg. Mic. 7:20; Tg. Jer. 31:6.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 287
The Rabbinic sources which deal with this verse do not understand
it as implying a denial of Gods providence; rather, they concentrate
on Israels denying God or lying to him, and often try to relate the text
to specific historical events. For the Targum, however, it is precisely
Gods providence which is under attack, for to deny Gods goodness
is to deny his control of history and the government of the world, and
to deny the promised future blessing for Israel in the world to come.
Jerome comments:
They have denied the Lord and have said: It is not Heor, These things
are not32neither shall evil come upon us . . . Because they have denied
the Lord, and have said, It is not He by whose justice everything shall
come about, but all these things have happened by chance; nor shall the
things with which the voices of the prophets threaten us come to pass . . .
this is the oracle. Let the Church hear this, as she neglects and denies
Gods providence . . . (In Hier. I. xcviii).
Denial of Gods justice in human affairs or in history, and the assertion
that all things occur at random, were notions fostered by the popu-
lar peddlers of Epicureanism. Denial of divine providence was not
unknown among Jews; and it is almost certain that Josephus portrays
the Sadducees as maintaining a very thin and truncated theology of
Gods governance of the world.33 A number of verses in the Targums
of the Pentateuch are also best interpreted as polemics against such
tendencies, and, in the opinion of some authorities, may have once
been directed against Sadducees.34 Targum of Jer. 5:12 attacks a her-
esy of the same sort, which survived the demise of the Sadducees and
The possibility that Targums theology here is as old as the first century bc cannot
be ruled out. Note that the Targumic eschatology is by and large, basic and under-
developed; and the hope of good things to come is a feature of popular eschato-
logical hope in the period around the first century. See S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An
Aramaic Interpretation (CincinnatiNew York, 1974); R.P. Gordon, The Targumists
as Eschatologists, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 29 Congress Volume (Gottingen,
1977/78), pp. 113130.
32
So the Old Latin (non sunt haec); cf. LXX.
33
See War II. 164; Ant. XIII.173; on the subject of Divine Providence in Jewish
thought see E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols., Jerusalem,
1979), vol. 1, pp. 255285, and E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, revised and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black, vol. 2 (Edinburgh,
1979), pp. 392394.
34
See, for example, S. Isenberg, An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian
Targum Tradition, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970), pp. 433444; G. Vermes,
The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:316, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975),
pp. 114116.
288 chapter fourteen
flourished in fertile soil after the tragic collapse of the Second Revolt
against Rome in 135 ad.
It is probable that Jerome owes his understanding of this verse to a
once popular Jewish exegesis which now remains only in the Targum.
Origen transmits no such interpretation, nor does the Septuagint; and
the Rabbinic sources which quote this verse are all, in their present
form, later in date than his work.35 It is the insistence of the Targum
and Jerome on divine providence which is so remarkable and (unless
he derived it from some earlier Christian source which I have failed
to trace) which makes it probable that Jerome depended on Jewish
traditional reading of the verse.
(2) More than any other prophet, Jeremiah suffered because of
his commission; and his pain finds expression in a famous poem in
which he curses the day of his birth, 20:1418. He curses the man who
announced his birth,
because he did not kill me from the womb, so that my mother would
have been my grave, and her womb pregnant for ever. (20:17).
The Targumist could not allow this verse to stand unaltered. He makes
important changes, and translates:
Would that he had not said concerning me that I should have died from
the womb, and that my mother should have been my grave, and that I
should have been as if I had not existed.
It is a curious fact that, as far as I am aware, this verse is never quoted
in the Rabbinic Literature. The Targum seems to be the only document
from ancient times to deal with it.36 But the Targumist, of course, was
compelled to tackle it, because it raises at least three important dif-
ficulties.
First, Jeremiah wishes that the man who announced his birth
had killed him. He would thus seem to deny his prophetic vocation
from the womb (1:5), an unthinkable and impious idea which the
Targumists could not tolerate.
Second, the verse suggests that Jeremiah would have been guilty of
suicide, and of encouraging another man to commit murder to bring
this about. This, again, had to be changed. Finally, the prophet seems
35
See above, note 23.
36
The verse is not catalogued by A. Hyman, Torah Hakketubah Wehammesorah,
2nd ed. rev. and enlarged by A.B. Hyman, (Tel-Aviv, 1979), vol. 2, ad loc.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 289
37
b. Erub. 13 b.
38
See Urbach, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 252253.
39
Ibid., pp. 253254. He quotes Lev. R. 35:5; Sifra Behuqqotay 5, 110c; b. Ber. 43b;
Ket. 67b; Sot. 10b; BM 59a; yer Ber. 1:5.3; Shabb. 1:5.3; Ex. R. 40:1; Matt. 18:6; 26:24;
I Clement 46:8; yer. AZ 1:2.40; Shabb. 13:4.14. To these add m. Hag. 2:1 and I Enoch
38:2, which serve only to strengthen Urbachs conclusions.
290 chapter fourteen
Jeremiah is criticising the man who announced his birth for having
said of Jeremiah that he should have been as if he had not existed. This
man would be, in effect, like a Rabbi saying of a sinner or law-breaker:
It would have been better for him if he had not come into existence.
But here is a problem. Jeremiah was not a sinner; as a true prophet he
kept the commandments; he was a holy and righteous man. How, then
could anyone say of him that he should not have existed? A wicked
man might say this of him; but on what grounds? An easy answer to
this question would be forthcoming if we are prepared to believe that
the Targumist knew of traditions, attested elsewhere, that the wicked
priest Passhur announced Jeremiahs birth; and that from his first
breath the prophet uttered oracles of doom against Zion.40 But we look
in vain for any such traditions in the Targum.
The second way of understanding the Targum is by far the sim-
plest and most probable. We should read the text in sections. First,
Jeremiah attacks the man who announced his birth for having wished
the prophets death, thus eliminating the theological problem posed
by the original Hebrew. But we should then understand the Targum
to turn immediately to an expression of Jeremiahs own wish that his
mother had been his grave, and that he had been as if he had not
existed. The Aramaic will permit this interpretation;41 such atomistic
exegesis of the Hebrew is common in the Targum;42 and such an inter-
pretation connects very well with the following verse, Jer. 20:18, where
Jeremiah is the speaker:
Why was it that I came forth from the womb to see trouble and weari-
ness, and that my days should come to an end in shame?
If we follow this argument, the Targum would be putting into Jeremiahs
mouth a sentiment found in the Talmud, voiced by the House of
Shammai, whose view prevailed. It would seem, too, that certain peo-
ple in S. Jeromes day understood the verse in this way.
40
For Passhur as the announcer of Jeremiahs birth, see Kimhi on on this verse; and
for Jeremiahs prophecy on coming out of the womb, cf. PR 26:1/2.
41
There is no particle d, that, to introduce the second and third clauses. We could,
indeed, translate: Would that he had not said concerning me that I should have died
from the womb; rather, my mother should have been my grave, and I should have
been as if I had not existed.
42
See the clear examples cited by G. Vermes, Bible and Midrash: Early Old
Testament Exegesis, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 203205.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 291
Those who think that souls have existed in the heavenly places, and have
fallen from a better to a worse state, use this and witnesses of this kind
to prove that it would indeed have been better to have dwelt in the heav-
enly places than in the earthly and to have assumed a body of humility;
seeking (thereby) newyet already oldarguments for their heresy. But
of blessed Job we read this: Cursed be the day on which I was born, and
that night on which they said, See, a man-child! And: Cursed be the
man who told the news to my father and said, A boy is born to you. We
join with this witness, that it is indeed better not to exist than to live
with punishments, according as it is written: Death is rest for the man
for whom God has shut up the way; and again, Why is light given to
the wretched, and life to those who are souls in bitterness? And in the
Gospel we read it said plainly: it would have been better for him, if he
had not been bornnot meaning by this that he should not have existed,
but that it would have been better for him not to exist than to exist in an
evil state.43 For it is one thing entirely not to exist, another thing, when
a man exists, to be tortured without any respite, so that we prefer quiet
death to wretched life. (In Hier. IV, xxviii).
The Hebrew text of Jer. 20:17 does not suggest this kind of interpreta-
tion, which Jerome relates to his opponents; but the text in the Targumic
version does precisely that very thing. Jerome is attacking the views of
Origen and his followers, who believed in the pre-existence of the soul:
apparently such thinkers had already latched onto Jer. 20:17 and sur-
rounding verses as proof-texts.44 This may have come about because
Jewish exegetical tradition already associated the verses with the To
exist/Not To have existed question. At any rate, the Targum is witness
to their use in this way in ancient times. Jeromes comment is valuable
in that it offers one possible explanation of the otherwise rather pecu-
liar Targumic interpretation. Here a Christian writer very probably
sheds illumination on the background of an otherwise obscure Jewish
exegesis. Amongst some Jews, the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls
was known;45 and the Targum here is very likely taking issue with such
thinkers, and expressing itself in such a way that even Jerome would
have approved.
43
Et in evangelio simpliciter dictum legimus: melius ei fuerat, si natus non esset,
non quo sit, qui natus non fuerit, sed quo melius sit non esse quam male esse.
44
Origens belief in the pre-existence of souls is expressed (e.g.) in De Principiis
I.7:4; III.3:5; 4:2; IV.3:10, ed. P. Koetschau, in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte, Origen, vol. 5 (Leipzig, 1913). So far as I am aware, he
makes no use of Jer. 20:17, either in De Principiis or in the homilies.
45
A most convenient survey and discussion of the sources relating to this matter is
provided by Urbach, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 233242; vol. 2, pp. 791793.
292 chapter fourteen
But did he know the Targum to the verse, or the Jewish exegesis
which is now enshrined in it? Quite possibly he included Jews among
those who think that souls have a pre-existence; and it is remarkable
that, immediately after the lengthy comment quoted above, he alludes
to the Jewish tradition that Jeremiah was born in the fifth month (Ab),
in which the Temple was destroyed.46 Perhaps Jewish tradition also
informed his earlier comment: such a possibility cannot be ruled out,
and the remarkable similarity in language and phraseology between
the Targum and Jerome, whatever the final explanation of it, is in sup-
port of his having known an exegesis of this verse which is close to
that in the Targum.47
46
In Hier. IV. xxviii. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 (Philadelphia),
p. 384, cites as its source Seder ha-Doret 3298, which I have not been able to trace.
47
Cf. Jeromes exegesis of Jer. 1:5, where he denies that Jeremiah had existed before
his conception, with Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, Pisha 16:89, which takes the verse as a
proof-text for the notion that the names of the righteous and their deeds are revealed
before God before they are formed.
48
For the Septuagint, we have consulted Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart,
1935); and for the Old Latin Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiquae seu Vetus
Latina, ed. P. Sabatier (Rheims, 17431749).
49
He stresses that lacus has a semantic range which differs from Greek.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 293
One of the most striking and impressive links between Jeromes com-
mentary and the Jewish interpretation of Jeremiah concerns the case
of the interloping partridge, a much maligned bird which makes only
a brief appearance in the Hebrew text:
The partridge incubated (eggs), but does not bear offspring; (so is) the
man who makes riches, and that unjustly: in the midst of his days he
forsakes them, and at his end he will be foolish. (Jer. 17:11).
50
See Vita Pauli 6, describing a monk living in an old cistern which the Syrians in
Gentile speech call gubba . . ., quoted by Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 40.
51
Like Josephus, who cites Aramaic words and calls them Hebrew, Jeromes
nomenclature is not precise. But see Krausss remarks, Jerome, p. 116; The Jews in
the works of the Church Fathers, pp. 245249.
294 chapter fourteen
There are few Rabbinic comments on this verse, and such as there
are hardly deal with the partridges supposedly furtive activities.52 The
Targum, however, presents the bird in a most unflattering light:
Behold, like the partridge who gathers eggs53 which are not his own, and
hatches the broods which shall not follow him, so is every wicked man who
acquired goods unjustly: in the midst of his days he forsakes them, and
at his end he is called wicked.
Jeromes comment reflects the Targum almost exactly:
The writers of natural history . . . of whom the principal among the
Greeks are Aristotle and Theophrastus, and Pliny the Younger among
ourselves, say that this is the nature of the partridge: that it steals the
eggs of anotherthat is, a different partridgeand incubates and
hatches them. And when the offspring is grown, it flies away from this
(bird) and leaves the foreign parent. Rich men are of this sort who plun-
der things not their own, and, without recognition of Gods judgement,
make riches unjustly, which they leave in the midst of their time, taken
away by sudden death, when it is said to them: Fool, tonight they shall
demand your soul from you. Then whose shall these things be, which
you have prepared? (In Hier. III. lxxv).
Jeromes correspondence with the Targum is so close that both com-
ments are involved in a non sequitur: the wrongly acquired broods
leave the partridge, which fact does not agree with the deeds of the
rich man and his wrongly acquired goods; for according to Targum
and Jerome these goods do not leave the rich man: rather, he forsakes
them or is snatched from them!
Reiter has shown that Jerome is mistaken in alleging that Aristotle,
Theophrastus, and Pliny are witnesses to the supposed behaviour of
the partridge. He suggests that Jerome has confused the partridge with
the cuckoo, which Aristotle and Theophrastus describe in these terms.
He also records that Philostratus and St. Ambrose malign the par-
52
The only discussions of the habits of the partridge which I can find are in
Tanhuma Buber Tese 17; Yalqut Shimoni vol. 2, p. 825; but both these collections
post-date Jeromes work, and do not provide material sufficiently similar to Jeromes
work to allow proper comparison with it. For the original significance of the prophets
saying, see J.F.A. Sawyer, A Note on the Brooding Partridge in Jeremiah XVII 11,
Vetus Testamentum 28(1978), pp. 324329.
53
The Hebrew root dgr, incubate, is translated as if it were the Aramaic root dgr,
pile up, accumulate. This translation is old as LXX, and is the ancestor of the tradi-
tion found here: cf. Sawyer, art. cit., p. 325.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 295
tridge in the same way as Jerome.54 The latter may derive his informa-
tion from the former; but if he does, why has he cited other, irrelevant
authorities?
Given the close association between what Jerome says on the one
hand, and the Targum on the other, we might suggest that he derived
his information from popular Jewish understanding of the verse, and
alluded to the great Greek and Latin writers en passant. A careful
reading of his words may indicate that he does not actually derive
his information from Aristotle and others whom he names, but from
anonymous writers of natural history of whom, as everyone knows,
the greatest representatives are men like Aristotle! It is very clear that
his exegesis does not derive from Origen.55
Other close correspondences with Targum may be listed here; and
once again, we are dealing with verses to which very little Rabbinic
comment attaches. Targum of Jer. 13:22 actually sharpens the prophets
threat against Judah, specifying that
because your debts are many, your shame is discovered, your prostitu-
tion is seen.56
Jerome is likewise quite plain:
. . . the multitude of your iniquity has done these things for you, so that
your shame is revealed like that of a harlot woman with clothes lifted up;
and your fornications are openly displayed. (In Hier. III. xxii).
The prophets spoken of at 14:14 are described by Targum as false
prophets: Jerome follows suit. For the Hebrew texts cedars at 22:7
Targum has strong men, Jerome strong ones and princes of the city;57
54
See Reiters note in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. lxxiv, p. 167 to line
4, and Sawyer, ibid., pp. 327328.
55
See Origen, Homily xvii.1 on Jer. 17:11, ed. E. Klostermann, in Die Griechischen
Christlichen Schrifsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte, Origenes Werke, vol. 3 (Leipzig,
1901), pp. 143144. Origen says of the partridge that it has disgusting manners, is
deceitful, and decoys hunters from its nest; that it is a lascivious bird with uncontrol-
lable sexual appetite, information which, Klostermann points out (p. 143), derives
from Aristotle, Hist Anim. 9:8 and Ambrose, Epist. 32:18. This information is used
in part by Jerome, In Hier. III, lxxv, where he speaks of the partridges impurity; and
in In Hier. III. lxxv he relates the verse to heretics, as does Origen, Homily XVII.2.
Cf. also Homlies sur Jrmie, ed. P. Nautin, trans. P. Husson and P. Nautin, Sources
Chrtiennes (Paris, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 160169.
56
The Hebrew has: . . . because of the greatness of your iniquity your skirts are
uncovered, your heels bared.
57
In Hier. IV. xxxvi; cf. Tg. 2 Kings 19:23; Tg. Isa. 37:24; Ps.-Jon, N, FT Num. 24:6.
296 chapter fourteen
and the Targumic assertion at 27:5 that God made the earth by His
Word is reflected in Jeromes comment when he quotes Ps. 32:6, that
the heavens were made firm by the Word of the Lord (In Hier. IV.
xlvii).
All these correspondences are minor, but they serve to indicate the
extent of Jeromes knowledge of Jewish exegetical tradition in general,
and possibly of the Targum in particular.
An example of a more extended correspondence between Jeromes
commentary and the Targum is found at Jer. 31:20, where the Hebrew
text has God say of Ephraim
for as soon as I speak about him, I surely remember him again.
Targum interprets:
For at the time when I put the words of my Law upon his heart to do
them, I surely remember to do good for him again.
Jeromes comment is that Gods words were in Ephraim,
not in his mouth, nor on his lips, but in the deepest feeling of his
heart.
Quoting Hos. 6:4 and 11:89 as proof-texts, he adds:
For my words were in him, and he received all my commandments with
eager mind, and kept them in his heart. (In Hier. VI. xxi).
Other passages also reflect Jeromes use of Jewish pat interpretation,
which is a feature of much of the Targum. Thus the burial of an ass
with which Jehoiakim is threatened (Jer. 22:19) is explained by say-
ing that Jehoiakim will be unburied, to be torn by beasts and birds.58
Targum says that his corpse will be thrown out in the same way as an
asss carcase.59
On other occasions, however, Jerome is aware of the haggadah, and
quotes traditions which either are unknown to the Targum, or are
found in the Targum only in part. The word lion, which occurs in 2:15
and 4:7, is translated by Targum as king;60 but Jerome is more specific,
and commenting on 4:7, identified the lion as king Nebuchadnezzar,
58
In Hier. IV. xxxix.
59
Cf. Yalqut Shimoni vol. 1, p. 594; Rashi on 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:6.
60
See Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 4044. Jerome also identifies the lion
with the devil in his comment on Jer. 4:7, In Hier. I. lxxii, like Origen, Homily V.17.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 297
61
See Ex. R. 29:9; Lam. R. Proem 1; PRK Piska 13:1; Kimhi ad loc.
62
Origen, Homilies Fragment 3 on Jer. 5:6, can identify both lion and leopard as
Nebuchadnezzar (ed. Klostermann, p. 200); but this does not compare with Jeromes
comments.
63
See Krauss, Jerome, p. 117.
298 chapter fourteen
Conclusion
64
Jerome goes on to compare the two sets of figs with the saved and the damned,
In Hier. V.ii; cf. Origen, Homilies Fragment 22 on Jer. 24:13, ed. Klostermann,
pp. 208209.
65
See Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174175.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah 299
sion of Jer. 20:17 with reference to the pre-existence of souls, and the
case of the partridge in Jer. 17:11, lead one to conclude that further
researches in this area could be fruitful.
We have stressed points of what we may call positive contact between
Jerome and Jewish sources; but there are, understandably, points of
negative contact as well. These can also help us to appreciate Targumic
exegesis more deeply. Although the Targum was an official document
of the Rabbinic Academiesin its final form, at leastit was meant
to be heard and understood by the ordinary Jew, the person who
came Sabbath by Sabbath to hear the Torah and the Prophets read
and expounded in his local synagogue. In Targum Jer. 33:25 he would
hear that God had not created heaven and earth so that they should
pass away; and he would hear in Targum Jer. 31:3536 that, just as it
was impossible for Gods ordinances for the luminaries of heaven to
cease to exist, so it would be impossible for Israel to cease to exist as
Gods people. Why should a Jew need to be reminded of these basic
facts? Jeromes commentary tells us. Commenting on Jer. 31:3637 (In
Hier. VI. xxviixxviii) he proves to his own satisfaction that God has
not promised that the created order will exist for everand that, by
the same token, Israel will not exist for ever as Gods people. It would
seem that he is in negative interaction with the Targum, which has
taken into its exegesis a series of already well-developed anti-Christian
propositions. Whether or not Jerome is in open debate with the popu-
lar Jewish Targum of his day in a kind of battle for souls is an inter-
esting question.66
66
Cf. the remarks of Krauss, The Jews . . ., pp. 239240.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
1
It will be published later this year by Michael Glazier.
2
For a description of Targum and its methods, see J. Bowker, The Targums and
Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969): M. McNamara, Targums, in The Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible, Supp. Vol. (Nashville 1976), pp. 856861; A. Dez Macho,
El Targum: Introduccin a las traduccines aramaicas de la Biblia (Barcelona 1972);
G. Vermes, Bible and Midrash, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, ed.
P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (Cambridge 1970), pp. 199231; idem, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism, 2nd edn (Leiden 1973).
