Targum & Masora:

Does Targum Jonathan Follow the

Madinhae Readings of Ketiv-Qere?
Willem F. Smelik
University College London
To date no consensus exists about the provenance and dialect of the
so-called Babylonian Targums, Onqelos and Jonathan. Admittedly, the
consensus holds sway that these Targums were composed in the West but
redacted in the East, neatly accommodating arguments in favour of either
provenance, but in point of fact no one knows exactly when this redaction
took place, and the argument is oft repeated without further scrutiny. One
argument in favour of the consensus is based on the dierences between
the Western and Eastern ketiv-qere readings and the light they (may, might,
allegedly) shed on the vexed question of the provenance and textual history
of the Targum to the Prophets (TgJon). In a reversal of the usual interest,
the very reason even for compiling the Masora to begin with, the Masora
is now taken as evidence for the location where the Targum may have been
composed.
The question is far from new.
1
Already in the 19th century, Pinsker
analysed the agreements betweenTgJonand either the Oriental or Western
Qere and argued that the Targum tends to follow the Eastern readings,
which lends support to its Eastern provenancealthough he left the
answer open whether this includes the composition or just the nal redac-
tion. Komlosh concurred and defended the agreement between TgJon
1
Pinsker 1863: 124; Komlosh 1969: 42; Komlosh 1973: 408-409; Gordis 1971: pp. 74-75,
159-66. Note that some instances are not listed in Gordis's appendix, but mentioned in
his discussion. On the ketivqere, see further Tov 2001: 58-63.
1
2 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
and the oriental qere. Gordis, nally, found that his observations tend to
support Pinsker, as he only found four Western readings, all of which are
in the Former Prophets. Gordis surmised that the agreement of TgJon
with the Oriental readings may at least betray the editorial activity of
transmitters in the Babylonian schoolsthe few instances of Western
readings in TgJon, he argues, are the sole surviving traces of its original
composition in the West before the nal redaction in the East. His is an
example of circular reasoning not unknown in Targum Studies, where
the discussion about the dialect and provenance of Onqelos and Jonathan
remains as vexed as ever. A reexamination of the evidence, then, is clearly
required.
1 Previous Studies
The desirability of a fresh study into the agreements between TgJon and
the Easternreadings may be illustratedby typical aws inprevious research
by Pinsker, Komlosh and Gordis. Neither of these authors elaborates
on the method of comparison, which is most unfortunate. Komlosh, in
fact, only lists three examples; Pinsker just a few more; and only Gordis
attempted a comprehensive investigation. His rst example, the fourth
reading adduced by Gordis, is a dicult case. Komlosh and Gordis agree in
their analysis of Jer. 6.6 as certain evidence for an eastern reading in TgJon:
MT !"#$" $%& !'( )$*! #+&! ,+!
TgJon !-." /+0-1, /-!'-( ,!"-2 !' -)+$*3,) ,3#$ ,+!
EQ: -'( / EK: !'( / WK: !'( / TgJon: /-!'-(.
In , the feminine sux refers to Jerusalem, while the masculine refers
to oppression. Or does it? The Hebrew verse has what appear to be
incongruities, for ) 4 $ 5 * 6 ! should have been in the feminine. TgJon has a
plural sux, which is masculinebut the feminine third plural sux
is extremely rare in its dialect, and the masculine used routinely in its
place. In any case, the Targum refers to a silent antecedent, namely the
inhabitants of the city. Can we say TgJon reects the masculine third
person singular sux? No, for it is the plural, it may serve for the feminine,
and the antecedents are confusing in both source and target text.
Allowing room for doubt in the case of Komloshs second example,
which is to be discussed below (Jer. 33.3), his third case, Jer. 48.41, cannot
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 3
be maintainedindeed, Gordis does not include it among his certain
examples, although without further explanation:
2
MT !%*31 3-)78!- 3-+#$! !)('1
TgJon /)2,3+ ,3)78- ,(#( %+"(3+
EQ: -%*31 / EK: !%*31 / WK: !%*31 / TgJon: /)2,3+.
3
One category of ketiv-qere readings concerns a variation between singular
and plural verbs, and a subset of these are among the dierences between
Easternand Westernreadings. At face value TgJonsupports the plural here,
hence agrees with the Eastern qere only. The signicance of this reading,
however, is greatly reduced once we factor in TgJons strategy as regards
singular and plural verbal forms. Although Churgin claimed that TgJon
tends to avoid disparity in number between subject and verb, Sperber
already demonstrated that numerous exceptions to this rule exist.
4
It is in
fact one of the training techniques among rhetorics to change the number
of a given text, as acknowledged by the Tosefta (t. Meg. 3.41).
While far more comprehensive, the analysis of Gordis does not fare
much better despite the fact that he cites fteen (rather than three) in-
stances as certain evidence for the hypothesis that TgJon follows the
Eastern text. Three linguistic errors among these fteen cases will suce
to cast doubt on his conclusions. The rst concerns 2 Sam. 6.23:
MT: !3-8 9-+ )& )'+ !' !+! ,' '-,% 3" '(+8'-
TgJon: !3-8 9-+ )& )'- !' !-! ,' '-,% 3" '(+8'-
EQ: )'+ / EK: )'- / WK: )'+ / TgJon: )'-.
