Cathcart-Maher, Targumic - and - Cognate - Studies - InHonourMcNamara

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENTSERIES
230
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
John Jarick
Editorial Board
Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum,
John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
Sheffield Academic Press
This page intentionally left blank
Targumic and Cognate

Studies
Essays in Honour of
Martin McNamara
edited by
Kevin J. Cathcart
and Michael Maher
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 230
Copyright 1996 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
Mansion House
19 Kingfield Road
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

by Bookcraft Ltd
Midsomer Norton, Bath
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
ISBN 1-85075-632-5
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
List of Contributors
7
9
11
Parti
TARGUMIC STUDIES
PHILIP S. ALEXANDER
The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory:
Notes on the Development of an Exegetical Tradition
14
LUIS DIEZ MERINO
Onomastica y Toponimia: Targum, Midras y Antiguo Testamento
30
BERNARD GROSSFELD
Tin ]H ^n - 'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes': The Treatment

of this Biblical Hebrew Idiom in the Ancient Aramaic Versions
52
ROBERT HAYWARD
Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the
Pentateuchal Targumim
67
MICHAEL MAKER
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21
81
CELINE MANGAN
The Attitude to Women in the Prologue of Targum Job
100
JOSEP RIBERA
The Image of Israel according to the Targum of Ezekiel
111
Targumic and Cognate Studies
AVIGDOR SHINAN
Post-Pentateuchal Figures in the Pentateuchal Aramaic
Targumim
122
Part II
ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC STUDIES
KEVIN J. CATHCART
The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions
140
EDWARD M. COOK
Our Translated Tobit
153
ROBERT P. GORDON
Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel
163
JOHN F. HEALEY
'May He be Remembered for Good': An Aramaic Formula
177
CARMEL MCCARTHY
Allusions and Illusions: St Ephrem's Verbal Magic in the
Diatessaron Commentary
187
EMILE PUECH
La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)
208
A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

in Targumic and Biblical Studies
229
Index of References
Index of Authors
234
247
PREFACE
This collection of essays by a group of international scholars is intended

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

Irish Academy, he has been the driving force behind the Academy's
committee on biblical and Near Eastern studies, and he has helped to
organize several international conferences in the Academy on various
aspects of biblical studies.
Martin McNamara has also been busy as an editor and has participated
in the production of several important series: he co-edited with the late
Carl Stuhlmueller the twenty-three volumes of the Old Testament
Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. The series The Aramaic
Bible, which is nearing completion, will be familiar to readers of this
volume.
The editors wish to express their thanks to all the scholars who agreed
to contribute to this work. Their readiness to do so was in itself a sign of
their esteem for the scholar whom we honour. As we present their work
to Fr McNamara, we offer him their congratulations and those of the
many other scholars who admire his work, and we wish him many more
fruitful years of scholarly involvement in the many areas in which he is
interested.
We wish to thank Sheffield Academic Press for accepting this volume
for publication, and we are indebted to Anne Spillane of the Department
of Near Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin, who prepared
most of the manuscript.
Kevin J. Cathcart
Michael Maher
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
AnBib
ANET
ATD
BA
BASOR
BETL
BHS
Bib
BibOr
BSOAS
CAD
CBQ
CCSL
CIS
CSCO
EBib
EncJud
EstBib
HTR
HUCA
ICC
IEJ
ITQ
JANES
JBL
JBLMS
JJS
JNES
JSS
JSSSup
JTS
KAI
NSI
Anchor Bible
Analecta biblica
J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd edn
Das Alte Testament Deutsch
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia
Biblica
Biblica et orientalia
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
The Assyrian Dictionary, Chicago
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Corpus christianorum: series latina
Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
Etudes bibliques
Encyclopaedia Judaica
Estudios biblicos
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
International Critical Commentary
Israel Exploration Journal
Irish Theological Quarterly
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
University
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplements
Journal of Theological Studies
H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische
Inschriften
G A. Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions
10
OBO
OCP
OTL
OTS
PL
RB
REJ
RHPR
RevQ
SBLDS
SC
SNTSMS
SPB
TDNT
VC
VT
VTSup
ZAW