3
Hence the interest which recent Catholic scholars in particular have shown in
Targum: see, e.g. R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome 1963); M. McNamara, The New
Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome 1966); Targum and
Testament (Shannon 1972); Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Michael
Glazier 1983), pp. 205252; Targums, in New Caholic Encyclopaedia (Washington
1967), vol. 2, pp. 431433; L. Dez Merino, Los estudios targumicos en el VIII
Congreso Mundial de Estudios Judaicos, Estudios Biblicos 40 (1982), pp. 159177.
4
See C.T.R. Hayward, Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah
and the Targum of Jeremiah, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985),
pp. 100120.
5
Ibid., pp. 103108; 109111.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 301
This commentary, which occupied him from ad 415 to 420, was never
completed; and it was his last major work.6
This paper sets out to explore some examples of Jeromes use of
Jewish tradition now extant in the Targum of the Minor Prophets.
In particular, we shall look at his commentaries on Zechariah and
Malachi, published around 406, and that on Nahum, published around
391/2. We shall make an attempt to see whether, during the twenty-
nine years or so which separate the Nahum commentary from that
on Jeremiah, there is any significant development in Jeromes use of
material which may derive from Targumic sources. This is a matter
of some importance, because it was during the fourth and fifth centu-
ries that the Targum of the Prophets was being moulded into its final
form.7 This was happening at a time when repressive laws were being
passed against the Jews, and conversions to Christianity were on the
increase.8 The appearance of the Jerusalem Talmud around this time
was itself, in one respect, a response on the part of the Jewish Sages to
those events which were to prove so critical for their people.9 On the
popular level, too, the Targum was in dispute with the Christians. A
good example is provided by Targum Jeremiah 31:356; 33:25, which
asserts that Israel is no more likely to cease being Gods people than
that the earth and creation should pass away, or that Gods ordinances
with the heavenly luminaries should come to an end. Jerome directly
counters such teaching in his commentary, and disproves it to his own
satisfaction.10 What, we may ask, was his attitude to the Targum in his
earlier works?
6
For the dating of Jeromes commentaries, see especially F. Cavallera, S. Jrme:
sa vie et son oeuvre, vol. 2 (Louvain 1922), pp. 2063; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life,
Writings, and Controversies (London 1975), pp. 163167, 290316, 326327.
7
On the growth and redaction of the Targum of the prophets, see R. le Daut,
Introduction la littrature Targumique Premire Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 124127;
B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum
(Sheffield 1982); M. McNamara, Targums, in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible,
Supp. Vol., pp. 860861; and the valuable information collected by L. Smolar and
M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York 1983).
8
See J.E. Seaver, Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire 300438, University
of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies No. 30 (Lawrence 1952); Y. Baer, Israel,
The Christian Church and the Roman Empire, Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961),
pp. 79149; M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (Oxford 1976), pp. 158231.
9
See J. Neusner, Midrash in Context. Exegesis in Formative Judaism. The
Foundations of Judaism: Method, Teleology, Doctrine, Part 1, Method (Philadelphia
1983), pp. 111137.
10
See Hayward, art. cit., p. 114.
302 chapter fifteen
11
See, for example, H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvtern,
Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenchaft des Judenthums (hereafter MGWJ) 3
(1854), pp. 311319, 352355, 381387, 428431; MGWJ 4 (1855), pp. 186192;
M. Rahmer, Die Hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, MGWJ
14 (1865), pp. 216224, 460470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103108; MGWJ 17 (1868),
pp. 419427; S. Krauss, The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, Jewish
Quarterly Review o. s. 6 (1894), pp. 225261; F. Stummer, Beitrge zu dem Problem
Hieronymus und die Targumim, Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174181; L. Ginzberg, Die
Haggada bei den Kirchenvtern. Exodus, Livre dhommage la Mmoire du Dr.
Samuel Posnnski (Warsaw 1927), pp. 199216; Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvtern,
Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of Abraham Solomon
Freidus (New York 1929), pp. 503518.
12
All quotations from Jeromes commentaries are cited from the edition of
M. Adriaen, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera Pars 1, Opera Exegetica 6, Commentarii
in Prophetas Minores, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. LXXVI A (Turnhout
1970). The translations are ours. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to this
work as Adriaen, followed by page number.
13
The Targum is quoted from the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic,
vol. 3, The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden 1962). The transla-
tions are ours. Codex Reuchlinianus, the oldest extant Manuscript of Targum of the
Prophets, to which we shall specifically refer on occasions, is indicated in Sperbers
apparatus by the siglum f.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 303
14
Adriaen, pp. 754755.
15
See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Palestinensischen Amorer, vol. 1 (Strasbourg
1892), p. 307.
16
See the same tradition in Pesikta de Rab Kahana 27:9; Pesikta Rabbati 51:2; and
cf. Esther Rabbah 9:2 (the myrtles are Israel) and Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 78b
(the righteous are called trees).
304 chapter fifteen
17
For the comments of Rashi, Qimhi, and ibn Ezra, I have consulted Miqraoth
Gedoloth, vols. 910 (Warsaw 18656).
18
See Adriaen, p. 755: plenissime super hoc Danielis ultima visio loquitur.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 305
and they made him take a wife proper for the priesthood. (Tg. Zech. 3:5)
It should be noted that the Targum understands that Joshua himself, as
well as his sons, has married an unsuitable wife. Jerome opens his com-
ment on these verses by stating that, before giving the spiritual mean-
ing of them, he must say how the Hebrews have fully analysed this
passage.19 He then says that they regard Joshua as the son of Jehozadak,
and as the high priest,
On whose right hand the adversary was standingfor thus Satan is to
be interpretedto oppose him. And he was rightly standing at his right
hand, not at his left, because the accusation was truenamely that both
he, along with others, had taken a foreign wife, as it is written fully in
Ezra and in Malachi, who follows this prophet.20
While most of the emphasis here would seem to be on Joshuas illegal
marriage, others are also involved, and specific reference is made to the
writings of Ezra and Malachi. Adriaen, in his edition of Jeromes com-
mentary on Zechariah, refers to Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 44; Mal.
2:1317; and we should notice in particular that Ezra 10:18 singles out
Joshuas sons as having contracted foreign marriages:
And among the sons of the priests there were found that had married
strange women: namely, of the sons of Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and
his brethren, Maaseiah, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.
A few lines later, Jerome continues
And as regards what follows, Joshua was clothed with filthy garments,
they (the Hebrews) understand it in three ways: either with reference to
the illegal marriage, or because of the sins of the people, or because of
the filthiness of the captivity.21
Here again Joshuas illegal marriage is singled out, along with the sins
of the people, which itself includes the contracting of mixed marriages.
The Targum restricts its interpretation of verse 3 to the marriages of
Joshuas sons, and refers verses 4 and 5 to Joshuas own marriage. The
19
See Adriaen, p. 770: Antequam veniamus ad intelligentiam spiritalem, quomodo
Hebraei locum istum edisserant, strictim breviterque dicendum est.
20
Ibid. Rashi, commenting on this passage, asserts that the accusation was true. See
C. Siegfried, Midraschisches zu Hieronymus und Pseudo-Hieronymus, Jahrbcher
fr protestantische Theologie 9 (1883), p. 348.
21
Adriaen, p. 771.
306 chapter fifteen
tradition of both Jerome and the Targum is much of a piece; but the
points at which it is expressed vis--vis the Hebrew text differ.
The removal of Joshuas sin recorded in Zech. 3:4 draws the follow-
ing comment from Jerome:
Behold, I have taken your iniquity from youthis refers to the filthy
garments; and I have clothed you with changes of raimentthat is, I
have joined an Israelite wife to you.22
Jerome concludes his survey of Hebrew interpretation of this section
by pointing out that the mitre which is placed on Joshuas head is seen
by Jews as representing the dignity of the priesthood, now free of sin
and clean.
The likelihood that Jerome is here following Targumic tradition
is very strong. Targum asserts that both Joshua and his sons had
married unfit wives: Jerome is of the same opinion, even though he
tends to stress Joshuas own sin. The Rabbinic sources which treat of
these verses do not, for the most part, grapple with the question of
illegal marriages, but seek to explain why Joshua is called a brand
plucked from the burning (Zech. 3:2), and tell how Nebuchadnezzar
had thrown him into the fiery furnace along with Hananiah, Azariah,
and Misael, and how they had been delivered by divine help.23 One
important source, however, touches on our theme. According to b.
Sanhedrin 93a, it was while Joshua was in the fiery furnace that his
garments became filthy: they were singed, and the question arose why
the fire had had this limited power over him, but had not harmed his
three companions.
R. Papa said: Because his sons had married wives unfit for the priest-
hood, and he had not protested, as Scripture says: Now Joshua was
clothed in filthy garments. Now it was certainly not his custom to wear
filthy garments. But this shows that his sons had married wives unfit for
the priesthood.
R. Papas view corresponds exactly to the Targum of Zech. 3:3, and,
of course, to the view implicit in Jeromes comment about the others
listed in Ezra and Malachi. R. Papa was a Babylonian Amora who lived
22
Ibid.
23
See especially b. Sanhedrin 93a; Eliyahu Rabbah 4:19; Zohar 3:214; Jerusalem
Talmud Shabbat 6:4.22; and sources cited by L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
vol. 6 (Philadelphia 1946), pp. 426427, which tell this story.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 307
24
See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amorer, 2nd ed (Frankfurt 1913),
pp. 141143.
25
Similarly, ibn Ezra is at pains to point out that, although one of his sons was son-
in-law to the foreigner Sanballat, Joshua himself was married to a kosher wife. Rashi
follows the Targum, and Qimhi quotes both Targum and b. Sanhedrin 93a.
26
A. Lukyn Williams, Justin Martyr. The Dialogue with Trypho (London 1930),
pp. 239240.
27
See Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426427.
308 chapter fifteen
28
See Adriaen, pp. 771773. The angel of mighty counsel figures in the Septuagint
and Vulgate of Isa. 9:5, and was very early used as a title for Christ: see the Introit for
the Third Mass of Christmas Day in the Old Roman Rite (the so-called Tridentine
Rite). Jerome points out that, in Zech. 3, Joshua is not, as elsewhere, styled the son
of Jehozadak: he is really Joshua/Jesus, tempted like us in all things, but without sin;
bearing our sins and weaknesses, but ultimately possessed of the Divine Majesty Itself.
Origen refers this whole passage to the souls taking of a human body: see Origne.
Homlies sur S. Luc. Introduction, Translation, and notes by H. Crouzel, F. Fournier,
and P. Perichon in Sources chrtiennes 87 (Paris 1962), pp. 220221. The note on these
pages indicates how often the Church Fathers refer these verses to Christ, and cites
J. Lcuyer, Sur Jsus fils de Josdec et son interprtation patristique, Recherches de
Science Religieuse 43 (1955), pp. 82103; there is an indication that Jerome may have
borrowed his Christological interpretation of the verses from Didymus the Blind.
29
Adriaen, pp. 792793. The Targum describes them as four kingdoms which are
like the four winds of heaven.
30
See Num. Rabbah 18:21; Adriaen, pp. 796800. This verse was a favourite with
the Fathers: see Cornelius Lapide, Commentaria in Zachariam Prophetam (Antwerp
1625), pp. 241242.
31
The translation is that of the Revised Version.
32
See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 2639.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 309
33
See b. Yoma 39b; Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 6:3.30, where this view is attributed to
R. Johanan b. Zakkai, who lived at the time of the Temples destruction.
34
Adriaen, pp. 848849: Et quia Libanum, templum appellaverat et
in reliquis servat translationem, ut per cedros et abietes et quercus Basan saltumque
nemorosum, principes ac sacerdotes et populum significet Iudaeorum. The closest
parallel to this which I can find is in the two recensions of the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan.
See J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Yale 1955), p. 37 for recension
A in English translation; and A.J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to R. Nathan (Abot
de Rabbi Nathan) Version B (Leiden 1975), p. 72. In the latter, the cypress or fir-tree
is Abraham; the cedar is King Zedekiah, and so on. Neither of these texts casts very
much light on Jeromes information.
35
Adriaen, p. 849. P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Yale 1927) finds
the Targumic interpretation of these verses very strange, and suggests that it may
derive from before the Destruction of the Temple in ad 70.
36
Adriaen, p. 902.
310 chapter fifteen
37
Adriaen, p. 901.
38
See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. 2 (Strasbourg 1890), p. 313.
39
Idem, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amorer, p. 83, who notes that the midrashic
collection En Jacob attributes the tradition to R. Nahman b. Isaac, who died c. ad 356.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 311
The following was cited in objection to this: Baruch the son of Neriah
and Serayah the son of Mahseyah and Daniel and Mordecai, Bishan,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all prophesied in the second year of
Darius! This is a refutation.40
The proposed identification of Malachi with Mordecai is made by a
Babylonian scholar, whichever reading of the text we adopt; Rav, the
great Abba Arika, having founded the famous academy at Sura before
this death in the mid-third century. The identification is unknown to
Jerome, and was probably not a popular tradition.
The final piece of evidence drawn from commentaries written before
406 concerns Mal. 2:1115. This passage consists of an extended attack
on the treachery of those who have contracted foreign marriages, and
have put away their lawful Jewish wives. The invective soars to a cli-
max in 2:15, the Hebrew of which is obscure and difficult. The Revised
Version translates as follows:
And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And
wherefore one? He sought a goodly seed. Therefore take heed to your
spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.41
The Targum gives the highly distinctive interpretation:
Was not Abraham one, unique, from whom the world was created? And
what did one seek, except that posterity might endure for him from
before the Lord? So take care for yourselves, and do not act deceitfully
against the wife of your youth.
So far as I can ascertain, the only source other than the Targum surviv-
ing from ancient times which relates the problem of foreign marriages
to Israels descent from Abraham is to found in Jeromes commentary
on Malachi. He refers to the tradition of the Hebrews which must be
set out so that the truth of the Scripture can be unfurled,42 and begins
by quoting at length Ezra 9:13; 10:1819, 44. We recall that he has
already followed the Targum in accepting the identity of Malachi as
Ezra. He explains that the returned exiles had put away their Jewish
40
Cf. also Yalqut Shimoni, vol. 2 (Vilna 1909), p. 873.
41
The Hebrew reads: wl hd sh wr rwh lw wmh hhd mbq zr lhym wnmrtm
brwhkm. An alternative rendering is given in the R.V. footnote: And not one hath
done so who had a residue of the spirit. Or what? Is there one that seeketh a goodly
seed?
42
Adriaen, p. 920: Hebraeorum est ponenda traditio, immo Scripturae veritas
explicanda.
312 chapter fifteen
wives who were tired, jaded, weak, and deformed as a result of the long
journey home from exile, and had taken instead the fresh, young and
attractive Gentile women whom they found living around Jerusalem.
Thus Ezra the prophet seizes on these men, and summons them to a
divorce of the new wives, so that they should take back those wives
whom they had sent away. Was not, he said, Abraham the one father
of all of us? Concerning whom it is written in Isaiah, Look to Abraham
your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for he was one, and I called
him. Did not one God create us, who from Abraham chose our race?
Why then do we disparage our old wives, and put away the daughters of
our fathers, so that we abandon the covenant of our fathers, and do not
take wives according to the Law?43
The Targum and Jerome both understand the one to refer to Abraham,
and Jerome preserves the exegesis which underlies the Targums inter-
pretation of Mal. 2:15 in pointing out that Abraham is addressed as one
by God in Isa. 51:2. This verse is then associated with Mal. 2:10
Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why does
each one of us deal treacherously with his brother in profaning the cov-
enant of our fathers?
According to the Targum of 2:15, Abraham has sought posterity that
should endure; and this, indeed, was one of the fundamental promises
in Gods covenant with him, according to Gen. 15:5; 17:18.
There would appear to be no surviving rabbinic comment, apart
from the Targum,44 along these lines. The likely source of Jeromes
Hebraeorum traditio, therefore, could well be a tradition of the sort
now preserved only in the Targum.
Jeromes commentary on Nahum begins with a number of theologi-
cal observations on Gods zeal, jealousy, vengeance which have points
of contact with the Targumic rendering of Nahum 1:23. Where the
original Hebrew presents Nahum as saying that
The Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for
his enemies (1:2)
the Targum understands that
the Lord is about to take revenge on those who hate his people, even
with violent wrath on his enemies.
43
Adriaen, p. 921.
44
Later midrashim quote the verses, such as Aggadath Bereshith 76; Eliyahu Zutta 3.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 313
45
Adriaen, p. 527.
46
For lists of other examples and discussion of these points, see Smolar and
Abernach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, p. 148.
47
See Chilton, The Glory of Israel, pp. 3746; Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit.,
pp. 187221.
48
Adriaen, p. 528.
314 chapter fifteen
49
Adriaen, pp. 530, 534.
50
For a convenient survey of Marcions opinions, see E.C. Blackman, Marcion and
His Influence (London 1948).
51
So the Revised Version.
52
Adriaen, p. 537.
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 315
has gone out from Nineveh. The Targumic description of the people
involved is very general, almost vague.
This is also a feature of the Targum of 2:37, where the vagueness
and imprecision follows the Hebrew original, and once more contrasts
with Jeromes comments which name people and places, and aim for
the kind of precision in exegesis which we normally associate with the
Targum.53 Once again, the detailed exposition of 2:37 he says is iuxta
Hebraicam traditionem: it does not conflict with that of the Targum,
but the Targum is very general. We may ask whether Jerome might
not have known a Targum of these verses different from the one which
has come down to us, one which once was more detailed, and has
since been edited to make it fit circumstances more general for wider
application?
There is, it would seem, sufficient evidence to suggest that Jerome
was aware of the traditions now enshrined in the Aramaic Targumim
as early as 391, when he completed his commentary on Nahum. This
evidence is not strong enough to allow us to conclude that he had
access to written texts of Targum: here we have a contrast with his
knowledge of Targum Jeremiah, in the case of which it seems pos-
sible that he was aware of a written tradition.54 But in the commen-
taries examined here we have found distinct examples of his use of
Targumisms, such as that in Zech. 6:5, where the four winds repre-
sent the four world empires; and Nahum 1:23, where God takes ven-
geance on the enemies of his people because they have not repented.
Some of the comments for which he claims Jewish authority find their
counterparts in surviving Jewish literature only in the Targumim. Thus
the interpretation of Zech. 11:12 with regard to Gentile, not Jewish,
powers, and the reference to Abraham in the argument about foreign
marriages preserved in his commentary on Mal. 2:15, probably derive
from Targumic sources. But the latter comment, it may be, is even
more important. Here, it will be recalled, Jerome actually preserves the
complex stages of exegesis which stand behind the exposition of the
verse in our current Targum text. Jerome possibly provides us with a
glimpse into the history of the Targums development.
53
On the whole, the Targum makes it its business to make precise what is impre-
cise; to fill gaps in the narrative; and to smooth out inconsistencies. For a fine range
of examples of this procedure with respect to geographical and historical matters, see,
most recently, Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit., pp. 63128.
54
See Hayward, art. cit., pp. 113114.
316 chapter fifteen
55
I am not sure that I have understood Ginzbergs remarks correctly when he
says (Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426427) that Rabbinic tradition perhaps found fault with
Joshua because the Rabbis wished to counter Christian allegory. It seems to me that
the Christians made full use of Joshuas being clothed in filthy garments, which is a
Scriptural datum and cannot be changed. If the tradition that these filthy garments
represent his sons, not his own, sin, then Joshua is a fully righteous man, and that
very thing in itself could equally well be used by Christian allegorists!
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 317
56
The literary criticism of the Rabbinic Literature associated with the names of
Jacob Neusner and his pupils is too vast to document here. A useful survey of such
criticism is provided by W.S. Green, Reading the Writing of Rabbinism: Toward an
Interpretation of Rabbinic Literature, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 51
(1983), pp. 191206; cf. the comments on Neusners work by Peter Schfer, Studien
zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden 1978), pp. 122.
57
See M. Sokoloff, The Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat-Gan 1974);
and, for fragments of the Targum of Leviticus, R. de Vaux and J.T. Milik Qumran
Grotte 4. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert VI (Oxford 1977), pp. 8690.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
* All works of St Jerome, except the Epistles, are cited from the critical editions
in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina: the Epistles are cited from Migne, Patrologia
Latina. All translations are our own.
1
See especially P. Schfer, Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to define
the Status Quaestionis, JJS 37 (1986), pp. 139152, and others who in some degree
accept Schfers stance, all subjected to criticism by Ch. Milikowsky, The Status
Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature, JJS 39 (1988), pp. 201211. Schfer
has responded to these criticisms in Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in
Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 8994.