In Gordiss opinion, this reading certainly reects the Eastern text. How-
ever, Aramaic simply has no )'+ as the Eastern Qere and Western ketiv do,
and with one exception TgJon provides the translation )'- whatever the
spelling in its exemplar might have been. The rare exceptions in Aramaic
merely show the inuence of Hebrew. On one occasion TgJon speaks
of )-#8 +)'+ children of rebellion (Isa. 57.4), and SamTg likewise once
reads )'+ !' 3+' she has no child (Gen. 11.30). The derivates of )'+ in
2
Gordis 1971: 104, 159, lists the example among those where the ketiv has an archaic
ending of the feminine thirdpersonplural perfect. Onthis ending, cf. JoonandMuraoka
1996: I, 133.
3
Elision in Eb22: /)23+.
4
Churgin 1907 [=1927]; Sperber 1973: 61-67, 90-92, 99-102, 147-48; Van Staalduine-
Sulman 2002: 101.
4 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
jewish Aramaic dialects as well as Syriac and CPAall may represent Hebrew
inuence.
5
An example of unacceptable evidence is Ezek. 17.14, which Gordis
considers to provide certain evidence for TgJons adherence to the Eastern
qere:
MT !)8&' -3+#" 3, #8%' ,%13! +3'"' !'*% !('88 3-+!'
TgJon !+2'*8' !+8+$ 3+ #:+8' ,"#"#3,' ,') '+)" ,%'2 -('8 +-!8'
EQ: -)8&' / EK: !)8&' / WK: !)8&' / TgJon: !+2'*8' !+8+$.
While TgJon indeed shares with the Eastern qere a masculine third person
pronoun attached to the innitive, this is only to be expected because the
antecedent in TgJon is masculinewhereas 3+#" is feminine in Hebrew.
Whatever TgJon was following here is lost in translation.
A further example in Judg. 13.17, where Gordis claims that TgJon
certainly read the Western text is puzzling:
MT ;-1)"(- ;+#") ,"+ +(
TgJon ;1#$+1- ;8.3* /-8++$3+ +#,
EQ: < 5 # 6 " 5 ) / EK: <+ = # 5 " > ) / WK: <+ = # 5 " > ) / TgJon ; 6 86 .3 > *.
However, the Aramaic noun may be both singular and plural. In any case,
there are not only quite a few Eastern which adopt the reading known
from the qere, but and Pesh agree (!" #$%& '(), !"#$%). Hence the
reading may well be contextual.
2 Categories of Agreement
The list of dierences between the Western and Eastern ketiv-qerereadings
amounts to 111 instances as listed by Gordis. Since in 14 instances, variant
readings in TgJon change the category, the total number of cases discussed
here is 124.
6
For my purposes, they may be categorized as follows:
1. TgJon = Inconclusive:
A large number of instances do not yield any result in the compar-
ison with the Aramaic translation. Note that in other cases, where
5
See Sokolo, DJBA, p. 395; Tal, DSA, p. 346.
6
In Jer. 22.14, Ribera Florit 1992: 146 cites '+'8- as the reading in Eb22. This must be
a typo, which is in any case not found in Ribera Florit 1977: 42: '+':8-.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 5
readings in TgJon might seem to yield another result, we still have
to ask ourselves whether they could not have been brought about by
either translational strategies or extant exegetical traditions. Total:
42 cases.
7
2. TgJon = Eastern qere = Western ketiv:
Another set of examples has TgJon follow the Eastern qere, which
would have been interesting were it not for the fact that the Western
ketiv actually agrees with the Eastern qere, hence the provenance of
the targumic reading, and the question whether it follows the qere
or not, hangs in the balance. Total: 46 cases.
8
3. TgJon = Eastern ketiv = Western ketiv:
A third set of examples concerns those readings where TgJon fol-
lows the Eastern ketiv which agrees with the Western ketiv. If upheld,
these examples negate the notion that TgJon follows the qere. Total:
8 cases.
9
4. TgJon = Eastern ketiv Western ketiv:
More promising are those readings where TgJon agrees with the
Eastern ketiv, which is unlike the Western one. Total: 14 cases.
10
5. TgJon = Eastern qere Western ketiv:
Equally interesting are examples of agreement between TgJon and
the Eastern qere, while the Western ketiv disagrees. Total: 14 cases.
11
6. TgJon Eastern qere Eastern ketiv = Western ketiv:
Finally, it should be noted that a further group, where TgJon agrees
with the Western ketiv but disagrees with both the Eastern ketiv and
the Eastern qere is theoretically possible, but no listings exist. No
cases.
7
Josh. 7.21; 24.8; Judg. 6.25; 11.31; 13.17; 1 Sam. 18.25; 2 Sam. 3.35; 6.23; 1 Kgs 10.22; Isa.
27.6; Jer. 6.6; 8.4; 17.4; 22.14; 32.11, 34; 37.19; 45.1; 51.59; Ezek. 1.13; 9.8; 16.29; 17.7, 14; 18.20; 22.13;
23.19; 23.46; 30.18 MSS; 36.5; 43.26; 46.6 (2x), 21; Hos. 10.11; Joel 2.22; 4.7; Mic. 5.1; Nah. 2.12;
3.8; Hab. 3.19; Zeph. 3.11.