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

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

NOTES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXEGETICAL TRADITION*
Philip S. Alexander
Over the centuries the Song of Songs has attracted more comment than
almost any other part of the Hebrew Bible. Even a cursory reading of
the great surveys of the history of Canticles exegesis by Friedrich Ohly
(1958), and, more recently, by Max Engammare (1993) will reveal how
extensive the interest has been.1 This interest reflects directly the problematic nature of the book. On the surface it is totally non-religious: it
* I have benefited greatly from comments I received on a version of this paper
given at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in July 1995, particularly from
Hubert Stadler of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. I intend to return to this subject
more fully at a later date, but I hope that the present preliminary observations will be
a worthy tribute to a scholar who has done so much for biblical studies in Ireland and
world-wide.
1. F. Ohly, Hohelied-Studien: Grundziige einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abenlandes bis zum 1200 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1958);
M. Engammare, Le Cantique des Cantiques a la renaissance: etude et bibliographic
(Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1993). See further, C.D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs
(London: Longman, 1857), pp. 20-102; R.F. Littledale, A Commentary on the Song
of Songs from Ancient and Mediaeval Sources (London: Joseph Masters, 1869), pp.
xxxii-xl; H. Riedlinger,Die Makellosigkeit der Kirche in den lateinischen Hoheliedkommentaren des Mittelalters (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1958); R. Herde, Das
Hohelied in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters bis zum 12. Jahrhundert
(Miinchener Beitrage zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung 3; Spoleto: Centro
italiano di studi sull'alto medioeva, 1968); M.R. Pope, Song of Songs (AB, 7C;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 89-229; E.A. Clark, The Uses of the Song
of Songs: Origen and the Later Latin Fathers', in Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith:
Essays on Late Ancient Christianity (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), pp.
386-427; A.W. Astell, The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1990); E.A. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs
in Western Mediaeval Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1990).
ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory
15
contains not a single mention of the name of God, nor does it refer to
any of the great themes of sacred historythe Torah, the covenant, the
election of Israel. It is full of erotic, sensual, even carnal images. One
recent interpreter has seriously suggested that it could be categorized as
'pornography'. 2 From rabbinic sources it is clear that as late as the
second century CE some still had doubts whether or not Canticles was
inspired scripture.3 But it did, in the end, find a secure place in the canon
of both the Synagogue and the Church, and once there successive generations were faced with the problem of making it an edifying portion of
Holy Writ.
The form of the book, as well as its content, created problems.
Canticles consists totally of short, unrubricated passages of direct speech.
There is no narrative framework to tell us who is speaking, who is being
addressed, or the context in which the words are uttered. All this has to
be deduced from clues embedded within the speech itself. Bible commentatorsand indeed literary critics in generaldisplay, on the whole,
a prosaic mentality and consequently do not cope well with lyric poetry.
They are most comfortable with narratives, and as a result much of the
interpretation of the Song of Songs has involved constructing a story
into which the discrete poems can be inserted and which gives coherence
2. See D.J.A. Clines's provocative study 'Why is there a Song of Songs and
what does it do to you if you read it?', Jian Dao: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1
(1994), pp. 3-27: 'I find myself asking, Is the book [of Canticles] to any degree
responsible for the way it has been read? Can a book, indeed, be innocent of its
reception? What is it about this book that has allowed and legitimated a reading so
against its own grain? I don't rightly know how to answer this question; but I have a
suspicion that a work which came into the world as soft pornography proves
ultimately to be irredeemable in polite society' (p. 19). 'In the Song, the woman is
everywhere constructed as the object of male gaze...To her male spectators, the
readers of the poem, of course, she cannot say, "Do not stare at me"; for she is
brought into existence precisely to be stared at, and the veil she would willingly cover
herself with is disallowed by the poet's gaze. She has been the victim of male
violence and anger (1.6), and she bears the marks of it on her face; and now the poet
invites his readers to share his sight of the woman's humiliation. It is the very stuf
of pornography' (p. 24).
3. M. Yad. 3,5. Fragments of Song of Songs have been discovered among the
Dead Sea Scrolls (see E. Tov's important discussion of this material in 'Three
Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4', JJS 46,
[1995], pp. 88-111). This suggests that already by the first century BCE the book wa
being read allegorically, since it is hardly conceivable, given the religious outlook of
the group behind the Scrolls, that they would have read the text literally.
16
to the text from beginning to end.4 The broad thrust of the exegesis of
Canticles has been overwhelmingly historicizing. This is true whether the
book was read naturalistically as an epithalamium for the nuptials of
Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter, or allegorically as an account of the
soul's relationship to God and its journey along the via mystica, or as a
sort of cryptic biography of the Virgin Mary and her relationship to
Christ, an interpretation popular in the twelfth century among Christian
exegetes at the height of Marian devotion. The particular interpretation
on which I shall focus in the present paper takes this historicizing
tendency to an extreme. It treats the Song of Songs as an allegorical
history of the relationship between God (= the Bridegroom) on the one
hand, and Israel and/or the Church (= the Bride) on the other, and it
correlates each individual poem with 'real' historical events. Its distinguishing mark is that it is systematic: the historical correlations are in
correct chronological order and cover an extended period of time, in
some cases stretching from the creation of the world to the end of
history.
The heyday of this approach was the seventeenth century, when it
enjoyed a particular vogue among Protestant commentators. The key
figure appears to have been Thomas Brightman. Brightman argued that
the Song is a prophetic history of the Church under both the old and the
new dispensations from the time of King David until the Second Coming,
and so detailed were the correlations which he made between the text
and history that he found allusions in it to events in Geneva in the time
of Calvin! He summarizes his reading thus:
The authority of this Song is declared in the Inscription. Then he
[Solomon] prosecuteth his purpose in verse, which is wholly employed in
describing the condition of the Church, as well as it was Legall, from the
time of David to the death of Christ, in the 3 first chapters and to the 6.
4. The headings of some of the Psalms provide an early example of an attempt
to create a context for unrubricated speech: e.g. Ps. 56: 'A Miktam of David, when
the Philistines seized him in Gath' (see further, Pss. 7, 18, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 63,
142). Similar attempts can be found in the Diwans of mediaeval Hebrew poets such
as Solomon ibn Gabirol. Such headings constitute a sort of primitive commentary
and illustrate the difficulties later scholars had in coping with poetry. The creation of
a 'co-text' from clues contained within direct speech is found in the targumim of the
Pentateuch (A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums
[Tubingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992]), of the Prophets (R.P. Gordon, 'Dialogue
and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets', JSS 39 [1994], pp. 7-17) and of the
Writings (notably in Targum Shir ha-Shirim).
17
verse of the 4. chapter. As also, as it was Evangelicall unto the Second