2
See F. Cavallera, Saint Jrme. Sa Vie et Son Oeuvre (Louvain, 1922), vol. 2,
pp. 1263; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1977),
pp. 141167.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 319
3
See H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvtern, Monatsschrift fr
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3 (1854; reprinted 1969), pp. 311
319; 352355; 381387; 428431; MGWJ 4 (1855; reprinted 1969), pp. 186192;
M. Rahmer, Die Hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, MGWJ
14 (1864; reprinted 1972), pp. 216224; 460470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103108;
MGWJ 17 (1868; reprinted 1972), pp. 419427.
4
See F. Stummer, Beitrge zu dem Problem Hieronymus und die Targumim,
Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174181; the frequent use made of Jeromes work by R. le Daut,
Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1 Gense (Sources Chrtiennes 245; Paris, 1978); and
C.T.R. Hayward, Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah and the
Targum of Jeremiah, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985), pp. 100
120; Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, JSS 32 (1987), pp. 105123.
5
See A. Penna, Principi e Carattere dellEsegesi di S Gerolamo (Rome, 1950),
pp. 610.
6
The terminology which Jerome uses to introduce material which he claims has
Jewish origin will repay careful study, and will be the subject of a forthcoming essay.
Cf. P. Jay, Le Vocabulaire exgtique de Jrme dans le Commentaire du Zacharie,
Revue des tudes augustiniennes 14 (1968), pp. 316. It is true that Christological con-
cerns do manifest themselves (e.g. in comments on Gen 1:1; 24:43; 35:21; 49:7,11); but
they are far from prominent.
320 chapter sixteen
7
Rabbi S. Lowy, in a private communication, has also noted the lack of a clear plan
or theme in Heb. Quest. Examples of Jeromes dismissal of Jewish exegesis as fabulae
may be found in his commentaries In Esaiam V. xiv:1214, 1820; In Hiezchielem V.
xvi:55; VII. xxv:811; In Osee II. x:2; In Aggaeum ii:1618; In Danielem II.vi:4.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 321
The original Hebrew text, which Jerome does not quote verbatim, is
essential for a proper understanding of what he has to say. It reads:
. . . and the king of Bela: this is Zoar. All these were confederate together
in the Vale of Siddim: that is the Sea of Salt.
The use of Greek words and expressions, in which Heb. Quest. abounds,
clearly indicates that the work is intended as a serious scholarly exer-
cise destined for an intelligent and literate readership.8 The Greek ren-
dering of Bale as kataposis reflects the LXXs preference for translating
words deriving from hebrew root bl by pinein or its compounds: Jerome
often quotes the LXX verbatim, possibly to allay fears in his Christian
readers that he had altogether abandoned that version.9 The comment
as a whole, however, binds together three separate, albeit related Jewish
traditions, each with its own concerns; and separate examination of
these will prove to be desirable.
8
It should also become clear in the course of this essay that Jerome assumes a fair
degree of familiarity with the Bible on the part of his readers.
9
On the reception of Jeromes Bible translations see H.F.D. Sparks, Jerome as
Biblical Scholar, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1 From the Beginnings to
Jerome (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 520521.
10
See, however, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, ed. P. de Lagarde,
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72 (Turnhout, 1959), pp. 62, 72. Bereshith Rabbah
42:5 has R. Meir expound Bera as evil son; Birsha as wicked son; Shinab as amassed
wealth; and Shemeber as he flew and obtained riches. Other interpretations were also
offered: see e.g. Tanhuma Lekh 8.
322 chapter sixteen
is true that Jerome is similar to N, which also expounds only the name
Bela; but this fact may be pure co-incidence, and cannot be used as
evidence that Jerome was here following a source representing the kind
of Targumic tradition still surviving in N. It will not suffice to argue
that Jerome has expounded the meaning of the names elsewhere and
seeks to avoid repetition, for, as we shall see presently, repetition of
material is often a feature of his work; and had he wished to direct his
readers attention to his writings on Hebrew names he could have indi-
cated his intention, as he does in Heb. Quest. 15:16. The only proper
conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, it seems, is that Jerome has
deliberately drawn attention to the city Bale, which swallowed up its
inhabitants, to the exclusion of the other cities. We must try to discover
why this is so.
11
Isa 15:5 reads, in the Revised Version: My heart crieth out for Moab; her nobles
flee unto Zoar, to Eglath-shelishiyah . . .. The place-name occurs again in Jer 48:34,
and in both instances the Targum translates it as Great Eglath Taltom, Great Third-
born Heifer: see C.T.R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, The Aramaic Bible 12
(M. Glazier: Wilmington, 1987), p. 174.
12
See In Esaiam V. xv:5, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 73 (Turnhout, 1963), p. 177:
Vectes eius usque ad Segor vitulam conternantem. De hac et in libris Quaestionum
Hebraicarum diximus, et nunc breviter annotamus, quod ipsa sit quinta urbs post
Sodomam et Gomorram, Adamam et Seboim, quae ad preces Lot parva servata est.
Appellaturque Bela, id est absorpta, tradentibus Hebraeis, quod tertio terrae motu
prostrata sit. Ipsa est quae hodie Syro sermone vocatur Zoora, Hebraeo Segor, utroque
parvula. Possumus vitulam conternantem pro perfecta aetate accipere. Sicut enim tri-
cesimus annus in hominibus, ita in pecudibus ac iumentis tertius robustissimus est.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 323
The LXX reproduced Hebrew Zoar as Segor. Jerome notes that the word
means small, which in Aramaic (the Syrian language) is Zoara = zwr.
Ps-Jon consistently writes zwr whenever it refers to the place-name,
even where Targumic paraphrase occurs. N has it as zwr except here,
where it repeats Hebrew sr, a practice followed throughout by Targum
13
See In Esaiam VI. xv:39, ed Adriaen, CCSL 73, p. 257: Vectes autem eorum . . . ad
Segor, hoc est ad parvulum usque pervenient. Et ostendentur non robusti esse, sed
fragiles. Haec autem Segor, hoc est parva paenitentia si perseveraverit, perducet eos ad
perfectam salutem, quod vitula trium annorum significat, iuxta illud quod in Genesi
legimus, ubi praecipitur Abraham, ut offerat vitulum, arietem et hircum trium anno-
rum, perfectum scilicet sacrificium, et heres Domini esse mereatur.
14
He had finished Heb. Quest. by 392; his Commentary on Isaiah 1323 appeared
c. 398. See further M. Rahmer, Die hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des
Hieronymus (Breslau, 1861), pp. 511, 29.
15
See J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Bereschit Rabbah, 3 vols (Berlin, 19121929), vol.
1, p. 410. One must assume, presumably, that Jerome thinks of three earthquakes, the
first two of which destroyed the other cities of the plain, the third swallowing up Zoar-
Segor; there is no mention of such a thing in L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 252, 256; vol. 5 (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 239240.
16
Cf. Rahmer, Die hebrischen Traditionen, pp. 4849; and le Daut, op. cit.
pp. 345347.
324 chapter sixteen
17
See Ps-Jon of Gen 13:10; 14:2, 8; 18:24, 28, 29, 30; 19:22, 23,30; at Deut 34:3 this
Targum produces an exegesis of the Hebrew place name deriving it from the root sr,
with the sense of distress. See also the interlinear gloss of N at Gen 19:22, the mar-
ginal gloss at 19:30; and the Fragment Targum Mss Paris 110 (= FT(P)) and Vatican
440 (= FT(V)) at Deut 34:3.
18
Note especially its use to symbolise repentance in In Esaiam VI xv:39, above,
n. 13.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 325
Verse 5 next comes under Jeromes scrutiny. And they destroyed the
giants in Astaroth-Carnaim. and the mighty nations with them at the
same time, and the Ommaei in the city of Sauhe, before they reached
Sodom. Four kings set out from Babylon and killed the giants, that
is, the Rafaim, every strong man of Arabia, and the Zozim in Hom
and the Emim in the city of Sauhe, which is so named to this day.
Now Zozim and Emim mean dreadful and awesome, in place
of which the Septuagint have put the mighty nations, translat-
ing the sense rather than word for word. Then bahem, for which
they have said met autois (that is, with them), they have regarded
as written with the letter he, when in fact it is written with the letter
heth. They have been led to this by the similarity of the elements (in
the two letters he and heth). For bahem is written with three letters:
if the middle letter is he, it means in them; if, however, it is heth (as
in the present instance), it signifies a place, that is in Hom.
Here Jerome sets the LXX against the original Hebrew which he
does not, however, quote verbatim. The first hint that he is doing this
comes with his identification of the giants with the Rafaim, the latter
being his version of the Hebrew rpym found in this verse. He does
not dispute the LXX rendering of it as giants, which is the same as
that found in all the extant Targumim.20 The origin of his reference to
Arabia is not clear; but his comments on the Zozim and Emim, who
feature in the Hebrew as hzwzym and hymym are very close indeed to
19
For a convenient discussion of Targumic geography as it relates to Genesis, with
examples, see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972), pp. 190205.
And for a good example of Jeromes interest in geography outside Genesis, see his
commentary In Esaiam XVII. lx:67 on the identity of the Arab regions Midian,
Ephah, Sabah, and Qedar.
20
See Ps-Jon, N, TO, and the Fragment Targum Ms Vat 440 of this verse.
326 chapter sixteen
21
TO and Ps-Jon have Mighty Ones and Fear-inspiring Ones; for Zuzim, N, Frag.
Tg. Ms. Vat 440, and Ber. R. 42:6 have noble ones! See McNamara, op. cit. pp. 203
204 and le Deaut, op. cit. pp. 158159.
22
The LXX and the Targumim seem to share common understandings of these
names: perhaps this is one reason why Jerome says that LXX express the sense of the
original Hebrew.
23
See McNamara, op. cit. p. 204.
24
The present Massoretic Text has bhm, vocalised as behm.
25
Thus N has: those who were dwelling in the midst of the city, and Frag. Tg. Ms.
Vat 440 those who dwelt in the midst of the city. See McNamara, op. cit. p. 203.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 327
And they smote the whole territory of the Amalekites, and the Amorites
who dwelt in Asason Thamar. This is the town which is now called
Engaddi, abundant in balsam and palms. Besides, in our language
Asason Thamar means the city of palms, because Thamar indicates a
palm-tree. It should also be known that, instead of what follows a little
later, namely (verse 8): And they set in order against them battle forma-
tion in the Vale of Salt Pits, there is contained in the Hebrew in the Vale
of Siddim, which Aquila translated as tn irinenn26 and Theodotion as
tn aktn, meaning pleasant groves.
Jeromes comment that Cades was not the name of the place at the
time of this narrative, but was a later name, points very strongly yet
again in the direction of his imitating the Rabbis. He applies a prin-
ciple to Scripture, that places are often given their more recent names
by anticipation: he notes it again at Heb. Quest. 31:21, where he states
that he has spoken of it frequently, and at Heb. Quest. 46:2627. The
principle is clearly expressed in Ber. R. 42:7 on this verse, although not
with reference to Cades:27
Amalek had not yet arisen; and yet you say: And they smote the whole
territory of the Amalekites. Rather, Scripture says that He declares the
end from the beginning. (Isa 46:10)
Along with this principle, he names the place as Petra, in exact accord
with the Targumim Ps-Jon and TO; and in agreement with Ps-Jon and
Ber. R. he identifies it as the place where Moses judged the Israelites.28
Having established this principle of anticipation, however, it is remark-
able that he does not use it to explain verse 14s anachronistic use of the
name Dan for the city of Laish.29 It is quite possible that, having enun-
ciated the general principle, he is content in the later verse to allow his
readers to use their intelligence and draw their own conclusions.
26
This Greek word is not found in the lexica, as Antin points out in his edition
of Heb Quest, CCSL 72 (Turnhout, 1959), p. 18. F. Field, Origenis Hexapla Quae
Supersunt, vol 1 (Oxford, 1875), p. 31, gives Aquilas reading as prinenn; but this, too,
is unknown to the lexica. Antin suggests the meaning holm-oaks, but I cannot trace
Hebrew ( sic), a word which he supposes to lie behind Aquilas translation.
27
For the notion of anticipation, see also Tanhuma Lekh 8; H uqqath 11; Bemidbar
Rabbah 19:6.
28
In the Targumim, Petra regularly features under the name Reqem: see Ps-Jon,
N, TO, and le Deaut, op. cit. p. 159 and the literature cited there. The theme of judge-
ment in the desert is found in TO and N, but most clearly in Ps-Jon and Bemidbar
Rabbah 19:14.
29
According to Judges 18:29, Dan was named Laish until the days of the judges.
328 chapter sixteen
30
For discussion of Jeromes identification of these men as Jews or Ebionites see
E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol III 1, rev. and
ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 493504. Aquila
and Theodotion were almost certainly Jews, the former a proselyte; Symmachus seems
to have been an Ebionite.
31
The Targumim use the word prds, meaning a park or pleasure garden.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 329
Aunan as the LXX render it, but of Aner, to show that Mamre, Eschol,
and Aner were Amorites, and genuine brotherly allies of Abraham.
He derives the word Hebrew from the root br, which, indeed means to
cross over, pass by: the LXX likewise translate as ti perati. Although
he gives no further comment, we may recall the Rabbinic remark in
Ber. R. 42:8 that Abraham was called the Hebrew since he had come
from across the River Euphrates. So much is straightforward: the rest
of his comments about Abrahams friends is utterly perplexing.
The only apparent change which Jerome makes in the LXX is that
of the name Aunan, now given in its Hebrew form Aner. It is most
unlikely that the names themselves contain any clue to the mean-
ing of Jeromes statements; in the Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum
Nominum he is content merely to list the name Aner without interpre-
tation.32 How the change of name helps us to see that the three men
were germanos socios of Abraham is not explained. The Targumim
offer no help, and Ber. R. 42:8 has an aggadah in which Eschol and
Aner try to dissuade Abraham from carrying out Gods command to
circumcise himself, while Mamre urges him to be faithful to the One
who has blessed him: thus Mamre is rewarded. The aggadah supports
the view of R Nehemiah that Mamre is the name of a person, not, as
R. Judah had argued, the name of a place.
On the other hand, we read in Midrash Aggadah on this verse that
Abraham had made a friendly alliance with them, that when he himself
went out to war they should preserve his (dwelling-) place in safety.33
There are occasions on which Jerome shows knowledge of Jewish
interpretations surviving only in late texts.34 Possibly we have such a
case here, in that Jerome is saying not that the name Aner is important
in and of itself, but rather that the Hebrew text more clearly expresses
the three mens status as Abrahams allies although they were foreign-
ers, Aner possibly being a foreign name, and so not expounded in
Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum.
32
See Lib. Int. Heb. Nom. p. 61. Mambre appears in this work as Mamre, which
is said to mean divisio sive perspicuum (p. 69); Eschol is rendered as botrus sive ignis
omnis (pp. 65, 81); Aunan in Gen 38:4 is moeror eorum vel labores (p. 62) or, in Num
16:1, non est vel inutile (p. 78).
33
Cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Genesis vol 3 (Jerusalem, 1931), p. 604 (in
Hebrew).
34
See S. Krauss, article Jerome, Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 7 (New York, 1904),
p. 117; C.T.R. Hayward, St Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, p. 109.
330 chapter sixteen
35
Jerome worked on Ezekiel between 410 and 415. He states, In Hiez VIII 27:19,
ed. F. Gloire, CCSL 75 (Turnhout, 1964), p. 374: Ex nomine patriarchae Dan, et tri-
bus, et locus in quo habitavit tribus, nomen accepit ubi hodie Paneas, quae quondam
Caesarea Philippi vocabatur, inde et Iordanis fluvius sortitus vocabulum: Ior, rivus
videlicet, Dan, qui fluit de Libano. Cf. In Hieremiam I lxxx, ed. S. Reiter, CCSL 74
(Turnhout, 1960), p. 46.
36
N, the marginal gloss of N, and Frag. Tg. of this verse understand Dan as
Caesarea; Ps-Jon and TO retain the Hebrew. Josephus is not, however, entirely con-
sistent in his information about the Jordans sources: see War III 509 ff; Jeromes use
of this author is clearly selective.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 331
37
See Ps-Jon, N, Frag. Tg. Ms. Paris 110 of Gen 14:18; Midrash Tehillim 76:3;
Midrash Acggadah 1:23; Midrash Ha-Gadol I 187; Tanhuma Lekh 15. For what
follows, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969),
pp. 196199; and le Deaut, op. cit. pp. 163165 and the literature there cited.
38
See, e.g. Ber R 43:6; Bemidbar Rabbah 4:8; Wayyiqra Rabbah 25:6; Aboth de
R Nathan 2; Pirqe de R Eliezer 8:2.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 333
Shem, while the Jews made him the son of a prostitute.39 It is not easy
to discern the age of this idea; but Jerome says nothing to indicate that
its origin was known to him, nor of its use in anti-Christian polemic.40
The fact that Scripture has no record of Melchizedeks father and
mother raised pressing questions about his origins which demanded
quaestiones. Such investigations were already taking place in the pre-
Christian period, and produced speculations about Melchizedek as a
heavenly figure, possibly identified with the Archangel Michael, which
are set out in the scroll 11QMelch of the Qumran Sect. But Jerome
does not include such matters among his Hebrew traditions.
39
See Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses II 1:55,6 (Contra Melchizede-cianos): Igitur
Samaritani Sem esse ilium arbitrantur. In quo ridiculi plane sunt . . . Sed Iudaei justum
eumdem ac probum fuisse, et sacerdotem Altissimi fatentur, ut est in sacris litteris
proditum. Quod autem meretricis filius esset, neque matris nomen esse scriptum,
neque patris ullo modo cognitum.
40
Philo emphasises the priestly character of Shem in De Sobrietate 6566; see also
Jubilees 8:1221, which speaks of Shems territory as including the Garden of Eden
and the Holy of Holies.
41
See his Epistle 73 Ad Evangelum (Evagrium) Presbyterum, ed. J.-P. Migne,
Patrologia Latina 22 (Paris, 1864), p. 444 (col 679).
42
See above, nn. 37, 38.
334 chapter sixteen
information supplied by Exodus 24:5, that Moses had ordered the first-
born to arrange sacrifices at the time of the making of the Sinai cov-
enant.43 Other verses which suggested such an office for the first-born
are Numbers 3:1213; 8:1618, and as early as Philos time we find
discussion of the first-born and the priesthood in such a way as to
indicate that the tradition found in the later Rabbinic texts was already
known to him in the first century bc.44 Indeed, the witness of Genesis,
that sacrifice had been offered to the One True God before the time of
Aaron, posed the questions who were legitimate priests in those days,
and why?
The specific notice that the priestly first-born had been sons of
Noah, that is, presumably, the first-born son of Melchizedek-Shem
and his sons after him, is more clearly stated in Epistle lxxiii, where
he writes:
And at the same time they (sc the Hebrews) hand on this tradition,
that up to the time of Aarons priesthood, all the first-born sons of the
stock of Noah, whose succession and order is described, were priests
and offered sacrifices to God: and these were the rights of the first-born,
(primogenita) which Esau sold to his brother Jacob.45
Jeromes language here very strongly implies the existence of some list
or roster of pre-Aaronic priests.46 Such a list is, in fact, to be found in
Bemidbar Rabbah 4:8, which is careful to state why certain first-born
sons were unsuitable for the priesthood and had to be replaced by
younger men, the succession ultimately deriving from Noah.47
43
See Ps-Jon of Exod 24:5, which states: And he (Moses) sent the first-born of
the Israelites; since up to that time the sacrificial service had been in the hands of the
first-born. For until then the Tent of Meeting had not been made, and before then the
priesthood had not been given to Aaron; and they offered up whole burnt offerings
and peace-offerings of oxen before the Lord. Similar is the marginal gloss of N to
this verse; cf. m. Zebahim 14:4; b. Zebahim 115b; Bekhoroth 4b; Shemoth Rabbah 28:3;
R. le Deaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), p. 85, n 43.
44
See Philo, De Congressu 98; De Sacrificiis 118120; and N and Ps-Jon of the
verses concerned, which stress that the first-born belong to the Lord.
45
See Epistle 73, ed. Migne, p. 444 (col 679).
46
The Latin has: cuius series et ordo describitur, which I have translated as whose
succession and order is described.
47
Bemidbar Rabbah particularly notes the succession of priests in Noahs family:
see the following note.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 335
Concluding Remarks
48
It is interesting to observe that Jerome seems quite unaware of a tradition that
this garment had once belonged to Nimrod: see further, C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 1618.
336 chapter sixteen
49
See, for example, Heb. Quest. 11:28; 12:4; 22:20; 24:9; 27:15; 33:18; 37:36; 41:43.
50
Thus he never uses the verbs somnio, dream, idly think; contendo, strongly argue,
assert; or autumno, aver, suppose, to introduce Hebrew tradition; nor does he use
the expression fabulam narrare, to tell a story or fable. All these expressions, and
others which might carry with them pejorative connotations, are very common in his
commentaries.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis 337
(f) While his near obsession with geography in Heb. Quest may owe
something to Christian needs,51 Jews were zealous in their attempts
to provide modern equivalents for the old Biblical place-names,
a practice of which Jerome could not have been ignorant.