8
2 Kgs 25.12; Josh. 6.5; 8.12; 15.53; Judg 8.3; 1 Sam. 15.6; 2 Kgs 14.13 MSS; 17.4; 18.29 MSS;
Isa. 23.12 MSS; 38.14; 57.10; Jer. 9.21; 22.16; 26.24; 28.17; 29.7; 33.3 MSS; 36.23; 36.23; 49.12;
49.19; Ezek. 11.7; 14.17; 16.46; 16.48; 18.2; 21.19; 26.17; 30.18; 32.16; 40.2; 40.3; 40.25; 42.8; 44.3;
46.8; 48.28; Hos. 4.12; 13.9; 14.5; Joel 1.12; Nah. 3.11; Zeph. 2.7; Zech. 4.10; Mal. 3.22.
9
Josh. 8.13; Judg. 8.22; Jer. 29.22 MSS; 32.12; 48.31; Ezek. 14.17 MSS; Amos 9.7; Mic. 6.5.
10
1 Sam. 25.27; 2 Kgs 14.13; 2 Kgs 18.29; Isa. 23.12; 23.12; 38.14 MSS; Jer. 33.3; 36.23 MSS 1;
36.23 MSS 2; 45.4; Joel 1.12; 1.12 MSS; Zeph. 3.7; Zech. 13.7.
11
Josh. 3.17; 8.13 MSS; Judg. 1.21; 18.9; 1 Sam. 4.15; Jer. 29.22; 48.41; 51.29; Ezek. 5.11; 13.2;
13.17; 22.4; 32.26; Amos 9.7 MSS.
6 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
Before turning to the evidence, we should note that the entire exercise
makes certain assumptions about the possibility that TgJon could follow
certain qere-readings, although these have been left unspoken by previous
scholars. It is questionable whether the translators had a physical man-
uscript with ketivqere readings in its text in the way the later Masoretes
would incorporate them in their copies. The ketivqere readings do not
occur as such in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and while the practice is known
fromAmoraic sources,
12
it is far fromcertain that the readings were already
included in the texts themselves. Prima facie, the Aramaic translations,
which served as an antiphonal text in the oral delivery of miqra and
targum, would be expected to follow the qere if the practice had been
established by the time of composition or redaction of TgJon. Generally
speaking, it has been accepted that TgJon indeed follows the qere.
13
Yet such
generalisations are the problem, and there are notable exceptions to the
rule. More importantly, agreement in form is not tantamount to support
for the qere because the agreement may have arisen through independent
but comparable processes of thought (polygenesis).
A further complication arises when we consider the possible origin of
the Eastern ketivqere. The dichotomy of Western and Eastern locations, so
essential for the questionregarding TgJons provenance, may break downif
some of these readings in fact hark back to Western traditions, as they well
may, if indeed they originated in ancient collections of variant readings
as many scholars assume they did.
14
In conclusion, the very comparison
between TgJon and qerereadings implies crucial but unveriable assump-
tions about the exemplar andreading practice underlying the text of TgJon,
calling the whole exercise in serious doubt. Only if the results very clearly
fall to one side may the comparison even survive such inherent aws.
In the following analysis, I have taken the consistency of TgJon into
account albeit without necessarily expecting consistecy throughout TgJon.
The existence of a bilingual concordance does facilitate the comparison of
various translational equivalences. I have also paid attention to translation
strategies in TgJon, which qualify, and often exclude, certain instances.
12
See Tov 2001: 59.
13
Cf. Van Staalduine-Sulman 2002: 707.
14
I amgrateful to Philip Alexander for bringing this complication to my attention. For
the assumptions about the origin of these readings, see Tov 2001: 58-63.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 7
I have not discounted those examples in which the dierence between
qere and ketiv is that of two graphically very similar letters, hence can be
accounted for by scribal error. It is possible that a reading in TgJon also
came about as a result of anerror inthe exemplar. Since such evidence does
not exist, and it would be unlikely that all such instances reect Hebrew
variant readings now lost to us, I have not discarded such instances.
However, if the total of relevant cases turns out to be very small, such
scepticism may have to given greater weight.
Finally, the absence of exclusively Western readings should be born in
mind: the evidence only culls instances where the Eastern qere diers; we
have no comparble list of qere-readings which only occur in the Western
text.
3 Results
Following the categories outlinedabove, withthe exceptionof the last since
there is no comparable list of dierences as mentioned, we may summarize
the ndings as follows.
3.1 No Result
Due to the dierent nature of source and target text, and their respective
languages, there is a considerable body of examples that do not return any
meaningful result: at least 40 examples out of 111 belong in this category.
15
For example, in Ezek. 18.20 we nd the following: EQ: ,+! / EK: ,-! / WK:
,+! / TgJon: ,-!. Although arguably TgJon agrees with the Eastern ketiv, in
reality this is not correct because the Hebrew antecedent, %*1, is feminine,
but the Aramaic equivalent %1, is masculine. A subtle case is found in Jer.
36.23:
MT #%, %,! ', ;'%!- #*0! #&3" !&#$+ !&"#,- 3-3') %'% +)-!+ ,-#$( +!+-
2,! '& #%, %,! '& !'.8! '( 93 )& 2,! ',
TgJon ,#8-.') ,#-1' +8#- ,#*0 '+8?," &?" &"#,- /+7* 3'3 +)-!+ +#$ )( !-!-
15
Josh 7.21; 24.8; Judg 6.25;11.31; 1 Sam. 18.25; 2 Sam. 3.35; 6.23; 1 Kgs 10.22; Isa. 27.6; Jer.