Comming of Christ to the end of the book.
Brightman underscored his view of Canticles as predictive prophecy by

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

English in 1644, although Brightman himself flourished in the Tudor
period (he died in 1607), and the Latin version of his commentary was
5. Brightman's Commentary on the Canticles appeared twice in English in

1644, once in Amsterdam as a separate volume, and once in London as part of the
volume of his collected works, along with his commentary on the Apocalypse. The
historical school dominated Protestant exegesis of Revelation from the Reformation
until the early nineteenth century (R.J. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse [Abingdon:
The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1978]). The idea that Canticles is the Old Testament
counterpart of the New Testament Apocalypse is found already in patristic and
mediaeval commentators; see Ann Matter's observations on this point: 'Besides his
virtually complete elaboration of the Song of Songs as an allegory of the immediate
tribulations of institutional Christianity, Gregory of Elvira also gives a hint of another
development in Latin Song of Songs interpretation: the connnection between the
Song of Songs and the Apocalypse as related allegories of the Church.. .The Song of
Songs and the Apocalypse were.. .increasingly read together, as two accounts of the
same divine plan...an apocalyptic theme in Song of Songs exegesis is well
developed by Honorius in the twelfth century' (The Voice of My Beloved, p. 89, and
passim). Linking the two texts may have been encouraged by the fact that the one
more or less plausible quotation from Canticles in the New Testament is found in
Rev. 3.20, 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock'; cf. Cant. 5.2, 'It is the voice of
my beloved that knocks'.
18
published (posthumously) in Basel in 1614.6 He is the oldest of the

group of seventeenth-century scholars who take this historical line, and
his work, whether directly or indirectly, probably influenced the others.
The group includes the Englishmen John Cotton,7 Nathanael Homes,8
John Davenport and George Wither,9 and the Germans Johannes
Cocceius10 and Caspar Heunisch.11 Cocceius and Heunisch are noteworthy for the way in which they develop Brightman's suggestion of a
parallelism between Canticles and the Apocalypse by superimposing a
detailed apocalyptic historical schema on the Song of Songs. Thus
Cocceius divided the Song into seven periods corresponding to the seven
seals and seven trumpets of Revelation. And Heunisch discovered in
Canticles seven successive ages reflecting the spiritual states of the Seven
Churches of Asia in Revelation, the final age (that of Laodicea) beginning
in the year 2060!
Reading the Song of Songs as allegorical history went out of
fashion at the end of the seventeenth century. Heunisch's Apocalyptic
Commentary on the Song of Songs (1688) was one of its last exemplars.
I can find no significant traces of the practice in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Bossuet's elegant commentary on Canticles, published
in 1693,12 inaugurated a more naturalistic approach which was picked
6. Scholia in Canticum Canticorum (Basel, 1614). Brightman's dates are given
in the Dictionary of National Biography (II, 1247) as 1562-1607.
7. John Cotton, A Brief Exposition of the whole Book of Canticles (London,
1642).
8. Nathanael Homes, 'Commentary on Canticles', in The Works of Dr
Nathanael Homes (London, 1652).
9. I have gleaned the information about Wither and Davenport from Christopher
Hill's interesting discussion of seventeenth-century interpretations of the Song of
Songs in The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books, 1994), pp. 362-70: 'John Davenport's unpublished sermons on
Canticles...apparently shared Brightman's historical interpretation' (p. 367 n. 137;
further p. 363). 'George Wither regarded the song as a history of the church, "from
Abel to the last judgement", when the "blessed marriage" (of Christ and his church)
shall be fully consummated' (pp. 365-66, with a reference to the Song of Songs in
Wither's Hymns and Songs of the Church, p. 39).
10. Johannes Cocceius, Cogitationes de Cantico Canticorum (Leiden, 1665).
11. Caspar Heunisch, In Canticum Canticorum commentarius apocalypticus
(Leipzig, 1688). The work is rare, but there is a copy in the British Library. See
Ginsburg, Song of Songs, pp. 78-79, for a summary (though note that Ginsburg
misspells the name as 'Hennischius').
12. Libri Salomonis, Canticum Canticorum (Paris, 1693). Littledale rightly notes
19
up by Lowth, Percy and other leading biblical scholars in the following