51
It was during Jeromes lifetime that Christian pilgrimage to the Land of Israel
became fashionable: see J. Wilkinson, Egerias Travels (London, 1971).
52
For descriptions of the Targum and its methods, see especially R. le Daut,
Introduction la Littrature Targumique (Rome, 1966); G. Vermes, Bible and
Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1,
pp. 199231; and M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Dublin,
1983), pp. 205216. Noteworthy are the extensive agreements between Jerome and
Targum Ps-Jon in this chapter.
53
For a discussion of Jeromes teachers, see S. Krauss, article Jerome, pp. 115118.
338 chapter sixteen
1
For Hellenistic culture during Second-Temple times, see E. Schrer, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. II, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar,
and M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 29183. For Greek education, phi-
losophy and the Jews, see M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (London: SCM
Press, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 65102; L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London:
SCM Press, 1994), pp. 147170. For diaspora Jews see J.J. Collins, Between Athens
and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad
Publishing, 1983).
342 chapter seventeen
2
For the date of ben Siras Hebrew book, see P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Lella, The
Wisdom of ben Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 816; Schrer,
op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 198212 and literature there cited; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 5565.
For discussion of ben Siras work, see A.A. di Lella, article Wisdom of ben Sira, in
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
pp. 931945. Although open to cultural trends of his day, Jesus ben Sira remained a
traditional Jew: see D.A. de Silva, The Wisdom of ben Sira: Honor, Shame and the
Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture, CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 433455.
3
See Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom, pp. 5162; M. Gilbert, Wisdom of ben
Sira, in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Compendium
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984),
pp. 290292; D.J. Harrington, Sirach Research since 1965: Progress and Questions,
in J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen, eds., Pursuing the Text. Studies in honour of Ben Zion
Wacholder on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994), pp. 164170; and Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 202206 for history of
the discovery of the Hebrew text.
4
For the text of Sirach we have used the edition of J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii
Sirach, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965). On the Greek text of Sirach, see Harrington, Sirach Research, pp.
165170. For the grandson, see H.J. Cadbury, The Grandson of ben Sira, HTR 48
(1955), pp. 219225; he went to Egypt probably in 132 bce: so Schrer, History, vol. III.1,
p. 202.
5
Almost all commentators agree that the central position of chapter 24 within
the structure of the book corresponds to the importance which the author sought
to accord to it. See (e.g.) Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom, pp. 331338; B.L. Mack,
Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985), pp. 161164;
M. Gilbert, Lloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24), Revue Theologique de Louvain 5
(1974), pp. 328330; and J. Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 343
In Sirach 24, Wisdom herself speaks about her origin from the mouth
of the Most High (v. 2). Her first dwelling was in the heights and a
pillar of cloud (v. 4). She journeyed in heaven, the abysses, the sea,
and in all the earth (vv. 56). She desired rest on earth (v. 7): she
sought an inheritance, which the Creator granted to her. She is to
tabernacle in Jacob and have inheritance in Israel (v. 8). More pre-
cisely, v. 10 locates her in the holy tabernacle, where she ministers
before God, firmly fixed in Sion: thus she is in Jerusalem, where she
has authority (v. 11), planted among an honoured people in the Lords
inheritance (v. 12). The question where shall wisdom be found? is thus
answered with precision: she is located in Jacob-Israel, in Jerusalem, in
the Temple where she ministers to God. Her place is the outcome of a
journey; for she had first pitched her tabernacle in the heights before
coming to reside in the holy tabernacle in Jerusalem (v. 10).
Why did Sirach locate Wisdom in Jerusalem and the Temple? The
usual answer to this question is suggested by 24.23, which identifies
Wisdom with the Torah of Moses. According to Isa 2.3, Torah oper-
ates on mount Sion where stands the house of the God of Jacob: from
Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira, Bonner Biblische Beitrge 37 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1971),
pp. 4449.
6
So B.G. Wright, No Small Difference. Sirachs Relationship to its Hebrew Parent
Text, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). See particu-
larly p. 246.
7
The most recent attempt at retroversion is by P.W. Skehan, Structures in Poems
on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 365379. The Hebrew
version is found on p. 374. Skehan explicitly points out (p. 379) that this discussion
of Sirach 24 is not directed towards any broad conclusions.
344 chapter seventeen
there, Torah goes forth.8 It need not be doubted that Wisdoms iden-
tification with Torah is related to her place of residence; but it should
be observed that this identification is not revealed, or even suggested,
until more than half-way through Wisdoms speech. We are justified,
therefore, in asking whether Sirach had reasons for locating Wisdom
in Jerusalem independent of her identification with Torah, reasons
cohering with her journeyings and search for rest which feature prom-
inently in the first part of the poem.
Sirach probably derived the idea of Wisdoms residence in the
Temple from particular readings of Job 28 in tandem with Prov 8, a
chapter which influenced the composition of his poem.9 From Job 28,
he could determine where Wisdom is not to be found: in the land of
the living, the abyss, and the sea (28.1314). These verses may imply,
however, that Wisdom had been in those places formerly. Sirach would
also have learned that Wisdom is concealed from the eyes of all living
(28.21). But she does have a place which Abaddon and death have
heard (28.22) and which God knows; and that place is bound up with a
road, way, or journey. Thus Sirach would learn from Job 28.23 that
God understands her way: and He Himself knows her place.
Turning to Prov 8.2, Sirach would have found Wisdom making
public proclamation to passers by as she stations herself at the top of
the heights by the road, at the place of the paths. The Hebrew of this
verse, however, might properly be understood in another way. Sirach
(or his grandfather) might have taken br, at the top of , to mean
something akin to at first, at the beginning, to yield the sense that
at the beginning Wisdom stationed herself in the heights:10 this is pre-
cisely what we find expressed in Sir 24.4. Next, by the road, Hebrew
ly drk, might be taken to mean on a journey, and at the place of the
8
Identification of Wisdom with Torah is suggested by the Bible (Deut 4.68; Jer
8.8). Within biblical Wisdom writings, Wisdom is the principle of order in the uni-
verse: among Stoics order was understood as nomos, a cosmic law giving coherence to
all things. Marbck argues that Stoic notions helped to yoke together Law and Wisdom
in ben Siras thinking: see his Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 8196. E.J. Schnabel, Law and
Wisdom from ben Sira to Paul, WUNT 2.16 (Tbingen: Mohr, 1985), pp. 8486, chal-
lenges Marbcks thesis and those who believe that Torah constitutes the order in
creation: see ibid., pp. 7981. His insistence that it is the Torah of Moses which is
identified with Wisdom, and not some universal cosmic law (ibid., pp. 4344), seems
likely given the evidence presented below.
9
See especially Skehan, Structures, pp. 377378.
10
Skehan, Structures, p. 374 retroverts Greek en hupslois into Hebrew bmrw-
mym, which he links (ibid., p. 377) with Prov 8.2.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 345
paths (Hebrew byt ntybwt) to refer to paths which that journey might
take. In short, the verse could be rendered: At the beginning, she sta-
tioned herself in the heights: on a journey at the place of the pathways.
If this particular reading of Prov 8.2 indicates that Wisdom had under-
taken journeys,11 Sirach could also have deduced that she had come to
rest by pitching her tent; for ten verses later in the same chapter she
declares, according to the present Masoretic Text: I, Wisdom, have
dwelt with prudence: I find out knowledge of discretion. Once again,
however, it is legitimate to read the Hebrew in another way, ignoring
the Masoretic verse division (dating from a time later than Sirach) and
reading: I, Wisdom, have pitched my tabernacle (Hebrew knty): pru-
dence and knowledge of discretion I find out. It is well known that the
verb kn, to pitch a tent, tabernacle, is commonly used in Scripture to
express Gods residence in the Temple (e.g., Deut 12.11; 16.2; 26.2). If
Prov 8.12 means that Wisdom has pitched her tabernacle, and if it be
asked where she might have done this, the verb kn invites the answer
that she has pitched her tent in the Holy of Holies of the Temple,
where God dwells in thick darkness (1 Kings 8.12), thus hidden from
the eyes of all the living like Wisdom herself (Job 28.21).
These observations suggest that Wisdoms present residence in the
Temple and her past journeyings and dwelling in the heights could have
been deduced by Sirach from scriptural verses avowedly speaking of
Wisdom independently of her identification with the Torah. Scriptural
exegetes earlier than ben Siras day may have already expounded these
verses to determine Wisdoms journeys and her present abode, in a
whole-hearted attempt to answer biblical questions with biblical mate-
rials.12 Even so, the Torah is crucial for understanding of what Sirach
says about Wisdoms place; and this should become clear as we exam-
ine the particular manner of her dwelling in Israel, Jerusalem, and the
Temple.
11
Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 330332, notes Wisdoms journeys in Sirach 24.38, but
does not explain them. See also R.A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative
Literary Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgement
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 157159. Sirachs statements go beyond the obvi-
ous sense of Scripture, and require foundation in an authoritative source. Our sug-
gestion concerning learned exegesis of the Hebrew of Prov 8.2 offers reasons why he
presents Wisdom as one who had journeyed.
12
For the possibility that Wisdom was identified with Torah before ben Siras time,
see G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (New York:
Schocken Books, 1971), pp. 263268.
346 chapter seventeen
13
See H. Gese, Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The
Consistent Development of Biblical Theology, Horizons in Biblical Theology 3 (1981),
pp. 3435; and Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 22, against J.C.H. Lebram, Jerusalem,
Wohnsitz der Weisheit, in M.J. Vermaseren, ed., Studies in Hellenistic Religion (1979),
pp. 103128.
14
See C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 5, Le Deutronome (Paris:
Cerf, 1992), p. 195. In Sir 24.7, Greek anapausis almost certainly represents Hebrew
mmnwhh: see Skehan, Structures, p. 374, and Wright, No Small Difference, 242. On
Deut 12.1012 and Sirach 24, see also A. Fournier-Bidoz, LArbre et la Demeure:
Siracide xxiv pp. 1017, VT 34 (1984), p. 3.
15
See G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4, Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994),
pp. 283284.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 347
a house of rest (mnwhh, LXX anapausis) for the Ark (1 Chr 28.2).16
This last scriptural verse is the foundation for Targumic interpreta-
tions of rest as meaning Temple. In Deut 12.9 a marginal gloss of
Targum Neofiti interprets rest as the house of the Sanctuary which
is called the house of rest, while Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has simply
you have not arrived until now at the house of the Sanctuary, which
is the house of rest. Given the Chroniclers words in 1 Chr 28.2, the
Targumic interpretations are possibly ancient, and may have influ-
enced ben Sira or his grandson.17 Sirachs version of his grandfathers
words in 36.18 begs God to have mercy on the city of Thy sanctuary,
Jerusalem the place of Thy rest, katapaumatos sou, glossing his grand-
fathers Hebrew byt btyk, which otherwise might be understood as
the place of Thy dwelling.18
It seems that Sirach modelled Wisdoms journeys to her place,
which he probably derived from exegesis of Job 28 and Prov 8, on
Israels journeys through the desert seeking the rest which, with the
Ark, she finds in Jerusalem in a tent pitched by David, and finally in
Solomons Temple. The Ark contained the tablets engraved by God
with the commandments (Deut 10.15; Exod 40.20). Thus in the fig-
ure of the Ark Sirach was able to unite Wisdom and Torah: and the
Ark, now in its place in the Holy of holies (1 Kings 8.6), indicated
that Wisdoms journeys, like Israels, were now over. The prophecy of
Moses, that God would bring Israel and plant her on the mountain
of his inheritance, in the sanctuary which his hands had made (Exod
15.17), was now realised, with Wisdom fixed on Sion, planted among
an honourable people (24.10, 12).19
16
For the Chronicler and the Ark, see S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles. A Commentary
(London: SCM Press, 1993), p. 156. On the Chroniclers conception of the Temple as
a house of rest for the Ark, and his use of Num 10.3536; Ps 132.810, see ibid., pp.
487, 602.
17
The rest of Deut 12.9 refers to the sanctuary, either at Shiloh or in Jerusalem,
elsewhere in Rabbinic Literature: see Sifre Deut. 66; b. Meg. 10a; Zeb. 119a; jer. Meg.
1:12; Targum Ps 95.11. At Gen 49.15, the rest which Isaachar saw refers to the
Temple (FTP, FTV, and Midrash Aggadah 112): Isaachar was a keen Torah scholar,
PJ and TN of Gen. 49:15; b. Baba Qamma 17a; Gen. R. 98.12; 99.10; Sifre Numb. 52;
Tanhuma 11. See R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo: bo Akademi,
1986), pp. 132133.
18
Sirach interpreted the phrase through root to rest, rather than , to
dwell. See further Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, pp. 218219.
19
Wisdom was present at the Exodus in the pillar of cloud and fire, Sir 24.4. See
Gilbert, Lloge, p. 342, who notes that Philo (Quis rerun 42) identifies the pillar with
Wisdom. In Sir 24.10, Wisdom says that she was fixed (estrichthn) on Sion, a likely
348 chapter seventeen
allusion to LXX Gen 28.12 describing how Jacob at Bethel saw in his dream a ladder
fixed (estrigmen) on the earth reaching to the heavens. (It is not clear what this
verb might have represented in the original Hebrew: see Skehan, Structures, pp. 374,
377; and for an opposing view Wright, No Small Difference, 240.) The place of Jacobs
dream is the Temple according to TO, TN, marginal glosses of TN, PJ of Gen 28.17,
a view shared by the Samaritans. For the Targums, see E.G. Clarke, Jacobs Dream at
Bethel as Interpreted in the Targums and New Testament, St. Rel. 4 (197475), pp.
367377.
20
See M. Harl, Le Nom de lArche de No dans la Septante, in .
Mlanges offerts Claude Mondsert S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), pp. 1643.
21
See A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 2, LExode (Paris:
Cerf, 1989), p. 259; and G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4, pp. 69, 361.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 349
daily sacrifice was offered: God says that it is a place in which I shall
make Myself known to you from there. Similarly, the incense is burnt
before the veil concealing the Ark, where God makes Himself known
to Moses (LXX of Exod 30.6, 36). In all these verses, the Hebrew text
speaks of Gods meeting Moses.22 The Ark and the Tent (prototype
of the Temple) are thus, according to LXX, places where God offers
knowledge of Himself to Moses and Israel. Returning to Prov 8.8, 10,
12, we find that knowledge is a gift of Wisdom, of divine origin, com-
ing from the mouth of the Lord (Prov 2.6).
Sirach begins his poem in elevated style, suited to the theme
of Wisdoms stately progress from the heights to her dwelling in
Jerusalem, like the Ark of the Covenant in ancient times. Yet in his
day the Second Temple had no Ark. Its Holy of Holies stood empty.
Nor was the Ark the only sacred thing it lacked. To the alleged defects
of that Temple we must now turn, since it seems that Sirach himself
was exercised with them.
Both Talmuds and midrashic texts like Song R. 8:9 list items in which
the Second Temple was deemed defective compared with the First.23
Among things missing or lacking their former sanctity, sources list the
oil for consecrating the priests, sanctuary, and holy objects.24 Urim and
Thummim and the sacred fire were either not present or less effective
than formerly, and the Holy Spirit was absent (see jer. Taan. 2:1.65a;
Makkot 2:7,32a; Hor. 3:2,47c; Song R. 8:9; b. Yoma 21b). Finally,
b. Yoma 21b suggests that the Shekhina was lacking, and ARNa 41 lists
the absence of the tabernacle.25
22
See le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 303, 306, 314.
23
For the Rabbinic lists, see especially tos. Yoma 2.12; b. Yoma 21b, 52b; Hor. 12a;
Ker. 5b; jer. Makk. 2.7:32a; Taan. 2.1:65a; Hor. 3.3:47c; Sheq. 6:1.49c; Sot. 8:3.22c;
Song R. 8:9; ARNa 41.
24
So tos. Yoma 2:12; b. Yoma 52b; Hor. 12a; Ker. 5b; Jer. Taan. 2:1.65a; Makk.
2:7.32a; Hor. 3:3.47c; Sheq. 6:1.49c; Sot. 8:3.22c; Song R. 8:9; ARNa 41. Anointing
of priests, if practised during Second Temple times, seems to have been restricted
to high priests: see Schrer, History, vol. II, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 244245.
25
Urim and Thummim were linked with the high priests breastplate and precious
stones (Exod 28.30; Lev 8.8; Num 27.21). Ben Sira 45.11 (Hebrew) apparently regarded
them as operative, holding the oracle in high regard: his grandson introduced a refer-
ence to it (Sirach 45.10) not found in his grandfathers work. See Wright, No Small
350 chapter seventeen
Difference, pp. 176177; pp. 185186. This observation supports Schnabel, Law and
Wisdom, 50, against Stadelmanns view that for Sirach the Torah has taken the place
of Urim and Thummim. The Jews of Qumran, however, may have regarded the oracle
as defunct: see 4Q164 (4Qplsad), and C.T.R. Hayward, Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly
Oracle, JJS 46 (1995), pp. 50, 52.
26
For the date (probably late second century bce) and provenance of the letters pre-
fixed to 2 Maccabees, see Schrer, History, Vol. III.1, pp. 533534, and J.A. Goldstein,
I Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible
(New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 546548; idem, II Maccabees. A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 41a (New York: Doubleday, 1983),
pp. 2427 and commentary ad loc.
27
See Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 546547.
28
See Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 332333, and Fournier-Bidoz, Larbre, 6, for their
symbolism. For the ingredients themselves, see le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible
dAlexandrie, vol. 2, p. 313.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 351
29
Wisdom is fully expressed in the Temple service, the high priest in his vest-
ments embodying Wisdom as he officiates on behalf of the whole human race: see now
C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple. A Non-biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge,
1996), pp. 3884. Philo, Quis Heres, pp. 196199, notes that the four ingredients of
the incense represent the elements making up the universe, and that the cosmos gives
thanks to God during the service: see further le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible
dAlexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 310313.
352 chapter seventeen
En-Gedi, and Jericho, Sirach relates them to various trees which are
exalted. A. Fournier-Bidoz views them as aspects of a single, cos-
mic world-tree, a symbol of the created universe rooted in the land
of Israel.30 Gilberts emphasis on the locations of the trees must not
be ignored: they probably mark the frontiers of the land of Israel as
occupied by the Jews.31 Further, the trees compared with Wisdom in
this chapter are virtually identical with those compared with the high
priest Simon as he offers priestly service (50. 8, 10, and 12). Simon is
the religious and political head of Jews in their homeland. The appear-
ance of the same trees in both chapters seems to confirm Gilberts
perception of things.32
Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon (vv. 2526) recall the garden
of Eden from which these rivers flow, according to the only biblical
text where they are named together (Gen 2.1114). The inclusion of
Jordan in the list was probably suggested by Gen 15.18, which notes
that Israel extends from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates; its effect is
to suggest that Wisdom is analogous to the four rivers of paradise, and
that she belongs in the land whose own river is the Jordan. Residing at
the centre of things, she flows in great torrents to the four corners of
the earth, like the four rivers of the garden of Eden.33
Here Sirach has assumed a tradition that Jerusalem with its Temple
constitutes the navel (omphalos) of the world, that central point of
origins giving stability to the cosmos. The Hebrew text of Ezek 38.12
had spoken of the land of Israel as tbwr hrz, an expression which
LXX took to mean the navel of the earth.34 This notion was developed
30
See Larbre, especially pp. 510; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 55, pp. 9394 and
literature there cited for interpretations of the tree imagery. Philo associates trees,
especially the trees of Eden, with wisdom and the planting of the virtuous on the
mountain of Gods inheritance (Exod 15.17), see De Plantatione, pp. 4449.
31
See Gilbert, Lloge, p. 332.
32
For the trees in Sirach 24 and 50, see C.T.R. Hayward, Sacrifice and World
Order: Some Observations on ben Siras Attitude to the Temple Service, in S.W. Sykes,
ed., Sacrifice and Redemption. Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 2327; and see also Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic,
163; and Fournier-Bidoz, Larbre, pp. 4, 9.
33
See Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 338341, and his suggestion (pp. 342343) that the
mist with which Wisdom compares herself (24.3) may refer to the mist covering the
earth at creation (Gen 2.6) as understood by texts like Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-
Jonathan: they interpreted this mist as the cloud of the divine presence.
34
Its not for certain that Ezekiels words referred to the navel of the earth: see
S. Talmon, article , in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, G.J. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren (eds.), vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 427438. LXXs
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 353
notion reappears in later writings such as Josephus, War III.52; Sibylline Oracles
V. 250. Aristeas 83 may know it: see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, p. 30.
35
For the date of Jubilees, see Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 311314. On its geo-
graphical ideas, see P.S. Alexander, article Early Jewish Geography, in The Anchor
Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 980982. Translations of Jubilees below are by O.S.