6.6; 8.4; 22.14; 22.14 (Var); 32.11, 34; 37.19; 45.1; 51.59; Ezek. 1.13; 9.8; 16.29; 17.7; 17.14; 18.20;
22.13; 23.19; 23.46; 30.18 MSS; 36.5; 43.26; 46.6; 46.21 Hos. 10.11; Joel 2.22; 4.7; Mic. 5.1; Nah.
2.12; 3.8; Hab. 3.19; Zeph. 3.11.
8 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
+#8-. '&) ,#-1 '& ,3'+.8 '( 38+'%) )&
EQ: !&#$+ / EK: !&#$- / WK: !&#$+ / TgJon: & 4 ? 6 ".
The dierence between the main text and the Eastern qere is that between
a repetitive action expressed by a yiqtol-form and a past tense expressed
by the qatal (if the latter is not a socalled inverted perfect). Sperbers main
text reads a participle, supported by the Babylonian Eb22, but has no
sux. The participle tends to support the aspect of repetitive action.
16
The
sux has been restoredobject suxes to the participle are attested, but
not commonin S702 and S12 in the shortened form !&?" and in I702
in the long form ,!&?".
17
However, two Yemenite (Y714, Y733) have
the pael perfect without a sux &?".
18
The interpreter, trying to emulate
the iterative aspect of the past tense imperfect, chooses a participle but
does not reect the suxed personal pronoun, because in Aramaic object
suxes are rarely attached to participles.
19
This grammatical sensitivity
explains its rare omission in a translation that otherwise tends to represent
every lexeme in its source text. It is also quite obvious why Western
witnesses add the sux, as they found it in their Hebrew source text, and
in the late medieval period a proper sense of grammatical correctness may
be assumed to have disappeared. But the Yemenite variant reading in this
scenario must be a correctionof tense without restoring the sux. It hardly
reects the Eastern ketiv, because it does not represent the waw either. It
therefore would seem to reect a purely grammatical change without any
inuence from the Masoretic tradition.
Variants of spelling are to be disregarded because they may have been
changed at any point during the course of textual transmission. In Jer.
29.22, the name Ahab is spelled defectively as "2,(-, the only occurrence
out of 93 times the name appears in MT. The Eastern qere reverts the
spelling to its normal plene self, and TgJon complies. Spelling, however,
16
Check Korpel, De Moor and Sepmeijer 1998: 195-220; check S. Bombeck, Das
althebrische Verbalsystem aus aramischer Sicht: Masoretischer Text, Targume und Peschitta
(Europische Hochschulschriften, XXIII/591; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997).
17
The sigla for manuscripts of TgJon follows the proposal devloped by the Targum
Institute in Kampen, The Netherlands, which is under consideration for universal
adoption by the IOTS (International Organization for Targum Studies).
18
That the pael is no error follows fromboththe pael perfect in36.24 inthese witnesses,
where the others have the peal perfect, and the perfect of +8#- in36.23, continuing the tense
of the variant under consideration.
19
Dalman 1960: 380.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 9
was not yet governed by a national institution that voted over the preferred
or prescribed modes of spelling, issuing guidelines and normative lists
and creating more problems than hitherto existed. In any case, almost
all of Sperbers witnesses support the defective spelling for TgJon in this
instance only: "2,(- (Y714, Y733, S702, S12, I705, R10, R11). The plene
spelling may have been reintroduced at any one point partly because it
so neatly dierentiates between the name, Ahab, and the noun fathers
brother.
Dierences of gender between ketiv and qere, wherever the gender of
a Hebrew noun may have been ambiguous over the centuries, cannot be
cited either.
20
Problematic, too, are instances with and without the denite
article in Hebrew. This problem lies at the heart of the controversy about
the dialect of Onqelos and Jonathan. If these Targums reect, to some
extent, the correct use of the determined state and absolute state of nouns,
they have to be dated to the second century . As things are, both Targums
sometimes seem to adhere to the old rules, and sometimes throw any
discrimination between these forms out of the window.
21
One category of ketiv-qere readings concerns a variation between sin-
gular and plural verbs, including Jer. 48.41 discussed above. These dif-
ferences should be disregarded in the quest for TgJons provenance or
development. Another example occurs in Jer. 51.29 :
MT !8%' '"" @#, 3, 9-%' !-!+ 3-"%28 '"" '& !8$ +(
TgJon -)7' '"") ,&#, 3+ !,-%' +-+) ,3"%28 '"" '& ,8$ +#,
EQ: -8$ / EK: !8$ / WK: !8$ TgJon: , 6 8 6 $.
Komlosh does not cite this instance. An example of a further type of
unreliable evidence is found in Amos 9.7:
MT ',#%+ +1" +' 93, 9++%( +1"( ,-'!
TgJon ',#%+ +1" +8)$ /+"+%2 /-3, /+8+2# /+1"( ,'!
EQ: 3+" / EK: +1" / WK: +1" / TgJon: +1"
Hebrew3+" equivalent to TgJons ,#", or vice versa, Hebrew/" represented
by TgJon ,3+" occurs throughout TgJon, and cannot be taken as evidence
20
This, in fact, applies to Ezek. 14.17.