century. Bossuet, developing an earlier, minor strand of tradition, suggested that the Song was nothing more than a celebration of the sevenday nuptials of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. Allegory by no means
disappeared, but the allegory proposed was no longer a cryptic history
of the Church. However, the twentieth century witnessed a curious late
revival of historical allegoryand from an unexpected quarterin the
work of the distinguished French Catholic scholars Paul Joiion and
Andre Robert.13 But there was an important difference: though Joiion
and (especially) Robert detected messianic elements in Canticles, both
took the Song essentially as a backward look over the history of Israel
from the post-exilic standpoint of the author, rather than as a detailed
prophecy of the future.
The author of the 'Epistle to the Reader' which prefaces the English
edition of Brightman's commentary expresses concern lest Brightman's
views may be rejected as too strange and novel: 'I confesse,' he writes,
'he that forsakes the ancient opinions of learned and godly men, and
propounds to himself a new way, in which he walketh all alone, may (in
good manners) be thought to erre.' In fact Brightman's interpretation
was not as innovative as might at first sight be supposed.14 The
that Bossuet marks a turning point in the history of Canticles exegesis: 'With this
author [Cocceius] closes the period formally embraced in the following commentary,
which does not profess to deal with the exegesis of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, properly beginning with Bossuet's commentary in 1690' (Commentary on
the Song of Songs, p. xl).
13. P. Joiion,- Le Cantique des Cantiques: commentaire philologique et exegetique
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1909); A. Robert, R. Tournay and A. Feuillet, Le Cantique des
Cantiques: traduction et commentaire (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1963). Tournay and
Feuillet were pupils of Robert who adopted their teacher's approach and completed
his work. See the discussion by Pope, Song of Songs, pp. 179-83. Unfortunately I
have been unable to consult R.T. Loring's dissertation, The Christian Historical
Exegesis of the Song of Songs and its Possible Jewish Antecedents' (General
Theological Seminary, New York, 1967), mentioned by Pope (p. 182), who says
that it examines 'thirty-six Christian works which follow more or less the line of the
Targum'.
14. As the author of the Epistle himself realized: 'He [Brightman] is not singular
in his manner of interpreting: for amongst the Hebrewes, Aben Ezra conceives the
mysterie from Abraham to the Messias, to be here set forth; And some amongst us
from the Messias to the Churches freedome under Constantine.' I know of no
interpretation which correlates Canticles with the period from the coming of Christ to
the time of Constantine. It is possible that 'from the Messias' is a slip for 'from
20
excessive detail of his historical allegory may have been new but his
general principles and approach had clear antecedents, and a scholar of
Brightman's erudition cannot have been wholly ignorant of this fact.
Thus the Song is treated as allegorical history in the scholia of Isidoro da
Chiari (1542),15 in the first commentary of Sebastian Miinster (1525),16
and in the commentary of Jaime (Jacob) Perez de Valencia (ca. 14081490), first published in I486,17 and reprinted at least fifteen times in the
next hundred years.18 More significantly still, Canticles is read as
allegorical history by the great Franciscan scholar Nicolas de Lyra (ca.
1270-1349), whose Postilla litteralis, printed alongside the Glossa
ordinaria, was the most widely disseminated Bible commentary of the
late mediaeval and early modern periods. Lyra's exposition of the Song
first appeared in print in 1471 and was reissued some forty times in the
following one hundred and twenty years. There were several editions of
it within Brightman's lifetime.19 It is reasonable, therefore, to postulate
for Lyra a central role in popularizing the exegesis of Canticles as
historical allegory among biblical scholars in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. True, Lyra is rarely mentioned by name, but this does not
imply that he was unknown. Scholars then (as now) did not always
acknowledge their debts, and the very ubiquity of Lyra's work may have
meant that acquaintance with it was taken for granted.
In the introduction to the Postilla to Canticles Lyra notes the existence
of three different schools of interpreters of the book. First, there were
those who saw it merely as an epithalamium celebrating the marriage of
King Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. This, though he does not say so,
was the opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Though Theodore's view of
Canticles had been pronounced heretical it is frequently mentioned in the
David', induced by the preceding words 'to the Messias'. If this is the case, then the
reference would be to Nicolas de Lyra.
15. Isidoro da Chiari, Vulgata aditio Veteris ac Novi Tesiamenti (Venice, 1542).
See Engammare, Le Cantiques des Cantiques, pp. 282-92 for discussion of Da
Chiari and other historical allegorists of his period.
16. Sebastian Miinster, Canticum Canticorum Salomonis (Basel, 1525).
17. Jaime Perez de Valencia, Expositio in Cantica Canticorum Salomonis
(Valencia, 1486).
18. This can be deduced from Engammare's bibliography:, see the Index of
authors, p. *164, under Perez de Valencia, Jaime.
19. Nicolas de Lyra, Postilla litteralis et moralis in vetus et novum testamentum
(Rome, 1471). For the reprints see Engammare, Le Cantiques des Cantiques, Inde
of authors, p. *163, under Nicolas de Lyre. I have used the 1588 Venice edition.
21
middle ages. It proved a convenient bench-mark for an absolutely literal