Wintermute, Jubilees, in J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
2 vols. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2, pp. 7273.
36
For the date of the Book of Watchers, see Schrer, History, III.1, pp. 252257.
354 chapter seventeen
earth and saw a blessed, well-watered place . . . And there I saw a holy
mountain, and under the mountain, to the east of it, there was water
and it flowed toward the south . . .37 Again we find the mountain in the
middle of the earth linked with streams. Set alongside these near con-
temporary writings, both of which use geographical lore to establish
the Jerusalems pre-eminence, Sirachs poem also marks out Jerusalem
and her Temple as the navel of the world. We do not know if he had
visited Greece; but he had travelled and knew the world outside Judaea
(34.10 and 39.4). Greece was the homeland of the Easts rulers and
of their philosopher guides. Sirach and other writers here considered
could hardly ignore this; and their geographical learning was used to
defend their ancestral faith. For they contrived to contrast Jerusalem
with that most famous of all navels of the world, the Temple and
oracle of Apollo at Delphi, where the omphalos-stone, reputed to be
the very centre of the world, was preserved and honoured.
The oracle of Apollo at Delphi lay beneath Mount Parnassus. It had
three streams: Castalia, the spring of the Muses in which those con-
sulting the oracle first purified themselves; Cassotis, running through
the temple and beneath the adyton, its cold exhalations stimulating
the ecstasy of the priestess; and the brook Delphusa. Oracles were
given through the Pythian priestess, who by tradition was required
to be without learning. Having purified herself in Castalia, she would
chew laurel leaves or inhale the smoke of burning laurel mixed with
myrrh. She would enter the adyton, and, descending into the earth
through a cleft in the rock to the place of the omphalos, she would
sit upon a tripod above the stream Cassotis. In an ecstasy she would
give forth oracles in unintelligible sounds, which were then trans-
lated into hexameter verse by prophets, the priests of Apollo. In the
Hellenistic period, these priests contented themselves with expound-
ing the Pythias utterances in prose.38
Not only Greek, but also foreign rulers sought Delphis advice.
Philosophers acclaimed it. Plato ascribed all authority in matters of
37
Translated M.A. Knibb, in H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 215. See also 1 Enoch 18.6, and Alexander, Early
Jewish Geography, pp. 984985.
38
For summaries of recent research on the oracle and bibliography, see articles
Delphi and Delphic oracle in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower
and A. Spawforth (3rd edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 444446. See
also F. Poulsen, Delphi (London: Glyndendal, 1920), who describes (ibid., p. 24) the
transmission of oracles.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 355
39
For Delphi and the philosophers, see Poulsen, Delphi, pp. 2832. Spartan interest
in the most ancient legislation may be significant in view of the association of Jews and
Spartans recorded in 1 Macc 12.2, 68; 14.1623; 2 Macc 5.9, on which see Schrer,
History, vol. 1, ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), pp.
184185; Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 445462, 492496.
40
It is rare in LXX, found only in III Macc 4.1, Sirach, and the verses of Daniel
quoted. In Sirach 8.19 it corresponds to glh of Siras Hebrew; elsewhere (14:7; 16:25;
19:25; 22:19; 27:6; 38:33; and 39.8) no Hebrew Vorlage survives. In 24.32 it parallels
phtizein, which in 42.16 answers to Hebrew zrh, rise, come forth; 43.9 to zhr in
hiphil instruct, teach; 50.7 to niphal of rh, be seen, appear; in 45.17, where there
is no extant Hebrew Vorlage, and it refers to Aaron enlightening Israel by means of
the Torah.
41
While most believe that the speaker in 24.3033 is the poet, Gilbert, Lloge, pp.
339340, argues that Wisdom continues to utter praise. Concerning the prophecy
which is poured out, see further Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, p. 57.
356 chapter seventeen
and the nations? Might she not be that light to the nations prophesied
by Isaiah (42.6)? In short, is she the instructress of the Gentiles?
42
For a survey of recent writing on this, see Harrington, Sirach Research, pp.
170176.
43
Some aspects of this eulogy may defend the Second Temple: see C.T.R. Hayward,
The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, Scandinavian J. of the Old
Testament 6 (1992), pp. 123138.
44
See J.D. Purvis, Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem, JNES 24 (1965),
pp. 8894; Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558.
45
Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 6667 notes anti-Samaritan tendencies. On
Sirach and the title Most High, see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, pp. 7577. The
anonymous Samaritan writer makes Abraham meet Melchizedek, priest of God Most
High (Gen 14.1718) at Argarizin.
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 357
Jesus ben Siras grandson had gone to Egypt, where Onias IV, the
son of the Jerusalem high priest Onias III, had built a Jewish tem-
ple. This he had modelled on Jerusalem, and legitimate priests and
Levites served it. It was sited in Heliopolis, with royal approval; and
it attracted powerful Jewish support, including a strong military force.
It was built as a direct result of the Hellenistic crisis, during which
Jerusalems Temple had been desecrated and its furniture, including
the altar of incense, removed to a foreign land (1 Macc 1.2023). No
doubt, as the son of the last legitimate Zadokite high priest, Onias
IV claimed for his Egyptian temple a sanctity and validity which he
denied to that in Jerusalem.46
Associated with Zadokite priests and their claims were Jews settled
at Qumran, who rejected the Second Temple and its service.47 Ben
Siras grandson could hardly have been unaware of them. With the
Samaritans and supporters of Oniass temple, they represented oppo-
sition to the Jerusalem sanctuary which he was at pains to defend.
Either contemporary with, or slightly older than Jesus ben Sira was
the author of Tobit, who predicted (Tobit 14.5) the building of the
Second Temple. It would be unlike the First, lasting only until the
times of that age be fulfilled, when the house of God shall be built . . .
for ever with a glorious building, as the prophets have spoken.48
Testament of Moses 4.8, which may date from the time of the
Hellenistic crisis, compares the Second Temple unfavourably with the
First, possibly suggesting that its sacrifices were worthless.49 Criticisms
of the Temple by the prophet Malachi 1.614 (89.73) are repeated by
1 Enoch 89.73, predicting (90.2629) that the Temple, in the middle
of earth, would be folded up by God with its ornaments and placed in
46
For the Heliopolis Temple, see Grabbe, Judaism, pp. 266267; M. Delcor, Le
Temple dOnias en Egypte, RB 75 (1968), pp. 188205; S.A. Hirsch, The Temple of
Onias, Jews College Jubilee Volume (London, 1906), pp. 3980; C.T.R. Hayward, The
Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 429443.
47
The Temple Scroll from Qumran implicitly damns the Second Temple. For the
Scriptural authority on which the Qumran group based their approach to the Temple
law, see J. Milgrom, The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles, in G.J. Brooke, ed.,
Temple Scroll Studies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), pp. 165180.
48
Cf. Hayward, The New Jerusalem, pp. 124126.
49
The date of this text is much disputed. See Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 282283;
Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 546; idem., II Maccabees, p. 188. For a brief commentary
on the verse, see J. Priest, Testament of Moses, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
vol. 1, p. 929.
358 chapter seventeen
the south of the land, to make way for a superior house with appropri-
ate furnishings.50
With such enemies, the Second Temple needed friends: both ben
Sira and his grandson appear to have recognised this, and to have lent
support to the most potent symbol of Jewish nationhood. The transla-
tion into Greek of ben Siras praise of Wisdom may thus properly be
seen as part of a larger defence of Jews in the Hellenistic world. Sirach
insists that Wisdom is the Torah of Moses (24.23), a living reality older
than the universe (24.9) bringing to light that paideia which makes
civilisation possible (24.27, 32, 33). Sirach insists that paideia comes
through Moses, who received the Torah which is Wisdom. He thus
moves in the same intellectual world as the Jew Eupolemus, who wrote
in Greek a treatise On the Kings of Judaea, surviving in fragments.
One of these, quoted by Clement (Stromateis I.153154) and Eusebius
(PE IX.25.4), presents Moses as the first wise man, who taught the
alphabet to the Jews, whence it passed to the Phoenicians, and thence
to the Greeks. Eupolemus made Moses the first to write for the Jews;
according to Wacholder, he is thus the father of all Oriental and Greek
civilization. The alphabet is his legacy not only to Israel, but to the
whole human race. Mosess wisdom, the alphabet and his written leg-
islation are presented as the sine qua non of human civilisationand
they originate with the Jews. As first wise man, Moses ranks with the
Seven Wise Men of Greek tradition, of whom one, Chilon of Sparta,
is said to have coined the maxim Know Thyself inscribed on Apollos
temple at Delphi.51
Eupolemus represents an orthodox defence of Judaism which con-
trasts with that of Artapanus, a Jew who wrote in Greek probably
50
This may date to before the death of Judah Maccabee: see Schrer, History, vol.
III.1, p. 255. Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63, notes that according to 1 Enoch
42.12 Wisdom does not dwell on earth, but is domiciled in the heavens. Might this
account in part for Sirachs reticence towards the figure of Enoch?
51
See Ben Zion Wacholder, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1974), especially
pp. 7186, and his observation (p. 13) that Eupolemus knew of the contemporary
question whether Greek philosophy derived from the Orient. Aristobulus, probably an
Alexandrian Jew, devoted his writings (probably mid-second century bce, fragments
only surviving) to defending Judaism by using the argument from antiquity, as noted
by Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63. For him, Jewish law is older than Greek: see
Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 579587; A. Yarbro Collins, Aristobulus, The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, pp. 831842; and N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger
Aristobulos (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964).
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place 359
52
On Artapanus, see Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 521525.
360 chapter seventeen
Almost from the beginning, the Hebrew Bible makes food an object
of divine command for humans and animals. The creation of Adam
as male and female is followed at once by Gods blessing of them;
His command to them to reproduce, to fill the earth and subdue it;
and His grant of authority to them over other living things. God then
explicitly states that He has given to human beings every plant pro-
ducing seed which is upon the surface of the earth, and every tree in
which is fruit of a tree yielding seed (Gen. 1:29). Following at once
on this decision about food for human beings, God declares that He
has granted to the animals every green plant for food (Gen. 1:30). As
Rashi notes in his commentary on these verses, Scripture puts animals
and humans on the same level as regards food: all alike were to eat
plants.1 Nonetheless, there is an imbalance between the information
provided by the two Scriptural verses. Gen. 1:29 is quite detailed in
its prescription of human food, speaking of trees as well as plants,
and taking up more than twenty Hebrew words to describe the divine
gift to humans of the trees which yield fruits and seeds.2 By contrast,
Gen. 1:30 is strikingly terse, limiting animal food to every green plant,
et kol yereq eseb.
Mention of the tree at Gen. 1:29 as a source of human food comes
into its own, of course, in the following chapter, which tells how God,
following the creation of the man, put him into the garden of Eden
which He had planted (Gen. 2:9). At once we note that this garden is
a sacred space: the Divine Presence is manifest there, and God speaks
1
For Rashis comments on Gen. 1:2930, see M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann,
Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary, 5 vols (New
York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1935), pp. 78. See also N.M. Sarna, The JPS
Torah Commentary Genesis (Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication
Society, 5749/1989), pp. 1314.
2
The Bibles emphasis on trees at this point clearly impressed PJ, which adds the
note that God granted to humans for building purposes and for fire-wood trees which
do not bear fruit: see the discussion in M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
Translated, with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1992), p. 20.
362 chapter eighteen
directly with the first human being and with his wife, who is eventu-
ally created in this garden (Gen. 2:2123). God put the Adam into
this garden to work it and to keep it (Gen. 2:15), a requirement tra-
ditionally understood in ancient Judaism as meaning that the Adam
was to labour in the Torah and to observe its commandments.3 At the
same time, the human being is granted leave to eat of every tree of
the garden, except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Consumption of that tree will end in death (Gen. 2:1617).
The sequel is well known. At the instigation of the serpent, a
canny speaker endowed with a certain rhetorical gift, the woman suc-
cumbs and eats of the prohibited tree, sharing the fruit with Adam
(Gen. 3:17). The divine condemnation of the three actors in this
drama is swift. The serpent is cursed henceforth to walk on its belly,
and a new command is given about its food: dust is what it shall eat
(Gen. 3:14). The Bible strongly implies that the serpent had hitherto
walked with upright posture: this was not lost on the ancient interpret-
ers, who concluded that God had punished the serpent by chopping
off its feet.4 Eve is given over to the pangs of childbirth and an unequal
relationship with her husband (Gen. 3:16). Adams punishment, like
the serpents, involves his food. God now decrees (Gen. 3:18) that the
earth is to be cursed because of Adam, and that from now on he will
eat of it in toil. This is spelled out in detail:
And thorns and thistles it shall sprout for you; and you shall eat plants
of the field (or: plants of the open country, Hebrew seb hassdeh).
To this decision the following verse (Gen. 3:19) adds a supplement,
which might appear to modify, or even to contradict what God has
just laid down as Adams penalty. The traditional vocalization of the
Hebrew of Gen. 3:19, as given by the Masoretic Text, shows how God
ordered Adam:
3
See, for example, b. Sanh. 38a; Men. 110a; Sifre Deut. 41 end; Gen. Rab. 14:9;
16:56; PRE 12:1; PJ, TN, FTP, FTV of this verse. The tradition is also mentioned in
2 Enoch 31:1. See further J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as it
was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997),
pp. 120121, and discussion of Second Temple attitudes towards the notion of the
keeping of commandments before the Giving of Torah examined by G.A. Anderson,
The Status of Torah before Sinai, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), pp. 129.
4
See Apoc. Mos. 26:23; Josephus Ant. I.50; Gen. Rab. 20:5; PRE 14:3; ARNb
42:117; PJ of Gen. 3:14.
food, the animals, and human dignity 363
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the
earth; for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you
shall return.
How might these two verses be regarded as coherent?5 Gods decree
that Adam should eat plants of the field might be taken to mean
that Adams food was from now on to be exactly the same as that
of the animals: there is no mention of trees supplementing human
food. As we shall see presently, ancient readers of these verses had
good reason to suppose just that very thing: Adam and the animals
were condemned to eating identical foodstuffs. Eating bread, however,
which is juxtaposed to the eating of plants of the open country, is cer-
tainly not characteristic of the animal realm. What might these verses
then signify?
We should note that Gen. 3:18, requiring Adam to eat plants of the
open country, would very likely conjure up in the mind of ancient
readers or hearers the famous story of king Nebuchadnezzar, who was
transformed from a human being into an animal for seven years. The
story is found in Daniel 4, and tells how the king had dreamt of a great
tree joining heaven and earth, affording food and shelter for all the
animals: this tree was cut down, and only its stump remained. Daniel
had explained the dream as signifying that the king, who is symbolized
by the tree, would be driven away from human beings as a punish-
ment for his hubris in refusing to recognize the divine sovereignty. In
the event, Nebuchadnezzar crossed over into the animal world: he ate
grass like cattle; his body was wet with dew; and he grew feathers like
the eagle and talons like the birds. Above all, this process of transfor-
mation resulted in a loss of manda, reason, understanding, which
is only restored to him when he returns to the human condition
(Dan. 4:31, 33). The parallels with Adam are not difficult to discern:
having been granted royal authority to name all the animals and to
hold dominion over them, he disregards Gods commandment about
his food, and is to be transferred into the animal realm as a result.6
5
This seems to be the crucial question confronting the Targumists: see A. Shinan,
The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Makor
Press, 1979), vol. 1, p. 90 [in Hebrew].
6
For Adams dominion over the animals, see Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:1920; Sarna,
The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis, pp. 2122, and C. Westermann, Genesis 111
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), pp. 158160, who also cites (pp. 147148) an
extensive bibliography treating of Gen. 1:2627.
364 chapter eighteen
7
FTV and FTP are very close in wording to TN as translated here up to the end of
the first sentence. In the second sentence, they differ from one another slightly, FTV
showing affinities with PJ. This matter is addressed below, p. 366.
8
Of the many examples which could be cited, the most telling is the regular use
of the noun prwt to translate the Hebrew termh: see TN of Exod. 30:13; 35:5;
Numb. 15:20, 21; TO of Exod. 25:3.
9
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 334; Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, p. 28.
food, the animals, and human dignity 365
1. He says: let us stand or, more precisely, let us stand upright. Here
the contrast with the quadrupeds and others who graze from the
earth with heads bowed, walking perhaps on all fours, is strongly
marked; and the contrast with the serpent, whose feet had been cut
off and had been reduced to eating dust, is even more dramatically
stressed. Upright posture is the first distinguishing feature of the
human which Adam requests, a posture which readers of the Tar-
gumim will know is essential for priests and prophets who stand
before the Almighty; and it is a sine qua non for any Jew who wishes
properly to address God in prayer, a subject on which the Ara-
maic Targumim10 are apt to offer extensive information. In particu-
lar, the association of the Targumim with the public prayer of the
Synagogue service inevitably focuses attention on the central prayer
of that service, the Amidah, which by definition is recited by the
worshippers standing.11 In the heavenly realms, the celestial beings,
the angels, are said to stand before God (see Dan. 7:10). Stand-
ing posture, then, is crucial for any human being to have access to
the sacred, to pray and to be heard in the heavenly realms. In the
post-Eden world, when humans will be barred from the immedi-
ate access to the divine presence in the way which had once been
10
For priests standing before the Lord to minister to Him, see the biblical data
recorded by (e.g.) Deut. 10:8; 17:12; 18:5; likewise for prophets who stand before the
Lord, see 1 Kings 17:1; 18:15; 2 Kings 5:16. For a thorough discussion of the var-
ied terminology related to prayer employed by the several Targumim, see M. Maher,
The Meturgemanim and Prayer, JJS 41 (1990), pp. 226246, noting particularly his
comments on pp. 235236, where he discusses the many instances where the biblical
Hebrew verb stand is interpreted by the Targumim as pray.
11
On the place of the Targums in the Synagogue liturgy, see A. Shinan, Echoes
from Ancient Synagogues: Vocatives and Emendations in the Aramaic Targums
to the Pentateuch, JQR 81 (1991), pp. 353364; M. Taradach, Le Midrash (Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1991), pp. 5162; P.V.M. Flesher, The Targumim in the Context of
Rabbinic Literature, in (ed.) J. Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New
York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 611629; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 546548.
366 chapter eighteen
12
See, for example, TN of Gen. 3:15; 27:40; Deut. 32:14, 30; PJ of Gen. 49:15.
13
The Hebrew of this verse emphasises that ha-adam does not live by bread alone;
but ha-adam lives by everything which proceeds from the Lords mouth. For the
last clause, TN has everything which proceeds from the mouth of the decrees of
the Word of the Lord PJ has everything which has been created by the Memra of
the Lord; and FTP and FTN have a somewhat garbled text, which may have originally
indicated that man does not live by mazona alone: see Klein, The Fragment Targums,
vol. 1, p. 214.
14
See the classic study of L. Finkelstein, The Birkat Ha-Mazon, JQR new series 19
(19281929), pp. 211262; J. Heinemann, Birkath Ha-Zimmun and Havurah Meals,
JJS 13 (1962), pp. 2329; Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale,
NJ:1992), pp. 108109.
food, the animals, and human dignity 367
15
The text states: R. Eleazar and R. Samuel b. Nahman: R. Eleazar declared,
Redemption is comparable to provision of food, and provision of food to redemp-
tion, as it is said, And He rescued us from our enemies (Ps. 136:24), and (there
stands) next to it (Ps. 136:25) He is giving bread to all flesh. Just as redemption is
miraculous, so also provision of food is miraculous: just as provision of food happens
on each day, so redemption happens on each day. R. Samuel b. Nahman declared: But
it is greater than the redemption, since redemption takes place through the agency
of an angel, whereas provision of food takes place through the agency of the Holy
One, blessed be He. From where do we deduce that redemption happens through
the agency of an angel? As it is said, The angel who redeems me from all harm
(Gen. 48:16). Provision of food is through the agency of the Holy One, blessed be He,
as it is said (Ps. 145:16), You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of all the liv-
ing. R. Joshua b. Levi declared: It is greater than the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is
said (Ps. 136:13): To Him who divided the Red Sea into divisions, then it says He is
giving bread to all flesh, for His steadfast love is for ever, etc.
368 chapter eighteen
refer to food for all living as provided by the One who sustains all,
but specifically in these verses refers to human prepared food as
differentiating men from animals, is thus particularly subtle and
suggestive.
Having inserted Adams petition at the end of Gen. 3:18, the Palestinian
Targumim are able to offer Gen. 3:19 as Gods response to it. For this
verse, we have only PJ, TN, and FTP, which offer slightly differing
interpretations of the text. We may first address PJ:
By the labour of the palm of your hands you shall eat mazon, until you
return to the dust from which you were created. For dust you are, and
to dust you shall return; and from the dust you are destined to stand up
to give an account and reckoning concerning all that you have done, on
the great day of judgement.
TN is similar to PJ:
In the sweat from before your face you shall eat bread until you return
to the earth, because you were created from it. For dust you are, and to
dust you are to return; and from the dust you are to return and to stand
up and to give an account and reckoning concerning all that you have
done.