21
For example, in Ezek. 18.2, we nd: EQ: 9+1"! / EK: 9+1" / WK: 9+1"! / TgJon: ,+1"-.
For the grammar, see Dalman 1960: 188; Kuty 2005.
10 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
for any agreement with Masoretic traditions. I am inclined to consider the
presence or absence of the copulative - in the same way.
22
3.2 TgJon = Eastern qere = Western ketiv
If TgJon originated in the East, or its compliance with the has been
carefully coordinated, its disagreement with the Eastern ketiv is relevant.
Take, for example, Josh. 8.12:
MT #+&' 9+8 +&! /+"- ', 3+" /+" "#, 93-, 9%+-
TgJon ,3#$' "#&8 +& /+"- ', 3+" /+" ,18( /-!3+ +-%-
EQ: ', 3+" / EK: /-, 3+" / WK: ', 3+" / TgJon: ', 3+".
Of course, we cannot infer anything from this category unless we have
established that TgJon should comply with the Eastern text, beit qere or
ketiv. It should also be noted, as Gordis points out, that Origen writes
Bethaun sub asterisk.
23
This means that what is now known as the Eastern
ketiv was known to him in third c. Palestine.
In a number of cases where variant readings contradict the evidene
of the majority of witnesses, we seem to encounter a phenomenon that is
peculiar for the JewishAramaic Bible translations: a correctionof the target
text after its parallel transmitted source text. At rst, our evidence for Isa.
38.14 would seem to be ambiguous:
MT !1-+( !.!, A7*7, /( #-.& 0-0(
TgJon !1-+( 3+8+!1- 3+*+71 /+( A+718- )+2,) ,*&(
EQ: 0-0( / EK: 0+0( / WK: 0-0( / TgJon: ,+0-0(
The Eastern ketiv has the 0+0 common swift (Apus apus),
24
while its qere
substitutes the more commonreading 0-0horse. Since the latter meaning
makes no sense in its context, we either have a homonym sus denoting a
birdbecause of the verb A*7 chirp and the parallels #-.& crane and !1-+
doveor a scribal error for 0+0 common swift. In Jer. 8.7, the ketiv has
0-0 but the qere (Western and Eastern) reads 0+0.
TgJon generally supports the Eastern qere (= Western ketiv) with ,+0-0(
(I705 reads the Hebraism0-0), but the Yemenite witness Y714 has ,*&( as a
22
Cf. Joel 1.12: EQ: '( / EK: '(- / WK: '( / TgJon: '(. Also note that S12 and S702 read
'(- here.
23
Gordis, Text in the making, p. 205 n. 786.
24
HALAT, III, p. 710.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 11
bird. The latter reading may seemto support the Eastern ketiv, but is pecu-
liarly generic as a translation. Indeed, in TgJon Jer. 8.7 the 0+0 is equivalent
to ,+(#-( goose, or perhaps crane, as in Pesh &'()*(.
25
Given the unied
nature of the Targum to the Latter Prophets, with frequent examples of
associative and complementary translations between the individual books,
the specic translation ,+(#-( would have been expected in Isaiah, too.
In combination with the rather too generic translation of this Yemenite
witness, it eems likely that a later tradent, whose exemplar had 0+0 in the
Hebrew, realised that Aramaic ,+0-0 did not cut it, although he did not
have the learning to specify the bird in question.
This example, then, conrms the observationthat scribes continued to
gauge the Aramaic translation after their Hebrew exemplar. Whether that
exemplar was the written or oral text is impossible to say. Since the original
reading is that of the majority here, which agrees with both the Eastern
qere and the Western ketiv, the evidence is inconclusive for the question of
TgJons provenance.
3.3 TgJon = Eastern ketiv = Western ketiv
If TgJon agrees with both the Eastern and Western ketiv (over against the
Eastern qere) that is signicant, since TgJon tends to follow the qere in
general, hence exceptions are marked. It should be restated, however, that
TgJons testimony should be qualied in terms of language dierence and
translational strategies. An example can be found in Josh. 8.13:
MT &%-!+ ;'+- #+&' 9+8 -"$& 3,- #+&' /-*78 #%, !128! '( 3, 9&! -8+%+-
$8&! ;-3" ,-!! !'+'"
TgJon '?,- ,3#$' "#&8 !+18( 3+- ,3#$' ,1-*78) ,3+#%8 '( 3+ ,8& -,+-%-
,#%+8 -." ,-!! ,+'+'" &%-!+
EQ: +&' / EK: #+&' / WK: #+&' / TgJon: ,3#$'.
TgJon clearly agrees with the Eastern and Western ketiv over against the
Easternqere, but there are complicating factors. According to BHS, pc
in fact have the qere in their main text. To complicate matters further, the
qere of +& for #+& is standard for the rst occurrence of #+& in Josh. 8.16 (but
25
Sokolo, DJBA, p. 566; cf. Payne Smith 1903: 211. Pesh has the very same equivalents
as TgJon does at this point: +,$'-
.
*/01 &'()*(1
.
&/'/%*21, cf. TgJon ,6 + 5 (#( 5 - ,6 1+ > 1* 4 5 -
, 6 3+ > 110.
12 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
not the second).