reading of the Song.20 Secondly, there were the Jewish interpreters who
took the Song as a parabolic account of the love of God for Israel.
Thirdly, there were the Catholic expositors who treated the Song as an
allegory of the union of Christ and the Church, and who sometimes
presented this interpretation polemically to stress God's rejection of the
Synagogue and of the old Israel.
Lyra takes a mediating line. The Song is, indeed, an allegory of the
relationship between Christ and the Church, but it embraces that relationship under the dispensations of both the old and the new covenants.
Lyra thus asserts the continuity of the Church with Israel.21 He takes the
rhythm of communion, estrangement, repentance and reconciliation
between the bride and the bridegroom as mirroring the actual historical
vicissitudes of the Church's relationship to Christ from the beginning of
time. The Church has in fact, he avers, existed since the creation, but
because it only became a bride with the giving of the Law at Sinai,
whereby God espoused Israel to himself, Solomon's account of God and
Israel under the images of bridegroom and bride begins with the exodus
from Egypt which led up to the solemnizing of the Sinai covenant.
Canticles 1-6 relate to the period of the Old Testament: they cover the
exodus, the giving of the Law, the desert wanderings, the entry into the
land under Joshua, the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, the exile,
the return and post-exilic era down to the time of the Maccabees. Chs.
7-8 allude to the period of the new covenant from the advent of Christ
to the triumph of Christianity under Constantine, when the Church was
finally freed from all persecution and the pax Christiana established
throughout the whole world.
20. The view is apparently expressed as an obiter dictum in one of his letters. No
commentary by Theodore is extant, and Johannes Quasten questions whether there
ever was one: 'The Acts of the Fifth Council (553) quote a passage from one of
Theodore's letters...which indicates that he regards the Canticle of Canticles as
Solomon's reply to the opponents of his marriage with the Egyptian princess and
refuses to grant it any allegorical significance. However, the inference is not thereby
warranted that he composed a commentary to the Canticle. Neither of the catalogues
of his titles mention such a book nor are there any fragments extant' (Patrology, III
[Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960], p. 406). Theodore's view of Canticles fits in, of course,
with his rejection of Alexandrian allegorizing.
21. Nicolas's positive attitude towards Israel and Judaism should not be
overestimated. See J. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval
Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 170-98.
22
A small sample, from Cant. 1.3-4, will suffice to illustrate how