The version of FTP corresponds in its beginning with a marginal gloss
preserved in the manuscript of TN, in the sweat of your face you shall
eat mazon until the time that you return to the earth; we should note
here the hint of a wordplay between mazon and the phrase until the
time, . The rest of FTP is very close to TN until the closing
words, which read: and from the dust you are going to stand up to
give an account and reckoning about what you have done.16
What, then, does God really grant to the human being? There is no
direct reference in these Targumim to the distinction between humans
and animals which Adam had explicitly requested, although such a
distinction is implicitly permitted, as we shall see. We may begin by
noting that Adam is permitted to eat mazon (PJ, Ngl, FTP) or bread
(TN), although only PJ ties this permission verbally to Adams peti-
tion that he labour with his hands. The grant of mazon or bread will
at least ensure that humans may utter a blessing to the Almighty over
16
According to Gen. Rab. 20:26, R. Simeon b. Yohai also discerned in the words and
to dust you shall return an allusion to the resurrection of the dead in the Torah.
food, the animals, and human dignity 369
food; and the production of such food will require human beings to
stand upright. Adams first request is thus implicitly granted; but here
we encounter a sting in the tail. Adam may stand upright to pre-
pare mazon insofar as that mazon is prepared food; but the Targumim
introduce a new dimension here. They declare that he will certainly
stand upright, but post mortem, from the dust, to give an account of
his deeds. And here the Targumim introduce slantwise the distinc-
tion between human and animal: humans are to give a reckoning,
, of what they have done, and it is this that appears now as the
answer to Adams request that humans be not reckoned, ,
as being among the animals. Humans and animals are going to be dis-
tinguished after all; but the reckoning of humans as not animals will
consist of a reckoning of human deeds in the face of the divine court,
which PJ specifies as being held on the great day of judgement.17
Although the actions of Adam and Eve result in their removal from
Eden (Gen. 3:24), the question of their continuing relationship with
the sacred remains implicit as a matter of concern for the Targumim
throughout this dialogue between Adam and God. On one level, Adams
requests to stand upright and labour are obvious enough; but they
carry implications beyond the obvious, as we have seen. May human
beings stand, from now on, to minister like priests and prophets, and
like the angels in heaven? May they stand to pray before God? May
they labour in Torah study, and strive to teach the commandments,
as the Targumim tell us they were originally charged to do?18 All these
things, it seems, are implicitly permitted; but over them all now hangs
the shadow of a final reckoning which will distinguish human from
animal in a way which Adam had perhaps not bargained for, when
humans will indeed stand upright, unlike the animals.
Before we turn to another Jewish account of the human-animal
distinction, we may note for the sake of completeness that some ele-
ments of the Targumic interpretation we have considered here are
found in other Rabbinic sources. The possible contradiction between
17
For a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection among the Rabbis and
the Samaritans in relation to Gen. 3:19, see H. Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim. The
Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel
Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, TSAJ 57 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996),
pp. 6790.
18
Rabbinic interpretations of Gods command that Adam be in the Garden of Eden
to till it and to keep it are discussed briefly by E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts
and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 967968.
370 chapter eighteen
between Gen. 3:18 and Gen. 3:19 was taken up in Gen. Rab. 20:24 and
explained very succinctly with a report that when Adam heard the
words you shall eat the grass of the open country his face was shaken
or contorted, and he said: What? Am I bound to the manger like a
beast? The Holy One then said to him, Because your face was con-
torted, you shall eat bread. The exegetical ploy underlying the midrash
involves reading the opening words of Gen. 3:19 not as
the Masoretes vocalized them, bezat appyk, in the sweat of your
face, but as because of the shaking, moving, contorting of your face,
as if the first of the pair of Hebrew words derived from the stem
tremble, quake and its related noun trembling, terror. We are
to understand that Adam was so shocked by Gods decision that he eat
grass that his face contorted in pain, and God went on to ameliorate
the punishment. We may also note R. Joshua b. Levis words in b.Pes.
118a, that tears flowed from Adams eyes and he pleaded with God,
when he heard that the earth would yield thorns and thistles for him.
Adam said: Lord of the world, am I and my donkey to eat out of the
same manger? But when He said to him In the sweat of your face you
shall eat bread, his mind was set at rest. These classical sources rep-
resent elements of the Targumic exegesis we have examined;19 but no
other Rabbinic sources, to my knowledge, offer a systematic explana-
tion of Gen. 3:1819 of the sort found in the Palestinian Targumim.
A rather different picture of the human-animal distinction is to be
found in the Book of Jubilees, a composition which reached its present
form around the middle of the second century bce, or perhaps a little
earlier.20 In re-presenting Genesis 3 to its readers, Jubilees radically
reduced the references to food: its version of the serpents punishment
19
They also include aggadic material not represented in the Targumim. For
example, in b. Pes. 118a R. Johanan states that mans food, mazon, involves twice
as much suffering as a woman in childbirth on the grounds that Scripture states
(Gen. 3:16) that the woman will give birth btzb, whereas the man will eat food btzbwn
(Gen. 3:17): he interprets the additional letters in the word applied to Adams toil
as indicating a more painful task. A similar understanding is found in the name of
R. Immi (Ammi) at Gen. Rab. 20:22.
20
The most likely date for the final form of Jubilees is 160150 bce: see the critical
discussion of all the evidence, and a wide range of scholarly views, presented by
J. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),
pp. 1722. I have used the English translation of O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees. A New
Translation and Introduction, in (ed.) J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2,
pp. 35142.
food, the animals, and human dignity 371
(Jub. 3:23) lacks entirely the biblical decree that the serpent would
henceforth eat dust; and Adams punishment is limited to the note
that the earth would sprout thorns and thistles for him, and that he
should eat bread in the sweat of his face (Jub. 3:25). Jubilees entirely
omits the divine decree that Adam should eat the grass of the open
country. Any problems which might be perceived in the relationship
between Gen. 3:18 and Gen. 3:19 are thus removed. In stark contrast
to the matter of food, what exercises Jubilees mightily is a preoccupa-
tion with clothing.21 Having eaten of the forbidden fruit, Eve (accord-
ing to Jub. 3:21), covered her shame with a fig-leaf; then Adam ate,
took another fig-leaf, and covered his shame (Jub. 3:22). What in
the Bible (Gen. 3:7) is something Adam and Eve do simultaneously
in Jubilees is presented as two discrete actions of separate individuals,
stressing the covering of shame.22 The significance of this will become
clearer as the narrative progresses.
Jub. 3:26 tells how God made garments of skins for the pair, clothed
them, and sent them out from the Garden of Eden. Jubilees is abso-
lutely explicit that the garden is sacred space: according to Jub. 8:19,
the garden is the Holy of Holies and the dwelling of the Lord.23 Once
Adam and Eve are outside the garden, Jub. 3:27 makes Adam per-
form actions not represented in the Bible: he offered a sweet-smelling
sacrifice of incense in the morning at sun-rise, from the day he cov-
ered his shame. The wording of this verse suggests that Adam in fact
offered the incense of the Tamid, the daily offering of the Temple ser-
vice (see Exod. 30:3438) and for this, of course, he would need to be
clothed. He is presented as a priest,24 and Jubilees presumably takes
it for granted that he is wearing priestly vestments at this point in
21
For detailed analysis of the presentation of Adam in the book of Jubilees, see
J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), pp. 8997. The clothing of Adam, which Jubilees
intimately associates with Adams function as a priest in relation to the sanctuary,
Levison discusses on pp. 9395. So intent is Jubilees on underlining the essential con-
nection between Adams clothing and his offering of the incense that he is reported as
having covered his shame twice: as a result, a chronological contradiction is created
between Jub. 3:22, where he covers his shame on the day he eats of the fruit, and
Jub. 3:27 on the day he was expelled from Eden. For details, see Levison, Portraits,
p. 216, note 19.
22
A brief account of this section of Jubilees is given by M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees.
Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 310.
23
The thinking lying behind this assertion of Jubilees is expounded by Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible, pp. 108111, and Levison, Portraits, pp. 9395, 215, note 14.
24
See Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 1011.
372 chapter eighteen
the narrative. What suggested this to the author of Jubilees was most
likely Gen. 3:24, with its report that God had stationed cherubim at
the entrance to Eden: cherubim are otherwise present on the covering
of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part
of the Temple.
At this juncture, Jub. 3:2831 supplies further, non-biblical infor-
mation. First, from this point onwards, all the animals stopped speak-
ing; beforehand, they had all spoken the same language, which most
commentators believe was biblical Hebrew.25 Secondly, all the animals
were removed from Eden and were scattered, each according to their
kinds and families, to the place which had been created for them. Then
the author of Jubilees announces:
But from all the beasts and all the cattle, He granted to Adam alone that
he might cover his shame (Jub. 3:30).
Thus although humans are distinguished from animals by retaining
the power of speech and by remaining unscattered, it is clothing which
Jubilees regards as the quintessential mark distinguishing humans
from animals; and if there were any doubt about this, it is removed
by the statement, unqualified and unambiguous, which follows these
notices:
Therefore it is commanded on the heavenly tablets to all who will know
the judgement of the Law that they should cover their shame, and that
they should not be uncovered as the gentiles are uncovered (Jub. 3:31).
Here Jubilees clearly reveals one aspect of its larger agenda. This whole
episode is actually addressed to Jews, all who know the judgement of
the Law, who should know how to distinguish themselves from non-
Jews who go about naked, like the animals. As has often been noted,
the Torah of Moses has no explicit prohibition of nudity; Jubilees cir-
cumvented this by appeal to the heavenly tablets,26 and to the Torahs
injunction that priests in particular should not minister at the altar
25
Hebrew is described as the language of creation at Jub. 12:2527, and is also
described as the language which is revealed which ceased either at the time when
the tower of Babel was destroyed, or when Adam was expelled from Eden: see further
Levison, Portraits, p. 216, note 20.
26
On these tablets, and their relationship to the Torah, see Liora Ravid, The Special
Terminology of the Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees, Tarbiz 68 (2000),
pp. 463471 [in Hebrew], and Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 313316, who also dis-
cusses (pp. 273282) the approach of Jubilees to the transmission of Torah in the
pre-Sinai period.
food, the animals, and human dignity 373
in such a way that their nakedness be seen (Exod. 20:26). Thus this
whole episode Jubilees addresses to Jews, regarded as a priestly people
under obligation to cover their shame not simply when occupied in
the Temple service, but as a regular practice, to distinguish themselves
from non-Jews, and from the animals. Although Jubilees does not at
all use the word distinction or separation in its narrative, it nonethe-
less makes plain that clothing, the covering of shame, is what most
particularly separates not only humans from animals, but one set of
humans from another. Those other non-animal characteristics com-
mon to all humanity, the faculty of speech and not being scattered, are
not discussed, and they make no further appearance in the narrative.
The historical circumstances which may have given rise to the
very definite ruling about the distinction between humans and ani-
mals adopted by Jubilees, while of very great intrinsic interest, are
not our particular concern us here.27 Rather, Jubilees allows us to
deduce that already in the mid-second century bce the question
what distinguishes humans from animals after the first human pair
left Eden? had already been addressed; and Jubilees itself preserves
two other answers to this question in addition to the one which it
so clearly wishes to promote. Humans continue to use language, and
are not scattered; whereas animals have lost the use of language, and
are dispersed to places appointed for them. Be that as it may, for the
author of Jubilees the human-animal distinction is, in the last resort,
bound up with a Jew-Gentile distinction, and with a fundamental
teaching which informs the whole of this book, that the Jews are pre-
eminently a priestly people. And as for priests, the Torah commands at
Exod. 28:42 that they must put on sacred garments to cover the flesh
of their shame, . This, then, is the ultimate source of
Jubilees concern with covering shame, and its importation into the
discussion of the animal-human distinction is what gives Jubilees its
characteristic approach to this topic, and at the same time problema-
tises the matter further. For it makes us ask whether the author of
Jubilees really believed that non-Jews who did not wear clothes were to
be reckoned as animals? And if non-Jews are, in some way, reckoned
as animals in this authors estimation, is their speech somehow not
27
The particular rulings of Jubilees concerning nudity are most often related
to the institution of the gymnasium in Jerusalem in the time of Antiohus IV
(1 Macc. 1:1115; 2 Macc. 4:1117): see further Levison, Portraits, pp. 9495.
374 chapter eighteen
quite up to the mark, as it were? They can speak; but they do not speak
Hebrew, which is the language of creation: what might the author of
Jubilees have thought about the speech of non-Jews, especially the
dominant Greek language?
The Targumim, when set alongside what we have found in Jubilees,
offer a much more nuanced and sophisticated account of the human-
animal distinction. It will be recalled that the Targumim actually use
the word distinction, while Jubilees does not. Jubilees, despite its fail-
ure to use this word, nonetheless offers what seems on the surface
to be a fairly hard and fast distinction between humans and animals;
yet the Targumim, in which Adam is shown as specifically requesting
God to make such a distinction possible, are in the last resort quite
reticent about the matter. God does not directly accede to Adams
request for this distinction. Quite unlike the Book of Jubilees, the
Targumim emphasise food as the marker distinguishing human and
animal. In permitting humans to eat mazon, the Targumim represent
God as offering them a somewhat ambiguous gift, in that mazon can
refer to prepared food, especially bread (and in this particular context
almost certainly does so), but nonetheless remains a term designating
Gods merciful provision of food for all His creatures, both human
and animal. It is only when the Targumim talk of the reckoning which
human beings will encounter in divine judgement that the distinction
between human and animal is on absolutely firm ground, in terms
of the language which the Targumim use; then, humans will stand
upright, unlike the animals, and give a reckoning of what they have
done, and in this sense they will not be reckoned with the animals.
And what of the human relationship to sacred space in the post-Eden
world, as far as the Targumim are concerned? In Jubilees, this emerged
as something quite unambiguous: the solemn service of the Temple
can be performed only by those who cover their shame. By contrast,
the Targumim offer hints and allusions which take for granted knowl-
edge of the Jewish tradition and biblical turns of phrase. In the service
of the Temple, the priest stands to minister; the prophets stand before
the Lord; and people stand to pray.28 Adams request to stand upright
28
The specific relationship between prayer and Gods provision of food is touched
upon by Wis. Sol. 16:2628, where the author discusses the gift of Manna to Israel,
so that your sons whom you love, O Lord, might learn that it is not the birth of fruits
(tn karpn) which feed a man, but your word guards those who trust in you; for
what was not destroyed by fire was simply melted when it was warmed by the fleet-
food, the animals, and human dignity 375
ing ray of the sun, so that it might be known that that it is necessary to get up before
the sun to give thanks to You, and at the dawn of light to pray to You. See further
D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, Anchor Bible 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1979),
pp. 299301; C. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 3 (Paris:
Gabalda, 1985), pp. 938943; J. Vilchez, Sabiduria (Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino,
1990), pp. 427428; D.K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 115, 248.
29
See b.Sotah 10ab; Gen. Rab. 54:6; Tanh. ;l ;l 12; ARNa 7; TN, PJ; FTP; FTV
of Gen. 21:33 (note the theme of conversion to Judaism in the Fragment Targums),
and C.T.R. Hayward, Abraham as Proselytizer at Beersheba in the Targums of the
Pentateuch, JJS 49 (1998), pp. 2437.
376 chapter eighteen
Torah is good for those who those who work/cultivate it [ ]in this
world, like the fruits of the tree of life.30
Here, if we are not mistaken, the Palestinian Targumim give their final
answer to Adams questions and concerns about the animal-human
distinction, and it will be noted how his original concern with food
has remained, but has itself been transformed into a matter of Torah
food, Torah study, and Torah cultivation. The specific sacred space
of the Temple still remainsthe opening sentence of this extended
aggadah deals with it by reference to the cherubim, which are num-
bered as two in order to recall the two cherubim set over the Ark in
the Holy of Holiesbut from then on the emphasis shifts decisively
to Torah. In this world, we are told, the Torah provides food of an
order which distinguishes the human from the animal, and will in the
end allow the human who is righteous and has eaten fruits of Torah
to stand in the judgment, and be reckoned worthy to enter the Garden
of Eden from which the first human pair had been removed. In this
way the Palestinian Targumim, at the very end of the third chapter
of Genesis, present a coherent interpretation of the whole episode
of the transgression of the first human couple, a coherence which is
achieved by their willingness to conceive of the chapter as a whole as
a distinct unit of sense, whose underlying meaning can be drawn out
with reference to information conveyed by the two chapters which
precede. The distinctive character of the Targumic discussion of the
questions about the animals, food, and human dignity posed by Gods
decrees against the first human pair thus arises from the willingness of
the Palestinain Targumim to integrate into a coherent synthesis ideas
drawn from biblical and post-biblical sources, and to present them in
such a way that the verses of Scripture underlying their exegesis never
disappear from sight.
30
On the structure of this expansion, see B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual
Study, vol. 1 (New York: Lanham, 1986), pp. 101104.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
1
For a useful discussion of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, see N.J. Sarna, The JPS
Torah Commentary Genesis ( Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish
Publication Society, 5749/1989), pp. 109110, 380382; J.A. Fitzmyer, Melchizedek in
the MT, LXX, and the NT, Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 6369; and for Melchizedeks place
in Psalm 110 in particular, see P.J. Nel, Psalm 110 and the Melchizedek Tradition,
JNSL 22 (1996), pp. 114.
2
Fitzmyer, Melchizedek in the MT offers a good account of the extent of the
discussion in recent times; see further literature cited by G.J. Wenham, Word Biblical
Commentary Genesis 115 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 301302.
3
The standard critical treatment of Melchizedek in post-biblical Jewish tradi-
tion remains the monograph of F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTSMS
30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). On Melchizedek in specifically
Rabbinic texts, see V. Aptowitzer, Malkizedek. Zu den Sagen der Agada, MGWJ 70
(1926), pp. 34, 93113.
378 chapter nineteen
4
See Tanhuma 17 (Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai) and Pesiqta RabbatiPisqa
50:6 for the association of peace with the altar and its offerings. The command
(Exod. 20:22; Deut. 27:5) prohibiting the use of iron tools in respect of the altar stones
is explained by the Rabbinic declaration that the altar and its offerings are intended to
prolong life, whereas iron, used for weapons, shortens life: see Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Bahodesh 11:8092.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 379
ticular would prove.5 Second, Gen. 14:20 takes for granted the Israelite
institution of the tithe; once more, we find in this section of text the
first biblical reference to this tithe, which was a characteristic feature
of Israels temple worship. Ancient interpreters would also be aware
that the next mention of the tithe was to be found in the account of
Jacobs dream at Beth-el, the house of God (Gen. 28:22 ff.).6
To these biblical firststhe first biblical usage of the Hebrew word
for priest; the first designation of the Almighty as God Most High;
the first reference to titheothers may be added. Gen. 14:18 is the
first biblical verse to speak of bread and wine; Gen. 14:19 records the
first blessing of a human being by a priest; and Gen. 14:19 also is the first
verse to speak of God as possessor/acquirer of heaven and earth, a
title which Abraham invokes at verse 22 in an oath which he swears
to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.7 These
scriptural data would serve to underline the unusual qualities of this
chapter to which the exegete would need to pay attention; and they
would be strengthened when the interpreter looked to Psalm 110. For
this is a royal Psalm, headed for David (Ps. 110:1); and it speaks of
conflict involving enemies and kings (vv. 2, 3, and 5); the humbling of
nations (v. 6); and an oath sworn to my lord by YHWH that he is a
priest for ever according to order of Melchizedek.8 Both Genesis 14
and Psalm 110 leave the ancient exegete, and ourselves, with two cru-
cial questions: who is Melchizedek, and why should he feature in these
particular biblical passages? In looking to classical Rabbinic sources
for guidance in these matters, let us begin with the most authoritative
text, the Babylonian Talmud.
5
For the association of God Most High with Mount Zion in Jerusalem, see Ps. 9:3,
12; 87:5; 97:89, a link which in Second Temple times was taken for granted by writers
like Jesus ben Sira: see Ben Siras account of the Temple Service in Jerusalem, where
the title Most High occurs in the Hebrew text at 50:14, 16, 17.
6
Post-biblical exegetes commonly located Jacobs dream of the ladder unit-
ing heaven and earth (Gen. 28:1122) at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: see Gen.
Rab. 68:8; 69:7; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 28:11; Pirqe de R. Eliezer 35:2. For
other sources and further analysis, see C.C. Rowland, John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic
and Targumic Tradition, NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498507. For the relationship of tithes
to Jerusalem and its Temple in post-biblical times, see Tobit 1:67.
7
The difficulties involved in translating this title are conveniently summarized by
M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie. 1. La Gense (Paris: Cerf, 1994) pp. 52, 161.