26
However, chances are that the qere does not apply to 8.13
but to 8.12, as Margolis argues. In 8.12, cited above, the Yemenite tradition
indeed has ,3#$'with the important exception of Y711, Sperbers base
textswupported by A720, but other Western witnesses of TgJon read +&'
(so S702, I705, R10, S12 and S734). It goes too far in my view to cite this
instance as certainevidence for TgJonfollowing the Westerntext, as Gordis
does. What is interesting about this testimony is that local texts apparently
were adapted after their local exemplarwhether or not the Eastern or
Western reading is more original, this conclusion applies.
Problematic in terms of contents is the instance of Micah 6.5:
MT #-&" /" 9&'" -3, !1& !8- ",-8 ;'8 $'" @&+ !8 ,1 #(? +8&
TgJon #-&" #" 9&'" !+3+ "+3, ,8- ",-8) ,('8 $'" ;'8 ,8 /&( #()+, +8&
EQ+8 / EK: !8 / WK: !8 / TgJon: ,8.
At this point, TgJonwould appear to support the Westerntext which agrees
with the Eastern one. The problem is that in its immediate co-text, the
Western reading is more self-evident than the Eastern qere, hence TgJons
agreement may not be due to either exemplar or reading tradition, but
rather to contextual exegesis.
3.4 TgJon = Eastern ketiv Western ketiv
The second case Komlosh advanced as evidence for TgJons adherence
to the Eastern textthe fth reading that is certain in the opinion of
Gordisis a case where the evidence is more complicated that either
Gordis or Komlosh allow for. The reading is found in Jer. 33.3:
MT 93&)+ ,' 3-#7"- 3-'). ;' !)+.,- ;1&,- +', ,#$
TgJon /+13&)+ ,') /#+:1- /"#"# ;' +-2,- ;3-'7 '+"$,- +8)$ +'7
EQ: 3-#7"- / EK: 3-#71- / WK: 3-#7"- / TgJon: /#+:1- .
Although the dierence between the ketiv and the qere can easily be ex-
plained as a scribal error due to graphical similarity,
27
the agreement
of any translation with one reading over against another is certainly
signicant here. Although arguably 3# B 7 5 " could denote something that
is metaphorically inaccessible,
28
such a meaning is far-fetched and would
26
Margolis 1917: 491-97.
27
See Tov 2001: 243-45; this exchange is not listed among the most frequent ones.
28
So HALAT, I, p. 141.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 13
represent the only use of the lexeme in this way. On the other hand, TgJon
indeed translates the Hebrewexactly as Jer. 48.6 3-#71-, which supports the
hypothesis that TgJon reects the oriental qere,
29
all the more since #:1
never reects Hebrew #7". However, there are two qualications. Some
Hebrewmanuscripts in fact support the qere-reading in their running text,
and one Western witness for TgJon (S702) reads /(+#(- which supports
3# B 7 5 ".
30
It seems likely, although it cannot be proven, that the exception
to the rule, S702s reading, is an adaptation to the reading found in the
Hebrew source text, even though in this that source text is indicated
only by one to four Hebrew lemmata before the translation of each verse.
Such adaptations have been found to exist elsewhere.
31
All in all I am
inclined to accept the conclusions of Komloshand Gordis, but not withthe
qualication of certainly; rather, we have to assume scribal assimilation to
a (parallel transmitted) exemplar (see below).
Another example cited by Gordis as certain evidence, is Jer. 45.4:
MT ,+! @#,! '( 3,- %31 +1, +3&:1 #%, 3,- 0#! +1, +3+1" #%,
TgJon +'+) ',#%+) ,&#, '( 3+- '+:':, ,1, 3+8++$) 3+- #.*, ,1, +3+1") ,!
,+!
EQ: ,+! / EK: ,+! +' / WK: ,+! / TgJon: ,+! +'+).
32
Once more a reading distinct enough to count, although in this case many
support the reading ,+! +' which blurs the picture, since the Targum,
which obviously agrees with the eastern qere, could have been based on a
Western exemplar with this reading. The question is, of course, how the
minority reading in Western is to be explained. Such complicating
Hebrew evidence requires an explanation.
Sometimes, the adjustment may go two ways because it has been
established for both the source and target text. In 2 Kings 14.13 we nd
the following:
MT 3-,8 &"#, !1*! #&% )& 9+#*, #&%" 9'%-#+ 38-2" @#*+- 9'%-#+
33
-,"+-
!8,
TgJon &"#, ,3+-? &#3 )& 9+#*, :"+% &#38 9'%-#+) ,#-%" :#*- 9'%-#+' ,3,-
29
The same HebrewAramaic equivalence occurs in TgJon Jer. 26.3 and 27.3.
30
Eb22 supports the majority reading. See Ribera Florit 1992: 208.
31
Smelik 2003: 79.
32
S706 reads ,-! +'+) but pointed as ,+ > !.
33
The qere for this verb is a singular: "6 4 -, with which TgJon agrees.
14 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
/+8, !,8
EQ: #&%" / EK: #&%8 / WK: #&%" / TgJon: &#38.
Prepositions, of course, are notoriously dicult in many languages. It is
perhaps not surprising to nd that some Hebrew manuscripts read #&%8
!1*! #&% )& 9+#*, fromthe Gate of Ephraimuntil the Corner Gate rather
than !1*! #&% )& 9+#*, #&%" in the Gate of Ephraim until the Corner
Gate. Grammatically, the rst reading is simpler, and it hardly comes as a
surprise to nd that most of our ancient translations support the easier
reading en bloc.