painstakingly Lyra works out this schema in detail. The bride is
addressing the bridegroom:
(v, 3) Your name is as ointment poured forth. By ointment here is to be
understood an aromatic fluid flowing from aromatic trees in Arabia and in
the Promised Land, which is collected and kept in jars. And when it is
poured over someone for cooling or for medication it gives off a pleasing
odour, by which is understood in Scripture a good report, in accordance
with the words of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 2.15, 'For we are the good odour
of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who
are perishing'. So when it says, Your name is an ointment poured forth,
the sense is that through the wonders which God did for the children of
Israel in Egypt and at the Red Sea the report of his name and his
goodness was spread abroad to the other nations, on account of which
many were converted to Judaism. Hence it adds: therefore do the maidens
love you, that is to say, all the nations are converted to love of you. For
many of the Egyptians in this manner were converted, and departed with
the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, as is stated in Exod. 12.38.
So too Jethro along with his house, when he heard of the wonders which
God had done for Israel (Exod. 18). (v. 4) Draw me after you, by leading
me mightily out of Egypt. We will run after the odour of your ointments.
However, it should be noted that after the odour of your ointments is not
part of the text, because it is not in the Hebrew. Rather it was placed by
some scholar as an interlinear gloss, which later was inserted into the text
through the ignorance of the copyists. The king has brought me, that is,
the heavenly king, into his chambers, revealing to me through Moses his
secrets, according as it is said in Exod. 3.2, 'When he [Moses] led his
flock to the farthest end of the wilderness, he came to the mountain of
God, unto Horeb'. And it goes on: 'And the Lord appeared to him in a
flame of fire out of the midst of a bush'. We will rejoice and be glad in
you, which was fulfilled when, having crossed the Red Sea, they rejoiced,
saying, 'Let us sing to the Lord, for he has been gloriously exalted'
(Exod. 15.1).
What are the sources of Lyra's reading of the Song of Songs? The
answer is that he appears to have derived it directly from Jewish tradition. Lyra's knowledge of Hebrew is well documented, as is his use of
the commentaries of Rashithe Rabbi Salomon quoted so frequently by
name in the Postilla. Lyra's debt to Rashi specifically in the Song of
Songs has been studied by H. Hailperin and others.22 The point,
22. H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1963), pp. 137-246, esp. 240ff.
23
however, that has not been brought out with sufficient clarity is that his
dependency in the Song of Songs is uniquely deep. It is not simply a
matter of discrete citations of Rashi to help elucidate the hebraica veritas,
or establish the sensus litteralis. The total hermeneutical schema of
Lyra's reading of Canticles is based on Rashi. Rashi is one of the classic
Jewish historicizing exegetes of the book, which he takes as recounting
the history of God's relationship with Israel from the exodus from
Egypt until the coming of the messiah. Needless to say Rashi does not
correlate any part of Canticles with the history of the Church in New
Testament times, so Lyra's coverage of chs. 7-8 perforce diverges from
his (a point which he explicitly acknowledges), but elsewhere he follows
Rashi's historical correlations very closely.
Rashi's exegesis, though done with characteristic clarity and economy
of expression, is in its turn not original. He is almost totally dependent
on the eighth-century Aramaic Targum of Song of Songs. This particular
targum is unusually paraphrastic, and, as I have argued elsewhere, its
author appears to have invented, at least within Jewish tradition, the
reading of the Song as historical allegory. There were partial antecedents
to the targum. Certain earlier rabbinic commentators had contextualized
some parts of Canticles to specific events in the Heilsgeschichte
notably the giving of the Law at Sinai. But the targum is the first text
systematically and chronologically to correlate Canticles with a long
period of the history of Israel.23 The targum inaugurated the historicizing
reading within Jewish biblical scholarship. The idea was taken up by
others: it is found in the commentary on Canticles attributed (probably
wrongly) to the ninth-century philosopher and Bible exegete Saadya
Gaon, 24 and in the commentary of Rashi's younger contemporary
Abraham Ibn Ezra, though both Pseudo-Saadya and Ibn Ezra put
forward rather different historical schemas. The Targum of Canticles was
one of the most popular texts of the Jewish middle ages. Rashi seems to
have known it and approved of it. He took over its historical schema so
23. See my essay, 'Tradition and Originality in the Targum of the Song of
Songs', in D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums
in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 31839.
24. For the Judaeo-Arabic text with Hebrew translation, see J. Kafih, Hamesh
Megillot (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 17-129. The portion of Hebrew text given by
Ginsburg (Song of Songs, pp. 36-37) from a copy of the original Constantinople
edition in the British Museum differs considerably from that in Kafih. Kafih
discusses the authorship of the work on pp. 9-11 of his introduction.
24
exactly that his commentary can be seen not only as a commentary on