8
The text of this Psalm, and scholarly attempts to offer an historical-critical
account of it, are fraught with difficulties, one of the best accounts of which remains
H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, 2 vols., BKAT (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), vol. 2,
pp. 752764.
380 chapter nineteen
9
For presentations of Melchizedek in Rabbinic texts as either motivated or influ-
enced by a need to refute Christian claims about him, see M. Simon, Melchisdech
dans la polmique entre juifs et chrtiens et dans la Lgende, RHPR 27 (1947),
pp. 93113; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969), pp. 196199.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 381
noted here. The identification is not explained, nor is the reader given
prior notice that the identification is about to be made: anyone who
reads or hears this passage is expected to know it already. As we shall
see presently, it is common in other Rabbinic documents. It cannot be
denied that this Talmudic passage contains material which might prove
useful for Jewish scholars in debate with Christians; but there are solid
reasons for doubting whether the hermeneutical problems which the
Talmud highlights originated in such debates. From the outset, ancient
readers could not fail to have been struck by the Scriptural evidence in
front of them: the first person explicitly to be styled priest, in uttering
a formal berakhah, does not, in the first instance, bless his master, the
Most High God, whose exalted status is emphasized by the repeated
use of the title El Elyon. On the contrary, he blesses a human being,
Abraham.
It is well to pause here for a moment, for this Scriptural datum is
open to an explanation which not only the Rabbis of the Talmudic
period, but also Jews of much earlier generations might have wished
to exclude. It is this. Pondering Gen. 14:1820, a reader might rea-
sonably conclude that the mysterious Melchizedek was a character of
such exalted status, so close to the Almighty and with such detailed
knowledge of His ways, that he could with perfect propriety dispense
with liturgical protocol. Why so? Because God himself had earlier pro-
claimed that He would bless Abraham, and that those who blessed
Abraham would in turn themselves be blessed (Gen. 12:23). In those
verses, the matter of blessing is heavily emphasised and repeated;10 and
an ancient interpreter might, in light of this, understand the sequence
of Melchizedeks blessings either as showing that Melchizedek had
direct knowledge of Gods decree about Abraham, or even that in
some mysterious way he was party to it. And if Melchizedek knew so
much about Gods proclamation concerning Abraham, it would follow
that he was no ordinary person.
Now it so happens that, from the pre-Christian period, we possess a
Jewish document which speaks of Melchizedek as a figure with heav-
enly significance: the famous scroll 11Q13 allocates to Melchizedek
a vital role in the redemption to be accomplished in the final jubilee
10
In Gen. 12:23, words deriving from the Hebrew stem are used no fewer than
five times; and it is noticeable that verse 2 ends with a divine command to Abraham:
Be thou a blessing! according to the vocalisation of the Masoretes.
382 chapter nineteen
year.11 In this scroll, we hear also of teachers who have been hidden and
kept secret, and the final judgment of Melchizedeks demonic oppo-
nent Melchiresha at the end of days is also described.12 The Qumran
Melchizedek scroll offers no explanation of Melchizedeks heavenly
status, but rather takes it for granted.13 If Scriptural foundation for
its claims about Melchizedek were needed, they might be found in
Melchizedeks bold suspension of priestly liturgical protocol as indi-
cating his exalted status, as well as in the Bibles failure to provide him
with a genealogy.
The matter of Melchizedeks genealogy will need to be addressed
more fully; but for the moment we may note just two things about
it. First, the identification of Melchizedek as Shem is unlikely to have
originated as an anti-Christian device, given the stance of the pre-
Christian Jewish writer Philo, whose treatment of Melchizedek and
Shem is designed to bring out the affinities between the two char-
acters. Both Shem and Melchizedek Philo depicts as exalted priestly
figures, and the evidence for this I have assembled elsewhere.14 Second,
11
The manuscript is designated 11Q13 (11QMelch): for the Hebrew text, see (eds)
F. Garca Martnez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar and A.S. van der Woude, Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert XXIII. Qumran Cave 11.II 11Q218, 11Q2031 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1998), pp. 221241. The editors date the manuscript palaeographically (see
p. 223) to around the middle of the first century bce. For a recent critical description
and analysis of the scrolls contents, see G.J. Brooke, Thematic Commentaries on
Prophetic Scriptures, in (ed.) M. Henze, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 150152; and for the relationship of this text to Jewish
and Christian writings, see particularly J.T. Milik, Milk-sedeq et Milk-re dans les
anciens crits juifs et chrtiens, JJS 23 (1972), pp. 95122, 124126. The major study
of this Qumran text is the monograph of P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa,
CBQMS 10 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981); see also M. Bodinger,
Lnigme de Melkisdeq, RHR 211 (1994), pp. 297333.
12
For the teachers, see 11Q13 line 5: the reference is interesting, given the Rabbinic
identification of Melchizedek with Shem, who is a great Torah teacher: see below,
pp. 383384, 389. The notion of judgment is already present in Scripture at Gen. 14:7
with the place-name Ein-mishpat, meaning literally Spring of Judgment.
13
It must be emphasised that the scroll is fragmentary, and that it is not possi-
ble to determine whether it depicts Melchizedek as an angel, even though Kobelski,
Melchizedek, pp. 7174, argues that it identifies him as the archangel Michael; but for
opposing arguments see Bodinger, Lnigme, pp. 325326.
14
See Robert Hayward, Shem, Melchizedek and Concern with Christianity in the
Pentateuchal Targumim, in (eds) M.J. Cathcart and M. Maher, Targumic and Cognate
Studies, JSOT Supp. Series 230 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 6780;
and the important observations of James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the
Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1998), pp. 284285, 289291, who is likewise unhappy with attempts to discover
the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in Jewish-Christian disputes. Note also
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 383
that Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14:1819, is fully aware of the Jewish iden-
tification of Melchizedek as Shem, and seems not unduly disturbed by it: see C.T.R.
Hayward, Jeromes Hebrew Questions on Genesis Translated with an Introduction and
Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 47, 156159. The same tradition is
known to Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis 11:2.
15
See b. Zeb. 113b; Niddah 61a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 14:13; Pirqe de
R. Eliezer 23:2. Og was thought to have survived the Flood because Deut. 3:11 speaks
of him as the last one remaining of the Rephaim, the giants whose wicked deeds were
instrumental in corrupting humanity.
16
The identification is widely attested: see b. Nidd. 61a; Zeb 113b; Ber. Rab. 42:78;
Numb. Rab. 19:32; PRE 23:2; PJ of Gen. 14:13; Deut. 3:11.
384 chapter nineteen
17
This argument was adduced as early as the time of Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
19. See M. Simon, Verus Israel. A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews
in the Roman Empire ad 135425 (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization,
1996), pp. 8485, 164165, 170171; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, pp. 281283.
18
See D.A. Machiela, The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text,
Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees (PhD Thesis: University
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 385
of Notre Dame, 2007); J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1:
A Commentary (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971).
19
See Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 26:25.
20
See 1QapGen 20:12; 21:2, 20. Melchizedek does not appear in the scroll until
22:14.
21
Place is central to the overall concerns of the author of the Genesis Apocryphon,
and the explicit naming of Jerusalem indicates the degree of importance attached to
importance the Melchizedek episode by this text. As king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek
might be perceived as granting a royal welcome to Abraham: one monarch greets
another and, if the author of the Apocryphon envisaged Melchizedek as giving tithes
to Abraham, then the event may be understood as a proleptic handing over of the
citys ownership to Abrahams descendants. For a discussion of place in this text, see
D.A. Machiela, Each to His Own Inheritance. Geography as an Evaluative Tool in the
Genesis Apocryphon, Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008), pp. 5066.
386 chapter nineteen
22
The manuscript is quite clear on this matter: the Aramaic reads .
23
LXX of Gen. 14:18 rendered the Hebrew singular bread as a plural form ,
probably meaning loaves; this may have suggested the idea of a meal, which later gen-
erations developed. Certainly the notion that Melchizedek had provided a substantial
feast for Abraham and his men was known to Josephus, Ant. I. 181. See further L.H.
Feldman in (ed.) Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3,
Judean Antiquities 14 (Brill: Leiden, 2000), p. 68. Significantly, Genesis Rabbah 47:8
describes how Abraham would set out food and drink for travellers, and would then
instruct them to utter a blessing of the Almighty: this is said with reference to the title
possessor of heaven and earth. See further below, p. 390.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 387
24
See A. Shinan, Midrashic, Paytanic and Targumic Literature, in (ed.) S.T.
Katz, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 4 The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 687688, who dates the final
form of the midrash to around 425 ce (p. 687); J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic
Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation, 3 vols (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985) offers a brief commentary on the text.
388 chapter nineteen
25
The Melchizedek episode is regarded by many modern commentators as some-
thing of an intrusion into the narrative, the priest-kings generosity at this point con-
trasting with the niggardly attitude of the king of Sodom: see Sarna, Genesis, p. 109.
This contrast is heightened if, as is permissible, the opening waw of Gen. 14:18 is
treated as an adversative, to yield: But Melchizedek, the king of Salem . . ..
26
Adonizedek was king of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Jos. 10:1).
27
See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 173.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 389
Melchizedeks status as a Jew is a sine qua non for the next step
taken by the midrash. The commentary moves to the matter of the
bread and wine which Melchizedek brought out: here R. Samuel b.
Nahman and the Rabbis offer differing expositions. R. Samuels view
we have already encountered: it is clearly focused on Melchizedek, to
whom, says the Rabbi, high priestly halakhot were revealed, and who
was thus by implication a high priest. The bread, it will be remembered,
R. Samuel referred to the Bread of the Presence, the wine to the Temple
libations. At once, however, we hear the view of the Rabbis juxtaposed:
Torah was revealed to him, as it is said (Prov. 9:5) , Come, eat of my
bread, and drink of my wine which I have mingled . The text gives no
indication whether these views are complementary or in opposition to
one another: as they stand, they serve to depict Mekchizedek as either
high priest, or as one proffering Torah, and thus a Torah scholar, or
as combining both these great offices in his own person. The exegesis
of the Rabbis, however, implies that the reader of the midrash knows
that Melchizedek can be identified as Shem, who in Rabbinic tradition
is known as Shem Rabbah (see b.Sanh. 108b), a great scholar learned
in Torah who presides over a famous Beth Ha-Midrash. Indeed, Gen.
Rab. 26:3 records that Shem was born circumcised, and we learn from
Gen. Rab. 30:6 that he had oversight of the sacrifices offered when
Noah emerged from the ark. Within this single midrashic work, there-
fore, Shem is both priest and Torah scholar, just as Melchizedek is
presented in this section. Thus a strong impression is created that
Melchizedek is both high priest and Torah scholar, and that the two
offices complement each other.
The introduction of Torah at this juncture, however, will eventu-
ally lead the midrash in another direction. The quotation of Prov. 9:5
gives us the words of lady Wisdom as she invites the uninstructed to
her house with its seven pillars (Prov. 9:14). Jewish exegetes routinely
identified lady Wisdom with Torah;28 and Wisdom herself, in Prov.
8:22, famously declared that the Lord had possessed or acquired her
(the Hebrew verb qnh is used) as the firstfruits of His way. Thus it
28
This identification is implicit in Scripture at Deut. 4:6, where the divine com-
mandments are described as your wisdom, and explicit from at least as early as
the time of Ben Sira 24:23. See P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben
Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 336; J. Marbck, Weisheit
im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1999), pp. 5893.
390 chapter nineteen
29
The blessing formula which Abraham requires his guests to utter runs: Blessed
be the God of the Universe, from whose own things we have eaten! An anonymous
statement in m.Hagigah 2:1 should be recalled here, to the effect that everyone who
has no regard for the honour of his creator, qwnh, it would have been better for him
if he had not come into the world.
30
On the meaning of miggn, see Rashis commentary ad loc. which cites Hos. 11:8
as also having the sense of hand over. The same meaning is given to this verb by LXX,
and Targum Onqelos. Gen. Rab. 43:9 reads: R. Huna said: Who turned your enchant-
ments against your enemies. R. Judan said: How many enchantments did I make to
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 391
lowing section deals with the tithe, Gen. Rab. 47:10 indicating that
Abraham had paid tithe to Melchizedek without, however, naming the
priest; and the exegesis makes it clear that blessings which accrued
to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the future had been granted by vir-
tue of that original tithe.31 With Gen. Rab. 47:11, Melchizedek seems
finally to have disappeared. A question is posed: from where did Israel
merit the priestly blessing ordered by Numb. 6:2427? Three differ-
ent answers are set forth, all of them based on Gods instruction to
Aaron and the priests in Numb. 6:23, Thus you shall bless the sons of
Israel. R. Judah explains that Abraham had merited this priestly bless-
ing, since God had said to him (Gen. 15:5) Thus shall your seed be. R.
Nehemiah selected Isaac as the source of the privilege, since Abraham
at the Akedah had said of him (Gen. 22:5) I and the lad will go as far
as thus .32 The rabbis attribute the privilege to Jacob, because God
had ordered Moses before the giving of the Torah at Sinai (Exod. 19:3)
Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob. The priestly blessing, there-
fore, was merited for Israel by one of the three Patriarchs: Melchizedek
plays no part in it. It is therefore striking that the section ends with
an implied flashback to Melchizedek which has darker connotations,
tinged with hints of suffering. It is worth quoting in full.
When shall I make your children as great as the stars (Gen. 22:17)?
R. Eliezer and R. Jose b. R. Hananiah: R. Eliezer said, When I am revealed
over them by means of thusThus you shall say to the sons of Jacob
(Exod. 19:3). R. Jose b. R. Hananiah said: When I am revealed against
their Leaders (manhgm) by means of thus, as it is said (Exod. 4:22),
Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My first-born.
R. Jose alludes, of course, to the time of the redemption from Egypt:
God will make Abrahams children as numerous as the stars when
bring them under your power! They had been friends of one another; one would give
documents to another, one would give gifts to another; but I made them rebel against
one another, so that they came and fell beneath your power.
31
Commenting on he gave to him a tithe of all, Gen. Rab. 43:10 declares: R. Jose
b. R. Zimra said, From the strength of that blessing the three great tent-pegs who are
in the world, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did eat with Scriptural citations supporting
the exegesis. The emphasis here is on the rewards received by all three Patriarchs as a
result of this tithe. For the description of the Patriarchs as tent-pegs, see E.E. Urbach,
The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), vol. 1,
pp. 499500; vol. 2, pp. 910911.
32
For Rabbinic interpretation of this somewhat obscure verse elsewhere, see Bowker,
The Targums, p. 213; and M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated,
with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), pp. 7879.
392 chapter nineteen
Moses confronts the cruel Pharaoh with the declaration that Israel is
Gods first-born son. The presence of this powerful exegesis is explained
by an earlier comment in Gen. Rab. 43:7, which we have not yet exam-
ined. It is the last of the explications of the bread and wine which
Melchizedek offered to Abraham, but it is attached to the description
of Melchizedek as priest of God Most High The exegetical interest,
however, is entirely on the wine which Melchizedek brought forth.
R. Abba b. Kahana and R. Levi: R. Abba b. Kahana said: All the wine
which is written of in Torah makes a bad stain, apart from this instance.
R. Levi said: Even this instance we do not exempt from its (the stains)
power, because from there God called out to him, And they shall enslave
them and afflict them for four hundred years (Gen. 15:15)
R. Levi understands wine, whenever it is mentioned in Scripture, as
always connoting some rem, stain: it has negative qualities. He
insists that the wine which Melchizedek brought to Abraham is no
exception: from this point onwards, R. Levi insists, Israels afflictions
began, for Abrahams meeting with Melchizedek announced the suf-
ferings and slavery which the Jews would endure under the Pharaoh
in Egypt. Thus Melchizedek, despite his appearance at a time of vic-
tory and triumph, might be understood also as a harbinger of future
sufferings, which in their turn would be reversed by God with Moses
proclamation that Israel is the Lords first-born son. In all this, it is not
difficult to see a restrained, but powerful attack on the Roman lead-
ers who are enslaving and persecuting Israel, even as Genesis Rabbah
reaches its final form. The oblique, sophisticated exegesis may have the
Christian Church in its sights as well.
The hesitation displayed in the last sentence is the result of awareness
that Jewish engagement with Christian claims appears perhaps more
clearly in midrashim other than Genesis Rabbah, and in texts where
Melchizedeks presence is merely implicit. An important example of
this is afforded by the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Shirta 9 lines 118126
commenting on Exod. 15:16, the people whom You have possessed,
am z qnt. We are told that four are called qinyn, possession, of
which the second is the land of Israel. The proof adduced for this is
Gen. 14:19, Gods title as possessor of heaven and earth being under-
stood as possessor of heaven and the Land (of Israel). The speaker of
those words was, of course, Melchizedek; but his name is not men-
tioned in the whole of the exposition. The same line of thought is pur-
sued in a slightly different manner in Sifre Deut. 309, commenting on
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 393
33
It is possible to read a similar understanding of Melchizedeks words in TO
of Gen. 14:19, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, whose possession [ ]is
heaven and earth, if one translates the ambiguous final word in this sentence, ,
as and the Land. The word qinyan itself is a clear indication of ownership: God has
acquired for himself these things by purchase, as it were. The list of four possessions
given by Mekhilta recalls lists of items created before the creation of the world given
in b.Pes. 54a; Ned. 39b; they include the people Israel, the Torah, and the Temple, and
may well have served their purpose in debates with Christians: see Urbach, The Sages,
vol. 1, pp. 527529.
34
For my earlier essay on Melchizedek in the Targum, see above, note 14.
35
Aramaic text cited from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. I The Pentateuch
according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). Translations are mine.
394 chapter nineteen
he avoids stating directly that Melchizedek was a priest; but the term is
used consistently elsewhere by this Targum to refer to the priestly ser-
vice in the Temple (e.g., of Aaron and his descendants at Exod. 28:1).
Possibly the word involves a pun on the name of Shem: such a
learned reference would certainly be in keeping with what we know
of Onqelos and his exegetical procedures.36 In Gen. 14:19, Onqelos
stays close to the Hebrew until the divine title possessor of heaven
and earth is used. For this, the Targum refers to God Most High,
whose possession, property (qinyaneh) consists of heaven and earth;
an equally valid translation of this phrase would be . . . whose posses-
sion, property, consists of the Land (of Israel).37
Targum Neofitis opening statement at Gen. 14:18 is of the utmost
importance.38 It runs as follows: And the king Zedek, the king of
Jerusalem, that is, Shem Rabbah, brought out bread and wine; and he
was priest ministering in the high priesthood before God Most High.
Zedek appears as the key element in the priests name, and is remi-
niscent of the comment in Gen. Rab. 43:7, that the place Jerusalem
makes its inhabitants zedek, righteous. Melchizedeks explicit iden-
tification with Shem, by now familiar, would activate in the mind of
the reader who knew this Targum well the story of Rebecca who, preg-
nant with the fighting twins Esau and Jacob, went to seek mercy from
before the Lord at the study house of Shem Rabbah (Targum Neofiti of
Gen. 25:22). As priest he ministers, the same Aramaic term
which Onqelos had used to describe his activity. His high priestly sta-
tus is explicit, and fits well with the tradition that high priestly rules
had been revealed to him.39
36
See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 6 (Edinburgh:
& Clark, 1988), pp. 6869. It would also hint at the antiquity of the equation
of Melchizedek with Shem, since Targum Onqelos is likely to have been completed
around the time of the Second Revolt.
37
See above, note 33.
38
Aramaic text cited from (ed.) A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo I Gnesis
(Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968). For valu-
able notes on this Targum of Genesis 14:1820, see B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1. An
Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including full Rabbinic Parallels (New Yor: Sepher-
Hermon Press, 2000), pp. 139140.
39
The notion that this Targums description of Melchizedek as ministering in the
high priesthood might date from post-Talmudic times has been convincingly ques-
tioned by A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo II Exodo (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1970), pp. 76*78*. See further R. le Daut,
Le titre Summus Sacerdos donn Melchisedech est-il dorigine juive?, Recherches de
Science Religieuse 50 (1962), pp. 222229.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 395
40
For Memra in the creation narratives as expounded by Targum Neofiti, see
especially D. Muoz Leon, Dios-Palabra. Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco
(Granada: Institucion San Jeronimo, 1974), pp. 144167.
41
The phrase the language of the House of the Sanctuary referring to Hebrew is
not uncommon in Targum Neofiti, for example at Gen. 2:19; 22:1; 31:47; 35:18; 45:12;
Exod. 3:4. This Targum explicitly states that Hebrew is the language of creation at
Gen. 11:1.
42
For the date and provenance of the single manuscript of this Targum, see
M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes,
The Aramaic Bible 1A (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), pp. 79; B.B. Levy, Targum
Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986),
pp. 110.
43
Aramaic text cited from E.G. Clarke, W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ:
Ktav, 1984); translations are mine.
396 chapter nineteen
had constructed on leaving Eden, and on which Cain and Abel had
offered sacrifice (PJ of Gen. 8:20). This altar features also in Gen. Rab.