34
But just as the Hebrew texts vary, we nd that there
are some notable exceptions to the rule that TgJon supports the easier
reading: Y716, R1 and R10 read &#3". These witnesses are not normally
closely associated with one another. Hence from a stemmatic perspective,
it would seem unwise to count this example in for TgJon: the agreement,
no doubt, is due to polygenesis. And the reason may be either grammatical
improvement or alternative exemplar reading.
3.5 TgJon = Eastern qere Western ketiv
Among the few more straightforward examples ranks Ezek. 5.11:
MT '-82, ,' +1, 9.- +1+& 0-23 ,'- &#., +1, 9.-
TgJon 9+2#, ,' ,1, A,- +#8+8 0-2+ ,'- ;+&#) A-$3 A-:$, ,1, A,-
EQ: &)., / EK: &#., / WK: &#., / TgJon: A-:$,.
The dierence between the ketiv and the qere is a highly frequent scribal
error. TgJons translation favours the reading &). cut o,
35
as A:$
represents this root seven times in TgJon,
36
and not once &#., which
is represented twice with 2'. shave and twice with &18 withhold,
prevent.
37
TgJon almost certainly reects the Eastern qere at this point,
but it should be noted that the ketiv is problematic; any interpreter would
have been faced with that circumstance. In fact, the translations adopted
34
L
L
, Pesh, Vulg, TgJon. For , where all witnesses support in apart from the
Lucianic group, see Brooke, McLean and Thackeray 1930: 346.
35
So Sperber 1973: 335.
36
TgJon 1 Sam. 2.31; Isa. 10.33; 22.25; Jer. 48.25; 50.23; Ezek. 6.6; Am. 3.14.
37
TgJon Isa. 15.2; Jer. 26.2; 48.37; Ezek. 16.27.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 15
dierent solutions: L (*+,'(%-.) and Pesh (345678), as indicated by
BHS, may reect '&., instead of &#.,.
38
Gordis cites Ezek. 22.4 as certain evidence:
MT ;+3-1% )& ,-"3- ;+8+ +"+#$3-
TgJon ;+3%" /)& ,:8- ;+#"3 9-+ "+#$-
EQ: 3& / EK: )& / WK: )& / TgJon: /)&.
The Hebrew reading in question is a crux, and TgJon may actually reect
another reading in the Hebrew source text from which the translation was
made (the Eastern qere). However, L and Pesh agree with TgJon (/-0
12-234 /-56"7 8!97 '(), 34'/27 &/9: 3;<1 34'
=
<*> *9?@), which calls
the notionof a Masoretic or oral traditionthat underlies TgJoninto serious
doubt. This translation may just as well reect exegesis, which could have
arised independently (polygenesis), or based on common traditions. It is
not strong as evidence for TgJons relationship to the Eastern qere.
Far more problematic are cases where the prepositions ', and '&
interchange, which occurs ve times, as in Ezek. 13.2:
39
MT 9+,"1! ',#%+ +,+"1 ', ,"1! 9), /"
TgJon /:3%8) ',#%+) ,#$% ++"1 '& +"13, 9), #"
EQ: '& / EK: ', / WK: ', / TgJon: '&.
The combination of ,"1 and '& occurs 21 times in MT;
40
the combination
with ', only slightly less with 14 times.
41
TgJon may support the qere here
and in 13.17, but in 42.8 and Mal. 3.22, where it also supports the Eastern
qere, that reading is identical with the Western ketiv. The suggestion of the
evidence is that such variation in prepositions may have been the result of
scribal substitutions, whichdo not reect onthe readings inthe exemplars.
In other words, there is a strong possibility of polygenesis here, and the
evidence cannot be admitted in connection with the provenance of TgJon.
38
Both versions render '&. with these equivalents in Ezek. 16.45 (not in Jer. 14.19, but
such consistency across books is not expected).
39
Ezek. 13.2; 13.17; 22.13 (here the Eastern qere has ',); 42.8; Mal. 3.22.
40
1 Kings 22:8, 18; Jer 25:13; 26:20; Ezek 4:7; 11:4; 13:17; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 34:2; 35:2; 36:6; 37:4;
38:2; 39:1; Amos 7:16; 1 Chr 25:23; 2 Chr 18:7, 17.
41
Jer 25:30; 26:1112; 28:8; Ezek 6:2; 13:2, 16; 21:2, 7; 34:2; 36:1; 37:9, 12; Amos 7:15.
16 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
4 Epilogue
The foregoing analysis demonstrates how hazardous it is to claim that
TgJon follows the Eastern text, whether oral or written. The elimination
of adduced evidence in earlier studies is a trend that receives conrmation
in the detailed analysis of other instances. Only one instance (Ezek. 5.11) of
TgJons agreement with the Eastern qere remains, and such a basis is far too
slender to infer any conclusions. In studies of textual genealogy, a debate
has raged over the balance between weighted quantitative and qualitative
input. At one end of the spectrum, a Neo-Lachmannian approach favours
a rigorous selection of variant readings, regardless of the small quantity
of readings that survives the selection process. Others have argued for the
bias such selection introduces into our evidence. With very little evidence
to go on, some of which is conicting at that, we must bear in mind the
possible distorting inuence of a handful of readings.