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

meaning, and in that alone: they are intended as figures for Israel and for
God, and so what looks like an allegorical, non-literal reading can be
argued to represent the literal sense. Admittedly the parallel with
Jotham's parable is not exact: that is explicitly decoded within the
biblical text, whereas the decoding of Canticles has to be inferred. But
Lyra can claim to have long-standing tradition both Jewish and Christian
behind him in identifying the bride as Israel/the Church and the bridegroom as God/Christ, and in the final analysis his claims may be said to
stand or fall on the general plausibility of the case which he presents. He
certainly does present a cogent, coherent and eminently plausible case.
Lyra was not the first to stretch the meaning of the sensus litteralis. In
the thirteenth century there was a general redefinition of the sensus
litteralis, and a tendency to extend its reference beyond the Ssuperficies
litterae, that is to say the simple meaning of the biblical text. Some were
prepared to argue that in certain circumstances the metaphoric, parabolic
and symbolic meaning could fall within the province of the sensus
litteralis.26
The exegesis of Canticles as historical allegory is very rare in Christian
circles before the time of Lyra. I can find only three significant examples
of it. The first is in the Compendium totius Biblie of Lyra's slightly
older contemporary, the Franciscan Petrus Aureoli (c.1280-1322).27 This,
astonishingly, gives a totally 'Jewish' reading, without a single mention
of Christ or the Church! It correlates Canticles with the history of God's
relationship to Israel in the period running from the departure of
Abraham from Ur to the establishment of the Temple cult on Mount
Zion. In other words, in a curious anticipation of Joiion and Robert,
Petrus Aureoli gives a historicizing interpretation which, from the
standpoint of the putative author, Solomon, relates totally to the past.
There is no evidence that Lyra knew the Compendium. Petrus Aureoli
was doubtless inspired by Jewish sources, the same sources that
influenced Lyra.
26. G.R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 51-59 and 67-71, provides
some useful observations on the subject.
27. The editio princeps appeared at Strasbourg in 1476 under the title,
Compendium literalis sensus totius Biblie seu divine Scripture. There were reprints
in 1508, 1514 and 1585. See Engammare, Le Cantique des Cantiques, pp. 42-43.
26
Somewhat earlier is the Expositio hystorica Cantici Canticorum

secundum Salomonem, which survives in the unique Vatican manuscript,
Latin 1053. This correlates Canticles with the period from the exodus to
the end of Hasmonaean independence and the conquest of Judaea by the
Romans, one hundred years before the beginning of Jesus' ministry. As
Sarah Kamin and Avrom Saltman have demonstrated, the Expositio
hystorica is, in fact, an adaptation and christianization of Rashi's commentary on Canticles.28 Once again the Jewish origin of a Christian
historicizing reading of Canticles appears to be beyond reasonable doubt.
Again, however, there is no evidence that Lyra knew or used the
Expositio hystorica. He consulted Rashi directly.
The third example is Apponius's In Canticum Canticorum expositio.29
This states that the Song of Songs speaks of quidquid ab initio mundi
usque in finem in mysteriis egit acturusve erit Dei Sermo erga
Ecclesiam. This enigmatic commentary, in its full form, is large, and as a
result its historical schema does not, perhaps, emerge all that clearly
from the mass of detail. But that Apponius offers a historical schema
cannot be denied. Thus Cant. 1.1-2.6 covers Israel under the old dispensation; 2.7-15 refers to the incarnation; and 2.16-3.11 to the crucifixion,
the resurrection, the conversion of the Church of Jerusalem and the
bringing in of the Gentiles by Paul. Chs. 4-6 rather lose the chronological thread but they do speak of a time of persecution and
martyrdom, and of a fall into heresy by the Church. The thread is picked
up again strongly in 7.1-9, which is seen as referring to the conversion
of Rome to Christianity. 7.10-8.4 deals with the barbarian invasions of
the Roman Empire which are looked upon in a rather positive light,
since they allowed the barbarians to be converted to Christ. This leaves
only the conversion of the Jews outstanding, and Apponius anticipates
this event in the exposition of Cant. 8.5-14.
Apponius is a very shadowy figure. De Vregille and Neyrand are
inclined to accept Johannes Witte's view that he wrote his commentary
on Canticles (his sole known work) in Rome between 405 and 415 CE.30
28. S. Kamin and A. Saltman, Secundum Salomonem: A Thirteenth Century
Latin Commentary on the Song of Solomon (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press,
1989).
29. B. de Vregille and L. Neyrand (eds.), Apponii in Canticum Canticorum
expositionem (CCSL, 19; Turnhout: Brepols, 1986).
30. See De Vregille and Neyrand, Apponii in Canticum Canticorum expositionem,
p. cvii. J. Witte, 'Der Kommentar des Aponius zum Hohenliede' (Erlangen,
27
They are less certain that he was a converted Jew, and with good
reason: there is little in his commentary to suggest a Jewish origin. His
occasional sympathetic references to the Jews and his interest in Israel's
place in the divine scheme of things prove little. The persistent suggestions that he drew on Jewish Bible exegesis and perhaps even directly on
the Targum of Canticles are unsubstantiated.31 Anne Matter notes that
'his commentary on the Song of Songs seems to show knowledge of
Jewish biblical interpretation', though she cautiously adds that 'this may
be secondary, as he is heavily dependent on Jerome'. She suggests that
like Jerome, Apponius may be most accurately described as a Christian
who lived and studied in Italy and/or Palestine, and perhaps had some
connection with an intellectual centre such as Caesarea, where many
worldsEast and West, Christian and Jewish, Semitic, Greek and
Latincame together.32
All this is highly speculative. One thing can, however, be stated with
considerable confidence: Apponius and Targum Canticles are totally
unrelated. If Apponius's dates are correct, then he flourished around
three hundred years before the targum was composed. There is not a
shred of evidence that the targum's historical reading, or, for that
matter, any other systematic historical allegorizing of Canticles was
current in Jewish circles as early as the time of Apponius. Conversely it
is highly unlikely that Apponius could have influenced the targum. In
fact the detailed historical schemas of Apponius and the targum do not
inaugural dissertation, 1903), remains the most important discussion of Apponius.
31. So convinced was Ginsburg of the dependence of Apponius on the targum
that he dated him to the seventh century (he dated the targum c. 550): 'The influence
of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the
Christian Church. Apponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century... takes the book as a historico-prophetical
description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the
Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church'
(Song of Songs, p. 67). See also Littledale, Commentary on the Song of Songs,
p. xxxiv (cf. his remarks on p. xxxii on the targum as first in order, though perhaps
not in actual date of present condition). The alternative would be to hold on to Witte's
early fifth-century date for Apponius and argue that, despite appearances, some form
of the targum, or of the exegesis therein, must have been current in Jewish circles
then. But the detailed convergence of the targum and Apponius would have to be a
lot stronger to make that suggestion plausible.
32. Matter, The Voice of My Beloved, pp. 89-90. See pp. 90-91 for a summary of
the evidence that Apponius used Jewish/rabbinic tradition.
28
coincide at any point. The conclusion seems unavoidable: both Apponius