34:9, which records that it was located in Jerusalem. Melchizedek and
this altar are links which take us back to origins, to the creation of the
world and the first representative of humanity. The Targums explica-
tion of Melchizedeks name as the righteous king confirms this, as is
clear from its interpretation of Gen. 14:19 when Melchizedeks bless-
ing of Abraham is made to speak of God Most High, who on account
of the righteous ones created/possessed acquired, heaven and earth.
The notion that the world was created for the sake of the righteous
is widespread in Rabbinic Judaism.44 In this Targum, Melchizedeks
own status as righteous is thus directly linked to the creation of the
universe and its purpose as brought into existence for those who, like
Melchizedek, are righteous.
To these observations should be two further important exegetical
details. First, at Gen. 14:13, Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the one who
escaped to tell Abraham that his friends had been taken captive with
Og, who out of the giants who had died in the Flood had been res-
cued; and he had ridden upon the ark . . .; his plan was to ensure that
Abraham was also taken captive by them. The escapee is identified as
Og also at Gen. Rab. 42:78; Deut.Rab. 1:35, and by this means the
exegetes lead us to understand that Abraham at that time was threat-
ened with truly hostile and malicious forces. The last remnant of the
wicked giants, who had helped to cause the great Flood, comes into
direct conflict with him.45 Melchizedek, who is also Shem, is thus to
be seen as the representative of righteous humanity such as it was
before the Flood, a righteous chosen humanity selected by God in his
covenant with Noah, a covenant made with a sacrifice which Shem-
Melchizedek, as priest, had co-offered.
Second, the same Targum verse tells us that it was the eve of
Passover when Og arrived, to find Abraham busy making mazzot,
the unleavened bread for the Festival.46 This is confirmed when the
44
See the sources cited by M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated,
with Introduction and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 1B (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992),
p. 58.
45
The giants were deeply implicated in the causes of the Flood, according to many
post-biblical Jewish writers: see (e.g.) Hebrew text of Ben Sira 16:7; Baruch 3:3638;
Wis. Sol. 14:6; 3 Macc. 2:4; Damascus Document 2:1621.
46
Pseudo-Jonathan has a particular interest in the Passover: see the illuminating
study of P.. Bengtsson, Passover in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis. The Connection
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 397
Targum arrives at verse 15 with its account of the night raid made by
Abraham on the kings. The opening words of the Hebrew are ambigu-
ous: and might be translated as either the night was
divided for them, or he divided the night for them, or at night, he
deployed against them. Pseudo-Jonathan interprets as follows:
And the night was divided for them on the way: half (of it) fought with
the kings; and (the other) half was stored up to smite the first-born of
Egypt.
Abrahams victory over the kings, then, this Targum evidently viewed as
part of a larger process which would be completed when the Passover
was celebrated at the time of the Exodus, on the night when the Lord
would smite the first-born of Egypt, but would miraculously spare the
first-born of Israel: the division of the night is similarly explained in
Gen.Rab. 49:3. These interpretations depend on Exod. 12:29, which
states that God went out to smite the Egyptian first-born at midnight,
literally, at half of the night; so Gen. 14:15s reference to the division
of the night could easily be associated with the first Passover and its
redemption. Melchizedek, high priest and Torah scholar who has sur-
vived the Flood as representative of those chosen by God to re-populate
the world, thus meets Abraham at Passover, as Abraham returns from
a defeat of enemies which represents one half of a victory to be com-
pleted in generations to come. Again, one recalls the exegesis of Gen.
Rab., which sets the announcement of Israels Egyptian enslavement in
the time of Melchizedek, but also employs the Melchizedek episode to
announce the redemption of Israel, the Lords first-born son.
Conclusion
origins long before the days of the Church, in attempts to solve serious
difficulties presented by Scripture: why did Melchizedek the priest first
utter a blessing of the man Abraham, and only then of his Creator? We
have noted that biblical evidence might be seen as presenting two pos-
sible but contrasting answers to this question, one of which is repre-
sented by the Talmud, whose reserve towards Melchizedek is reflected
in much earlier times by the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon. We consid-
ered the identification of Melchizedek with the Patriarch Shem, com-
mon in the Rabbinic texts. Again, this might be pressed into service
as a means of casting doubt on Christian biblical exegesis in a limited
kind of way;47 but it is perhaps better understood in tandem with the
presence of another antediluvian figure, the left-over giant Og. These
two representatives of the world before the Flood, the world which was
people by Adams descendants, are brought face to face in this episode
against the background of a conflict which represents the first part (the
first half of a night) of Israels redemption from the hands of hostile
and tyrannical slave-masters.
For many of the sources we have examined, Melchizedek is high
priest: he is also king, combining priestly and royal elements in a unique
synthesis which is noted, but not discussed. His city is Jerusalem, when
it is named; but his title melekh shalem speaks also of his perfection
as a model, pious Jew, and exemplar for others. The sense that his
perfection consists in his being born circumcised is clearly articulated
in some, but not all, Rabbinic texts we have examined. While this, too,
might be used to circumvent a Christian theological stance, it does
not seem to require Christianity to account for its origins. The Book
of Jubilees, which tells us virtually nothing about Melchizedek in its
re-written version of Genesis 14, nonetheless insists that the angels
of the Presence and the angels of sanctification were created circum-
cised, and that in this respect the Jewish people are on a par with the
highest orders of angels (Jub. 15:2532). The Qumran Jews held this
book, finally redacted around the middle of the second century bce, in
high esteem.48 Possibly they regarded it as Scripture; and Melchizedek
47
While it provides an ancestry for Melchizedek, and therefore excludes any notion
that he might be an angelic figure, at the same time it strengthens Melchizedeks
priestly status.
48
For a convenient summary of discussion of the date of Jubilees and its place at
Qumran, see J. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London:
T and T Clark, 2002), pp. 196199.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 399
49
An account of Abrahams meeting with Melchizedek would be expected at
Jubilees 13:2427, but there seems to be a lacuna in the text. Surviving witnesses to
the text of Jubilees preserve no mention of Melchizedek, though references to the
tithe remain. The translation of Jub. 13:25 given by O.S. Wintermute in (ed.) J.H.
Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2, p. 84, reads: And he armed the servants of his house . . . upon
Abram and his seed a tenth of firstfruits to the Lord. And the Lord ordained it (as) an
ordinance for ever that they should give it to the priests, to those who minister before
him so that they might possess it for ever.
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Krauss, S. 281, 282, 283, 293, 297, 299, Milgrom, J. 260, 262, 357
302, 329, 337 Milik, J. T. 317, 382
Kugel, J. L. 362, 371, 382, 384 Milikowsky, Ch. 318
Kuiper, G. J. 109, 128 Millar, F. 17, 46, 54, 82, 93, 109, 134,
148, 159, 178, 185, 224, 270, 287, 328,
Lambton, A. K. S. 119 341, 342, 349, 355
Larcher, C. 375 Moore, G. F. 345
Lauterbach, J. Z. 75, 76, 77, 285 Moore, M. S. 36, 56
le Daut, R. 4, 9 31, 49, 68, 72, 73, 87, Muoz Leon, D. 395
95, 102, 122, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, Murphy, F. J. 17
128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 138, 140, 143, Murray, R. 86
144, 147, 163, 170, 175, 179, 182, 188,
190, 199, 201, 203, 204, 207, 210, 213, Nautin, P. 295
228, 240, 242, 244, 260, 261, 265, 274, Naveh, J. 263
282, 300, 301, 319, 323, 326, 334, 337, Nel. P. J. 377
394 Neusner, J. 35, 65, 81, 105, 235, 236,
Leaney, A. R. C. 274 238, 240, 249, 253, 301, 365, 387
le Boulluec, A. 348, 349, 350, 351 Newsom, C. 273
Lebram, J. C. H. 346 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 53, 270, 342
Lcuyer, J. 308 Niehoff, M. 171
Leloir, L. 86 Nitzan, B. 48, 262, 271, 272, 273,
Levine, E.B. 133, 138, 214, 226, 229 274
Levine, L. I. 365 Nulman, M. 366
Levison, J. R. 36, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 68,
70, 71, 269, 371, 372, 373 Ohana, M. 32, 110, 113, 114, 115, 126,
Levy, B. B. 7, 32, 39, 96, 98, 102, 103, 135, 155, 172, 190, 205, 248
376, 395
Lewis, B. 119 Paret, R. 124
Lewis, J. P. 60 Patai, R. 56, 58, 170
Lim, T. 11 Penna, A. 281, 319
Loader, J. A. 271 Prez Fernndez, M. 72, 112, 113, 114,
Lukyn Williams, A. 307 120, 130, 131, 172, 173, 180, 183185,
Lyons, W. J. 264 187, 188, 193, 194, 198, 202209, 213,
218, 249, 257, 263
Machiela, D. A. 384, 385 Perrot, C. 54, 55, 83, 159
Maccoby, H. 252, 253 Perichon, P. 308
MacDonald, J. 170, 171 Petit, F. 93
Mack, B. L. 25, 342, 352 Petuchowski, J. J. 10
Maher, M. 4, 7, 9, 15, 28, 265, 361, Philonenko, M. 65
364, 365, 382, 391, 396 Potin, J. 167
Mandelbaum, I. 255, 256 Poulsen, F. 354, 355
Marbck, J. 342, 344, 356, 358, 389 Priest, J. A. 357
Marcus, R. 129, 134 Prigent, P. 84
Margoliouth, M. 213, 216, 219, 220, Purvis, J. D. 356
228
Martin-Achard, R. 47 Qimron, E. 252, 254
McKenzie, J. L. 262
McKnight, S. M. 18 Rabin, C. 121
McNamara, M. 3, 36, 37, 41, 49, 176, Rahlfs, A. 275, 292
259, 282, 283, 300, 301, 325, 326, 337, Rahmer, M. 302, 319, 323
395 Ravid, L. 372
Melamed, E. Z. 69, 75 Reeves, J. C. 342
Metzger, B. M. 93 Reifman, Y. 264
Migne, J.-P. 282, 318, 333 Reimer, A. M. 264
404 index of modern authors
Genesis 9:2627 6, 11
1:26 363 9:27 6, 8, 1112
1:28 363 10:8 223
1:29 361 10:911 224
1:30 361 10:21 45
2:6 352 10:10 224
2:7 221 10:11 224226
2:9 361 10:22 386
2:1012 63 11:2 230
2:1013 61 11:7 18586
2:11 352 11:10 13
2:15 362 11:1011 14
2:1617 362 11:28 227
2:18 17879 12:13 269
2:1920 363 12:23 381
2:2123 362 12:5 26, 32
3:17 362 12:7 385
3:7 371 12:8 385
3:14 362 13:34 385
3:16 362, 370 13:16 42
3:17 370 13:8 385
3:1719 58 14 320, 380, 393
3:18 69, 362364, 370 14:2 324, 378
3:19 362, 362364, 366, 14:23 321
36970 14:5 325
3:23 184 14:7 382
3:24 369, 372, 372 14:13 383
3:2425 184 14:14 211, 212, 214, 216,
5:32 383 217, 327
4:3 150 14:15 397
4:5 104 14:16 15
4:7 99 14:1718 356
4:15 101 14:18 3, 8, 15, 379, 380, 386,
6:5 100 388, 394
6:7 60 14:1819 331
6:18 383 14:1820 377, 381, 387
6:19 200 14:1824 3
8:2022 348 14:19 390, 392, 394396
8:21 100 14:20 379
8:22 56 14:21 386
9 61 14:22 47, 329
9:2124 6 15 78
9:22 218 15:2 215, 216
9:24 6 15:23 211
9:25 6 15:5 41
9:26 6 15:6 29
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 407
49:9 39 Numbers
49:10 17475 3:1213 334
49:15 347 6:23 391
49:24 144 6:24 268, 270
49:25 143 6:2426 259, 262
49:26 101, 104, 6:2427 391
121 6:25 270, 273
50:1 104 6:26 266
6:27 276
Exodus 8:1618 334
2:1 197 10:18 102
2:13 204 10:33 346
2:24 78 10:35 3940
3:24 69 10:3536 347
4:13 78 20:14 102
4:22 391 16:1 329
5:8 39 17:4 348
7:7 197 19:110 235, 248
12:13 76 19:2 239
12:23 7677 19:4 241
12:29 397 19:5 243, 244, 249
15:16 392 19:6 244
15:17 347 19:7 245
17:16 275 19:8 246
19:3 391 19:9 246
19:56 20 19:10 247
19:6 13, 167 21:1618 47
20:22 378 23:3 37
20:26 373 23:5 39
20:36 351 23:6 37
23:5 39 23:710 36
24:5 334 23:9 38, 4041
25:22 348 23:10 4142
28:1 394 23:15 37
28:30 349 23:1824 36
28:42 373 23:19 42
29:42 349 23:21 43
30:6 142 23:22 4344
30:3233 351 23:24 39, 45, 50
30:36 142 24:2 37
32:16 254 24:3 38
32:35 254 24:39 36
33:19 276 24:4 37
30:3438 371 24:6 38
30:3738 351 24:7 47
33:20 129 24:8 43, 50
40:20 347 24:9 39, 50
24:15 38
Leviticus 24:1519 36
8:8 349 24:17 4849
14:8 197 24:1819 49
19:24 257 24:19 3940
26:42 78 24:16 37
27:21 349
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 409
Deuteronomy 1 Chronicles
3:11 383 1:17 386
4:6 389 21:15 7677
7:2 276 23:32 247
8:3 366 28:2 347
10:15 347
10:8 365 2 Chronicles
10:17 266 3:1 77
28:57 175
20:19 212 Ezra
12:10 346 9:13 311
12:11 345 10:2 305, 310
16:2 345 10:10 305, 310
17:12 365 10:11 305, 310
18:5 365 10:14 305, 310
20:8 21212 10:17 305, 310
22:15 218 10:18 305, 310
26:2 345 10:1819 311
27:5 378 10:44 305, 31011
27:6 377
28:26 266 Psalms
32:6 393 4:1 276
32:8 186 9:3 379
32:24 274 9:12 379
33 122 9:13 276
33:2 101 25:11 276
33:13 143 29:5 309
34:1 284 29:10 276
32:6 296
Joshua 36:1112 181
10:1 388 36:21 276
50:1 78
Judges 45:13 387
9:5ff. 69 50:2 78
18:29 327 58:5 276
62:11 196
1 Samuel 66:1 276
1:17 175 67:2 267
15:20 275 72:17 174
15:3233 275 76:2 335
22:6 19, 31 76:3 8, 388
31:13 19 76:9 276
79:11 7879
2 Samuel 78:35 378
6:17 346 78:6869 378
87:5 379
1 Kings 91:56 267, 272
8:6 347 91:10 267, 272
8:12 345 91:11 267
17:1 365 97:89 379
18:15 365 101:14 276
110 380, 384
2 Kings 110:1 37980
5:16 365 110:4 3, 377, 380
18:1925 314 118:27 267
18:2835 314 121:7 272
410 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references
Micah 4QFlor
5:1 174 1.6 143
1.67 351
Nahum 4QMMT
1:110 314 Frag. 252, 257
1:23 312, 313, 315 11QBer
1:1011 316 12 271
2:37 316 11QJub
5 270
Zechariah 8.45 270
1:8 304 11QMelch
3 308 l.17 122
3:2 306 16 381, 383,
3.35 304, 316 399
3:4 306 11QPsa 272
6:5 308, 315 11QTemp
6:12 308 Frag. 253
11:1 309 1 QapGen
11:12 308, 315 21.2 385
14:9 22 21.20 385
14:1617 56 20.12 385
14:1619 22 20.3032 191
21.2 385
Malachi 21.20 385
1:64 357 22.6 212
2:11 310 22.13 9, 335,
2:1115 311 385
2:1317 305 22.14 385, 388
2:15 315 22.1415 386
3:1 219
LXX Exodus
Qumran 30:6 349
1QH 30:36 349
8.420 58
11.27 273 LXX Numbers
1QM 19:3 240
17.58 2723
17.9 273 LXX Deuteronomy
1QS 12:9 34647
2.24 271, 273, 278
2.3 272, 273 1 Reigns
2.59 274 22:6 19
8.111 58 31:13 19
11.79 58
1QSb 271 Peshitta
4Q252 1112 Gen 14:14 212
4Q403
1.1.21 273 Tg. Onq.
4Q405 Genesis
13.5 273 3:5 181
4Q510 3:17 183
1.56 272 9:26 6
4Q511 10:21 5
4851 272 12:5 31
4Q510511 272 12:33 3233
14:5 325
412 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references
FTV Deuteronomy
Genesis 26:7 91
2:15 362 34:3 324
3:17 183 Psalms
3:18 364 120:5 118
10:9 14
Isaiah
11:2 224
21:1617 118
12:5 31
14:18 3
Tg. Ps-J.
15:12 103
Genesis
16:5 232
1:21 17778
21:33 30, 3334,
2:7 221
375
2:15 68, 362
22:8 140
2:15 362
22:10 74, 129
3:5 181
22:14 81
3:6 180
24:62 3, 14
3:7 199
25:1 191
3:14 362
25:22 15, 90
3:17 183
25:34 96, 192
3:18 364
27:15 137
3:19 368
27:27 141
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 415
Zephaniah Mark
3:7 286 3:2227 87
Micah 8:3133 87
5:1 174 14:58 359
6:3 286
7:20 286 Luke
10:1720 87
Nahum 19:4142 86
1:2 31213 22:3 87
1:23 315
1:3 313 John
1:10 314 2:20 359
1:11 314 6:5356 74
2:37 315 8:3145 182
Malachi 8:56 86
1:1 310 13:27 87
2:15 312 19:34 74
Zechariah Acts
3:3 304, 306 20:28 74
3:4 304
3:5 305 Romans
6:5 315 3:25 74
9:12 286 4:3 29
4:1012 187
Tg. Psalms 4:11 29
95:11 347 5:9 74
120:5 118 10:13 29
121:6 264 10:915 28
Tg. Job 1 Corinthians
5:7 264 1:24 359
1:30 359
Tg. Song 10:1422 74
3:7 262 11:25 74
4:6 264
8:3 264 Galatians
3:6 29
Tg. Esther
3:7 178 Ephesians
1:7 74
Tg. 1 Chronicles
1:30 116 Colossians
2:3 359
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 419
Hebrews 1 Peter
7:1 4 1:19 74
7:13 3
7:2 9 1 John
7:3 380 1:7 74
7:4 15 3:812 182
9:12 74
9:14 74 Revelation
10:19 74 1:5 74
10:29 74 5:9 74
13:12 74
13:20 74
Rabbinic Texts
Besh. 28 285
7.7278 179 32 17, 31
Shirta 41 185, 362
8.3441 196 66 347
9.11826 392 110c 288
255 264
Amalek 309 393
1.11618 41 352 141
2.44 309 357 285
2.8587 284
3.106ff. 187 Midrash Rabbah
Bahodesh Genesis Rabbah
2.67 196 1.4 174
3.3334 204 7.4 17778
3.12330 196 11.9 177
7.61 196 12.6 65
11.8092 378 14.23 221
14.4 221
Sifra 14.5 221
Mekh. de Milluim 14.89 185
Exod 32.35 254 14.9 362
Lev 8.2 254 16.56 185, 362
19.5 181
Shemini 20.12 138, 199
Lev 9.2 255 20.22 367
Lev 9.7 255 20.24 370
Qedoshim 20:26 368
3.7 217 21.3 179
22.23 185
Mesora 22.4 199
1.12 244 23.7 223
26.3 389
Sifre Numbers 30.6 389
39 260, 261, 266 34.9 59, 396
40 266, 270 36.8 8
41 267, 268, 270 37.4 22526
42 196, 266, 268, 270 37.9 5
52 347 38.13 22729
102 196 39.21 31
123 236242 42/43.2 21213
124 243248 42.4 229
123124 253 42.5 321
134 309 42.6 326
42.7 327, 328
Sifre Zutta 42.78 396
Num 19.2 237, 253 42.8 329
Num 19.4 24142 43.7 392, 394
Num 19.5 253 43.711 387
Num. 19.6 244 42.7 383
Num 19.9 246, 247, 253 43.6 8, 332
43.7 384386, 390
Sifre Deuteronomy 43.8 15, 390
5 288 43.9 390
6 285 43.10 391
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 427
De Sacr. Epistle
4.10 3 245.2 162
5.1 3
Quaestionum S. Augustini in
De Spir. Heptateuchem
2.51 360 1.111 162
Homily Plato
59.4 162 Apology
5 355
Justin Martyr
Laws
Apology
355
1.65 189
Republic
Dial. Trypho 11 355
11.5 189
19.24 189 Plutarch
19.4 3 Life of Romulus
28.25 189 16 45
116 307
116.3 258 Procopius of Gaza
135 93 Comm. in Gen.
139.23 6 35.2 160