On the other hand, the study yielded another far more positive and
perhaps interesting result in the development of the text. Certain read-
ings appeared to have been corrected after the Hebrew source text, and
dierences between ketivqere readings became apparent. Readings some-
times travel up and down genealogical lines, regardless of geographic
boundaries and families of manuscripts, which is one reason why no tree
or stemma of textual witnesses can ever do justice to the vicissitudes and
vagaries of texts in transmission. Readings are not just a function of their
scribes exemplar, but the result of multiple factors. These factors include
independent scribal slips or corrections; available alternatives, whether
marginal, oral or in the form of multiple exemplars; and above all a source
text looming large in the background (or foreground!) which calls for
adaptation of the targum.
The nature of linguistic dierences between the Masoretic Text and
TgJon and translational strategies all render the vast majority of instances
without a voice in the debate about the provenance of TgJon. The remain-
ing instances often reect cases as easily, if not far more convincingly,
explained as a result of polygenesis and extant exegetical traditions. TgJon,
in this scenario, may have been aware of alternative readings which were
not formally written or part of the ketiv-qere traditions. In fact, the results
stand in such a stark contrast to received wisdom that previous claims of
a general agreement between TgJon and the qereor that between other
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 17
versiones and the qereshould probably be reexamined, if the question is
still worth pursuing.
Does Targum Jonathan follow the Eastern qereketiv readings? The
evidence is not just far tooimsy toallowsucha conclusion, but is probably
ill-advised. What may be of interest is that the dierent ketivqere readings
are sometimes eectuated and imposed on Targum Jonathan during the
long process of textual transmission. It stands to reason that collation
of further manuscripts will add to the picture above that was based on
the edition by Sperber, supplemented with the Spanish editions of the
Babylonian fragments by Martnez Borobio and Ribera Florit. If anything,
further examples of travelling variant readings are likely to be added to
those above.
18 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
Bibliography
Bombeck, S.
1997 Das althebrische Verbalsystem aus aramischer Sicht: Masoretischer Text,
Targume und Peschitta (Europische Hochschulschriften, XXIII/591;
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).
Brooke, A.E., N. McLean and H.J. Thackeray
1930 The Old Testament in Greek, Volume II part II. I and II Kings (London:
Cambridge University Press)
Churgin, P.
1907 [=1927] Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (YOS, 14; New Haven: Yale
University Press [repr. New York: Ktav, 1983])
Dalman, G.
1960Grammatik des jdischpalstinischen Aramisch (repr. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schatiche Buchgesellschaft)
Gordis, R.
1971 The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere (New York:
Ktav).
Joon, P., and T. Muraoka
1996 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Subsidia biblica, 14/1; Rome:
Ponticio Istituto Biblico)
Komlosh, Y.
1969 -!+8#+ 9-.#3, Bar-Ilan 7-8: 38-48.
1973 9-.#3! #-," ,#$8! (Tel Aviv: Dvir).
Korpel, M.C.A., J.C. de Moor and F. Sepmeijer
1998 'Consistency with Regard to Tenses: Targum and Peshitta in Two
Samples from Deutero-Isaiah', in Actes du Cinquieme Colloque Interna-
tional Bible et Informatique: Traduction et transmission, Aix-en-Provence, 1-4
September 1997 (Travaux de linguistique quantitative, 65; Paris: Honore
Champion) 195-220.
Kuty, R.
2005 Determination in Targum Jonathan to Samuel Aramaic Studies
3: 187-201.
Margolis, M.
1917 Ai or the City, JQR NS 7: 491-97.
Martnez Borobio, E.
Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx 19
1987 Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Primeros en tradicin babilnica. II. I-II
Samuel (Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 38; Madrid: Instituto de
Filologa).
1989 Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Primeros en tradicin babilnica. II. Josu
Jueces (Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 46; Madrid: Instituto de
Filologa).
1998 Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Primeros en tradicin babilnica. III. I-II
Reyes (Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 63; Madrid: Instituto de
Filologa).
Pinsker, S
1863 Einleitung in das Babylonisch-Hebrische Punktationssystem(Vienna: Phillip
Bendiner).
Ribera Florit, J.
1977 Biblia babilnica: profetas posteriores (Targum) (Salamanca: Varona).
1987Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Posteriores en tradicin babilnica: Isaas
(Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 43; Madrid: Instituto de lologa
del CSIC).
1992 Targum Jonatn de los profetas posteriores en tradicin babilnica: Jeremas
(Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 52; Madrid: Institutode lologa
del CSIC).
1997Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Posteriores en tradicin babilnica: Eze-
quiel (Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 62; Madrid: Instituto de
lologa del CSIC).
Smelik, W.F.
2003 Orality, the Targums, and Manuscript Reproduction, in A. den
Hollander, U. Schmidt and W.F. Smelik (eds.), Paratext and Megatext
in Jewish and Christian Traditions (JCP; Leiden: Brill) 49-81.
Smith, J.P.
1903 A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon).
Sokolo, M.
2003 A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic
Periods (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum, 3; Ramat Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press)
Sperber, A.
19591973 The Bible in Aramaic (5 vols.; Leiden: Brill)
Van Staalduine-Sulman, E.
2002 The Targum of Samuel (SAIS, 1; Leiden: Brill)
20 Drxrr: Txrc s Mxsorx
Tal, A.
2000 A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (HdO; Leiden: Brill).
Tov, E.
2001 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press;
Assen: Royal Van Gorcum; 2nd edn).