and the targumist of Canticles hit quite independently on the device of
reading the Song of Songs as an allegorical history.
The influence of Apponius within Christian exegesis seems to have
been limited. His Expositio was better known in an abbreviated version,
called from its incipit the Veri amoris, which was arranged in twelve
homilies and attributed to Jerome. The Veri amoris is extant in a number
of manuscripts dating between the eighth and early sixteenth centuries
and originating in monasteries in northern France, the Rhineland and the
Low Countries. Apponius's impact, such as it was, appears to have been
felt most strongly in northern Europe. Bede quotes him by name in
his In Cantica Canticorum, as does Angelomus of Luxeuil in his
Enarrationes in Cantica Canticorum (Angelomus had access to the first
six books of Apponius in their original, full version). There is abundant
evidence that he was known in Ireland. Indeed, Martin McNamara states
categorically that 'the early Irish sources available to us know of only
one commentary on the Canticle of Canticlesthat of Apponius'.33 The
first printed edition (containing only the first six books) was issued by
Joannes Faber Emmeus at Freiburg im Breisgau in 1538. The Faber text
was reprinted in Paris in 1589 in the second edition of Margarin de la
Bigne's Sacra bibliotheca sanctorum patrum (vol. I, cols. 763-840), and
again in the third edition (Paris 1609, vol. I, cols. 631-716) and the
fourth (Paris 1624, vol. I, cols. 263-348). The Faber text was also the
basis for the Apponius in the Magna bibliotheca sanctorum patrum
(Cologne 1618, vol. IX, pp. 25-64), in the Magna bibliotheca veterum
patrum (Paris 1644, vol. I, cols. 263-348) and in the Maxima bibliotheca
sanctorum patrum (Lyons 1677, vol. XIV, pp. 98-139). Unquestionably
Apponius was available to the Christian historical allegorists of the late
middle ages and early modern times, and he could, in principle, have
inspired their interpretations of Canticles. However, it seems that he did
not. In every case the evidence suggests that the Christian historical
33. M. McNamara, 'Early Irish Exegesis. Some Facts and Tendencies',
Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984), pp. 57-96; his discussion of
Apponius is on pp. 71-73. See further De Vregille and Neyrand, Apponii in
Canticum Canticorum expositionem,pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, and xxxviii-xl, who claim that
Gregory of Elvira's commentary on Canticles may also have been known in Ireland
(p. xxxv). They note: 'La presence de ce dernier [Gregory of Elvira], auteur du IVe
siecle dont Yin Cantica semble par ailleurs inconnu hors d'Espagne, est tres
notable.'
29
allegorists drew, directly or indirectly, on Jewish sources, particularly

Rashi. Apponius appears to have been cherished more for his theological
ideas than for his historical schema, which, as I have already remarked,
does not stand out all that clearly from the mass of his detailed exegetical observations.
So, then, we can trace with some confidence the trajectory of the
reading of Canticles as historical allegory and place all of our texts but
one on it. The exception is Apponius. Though he was the first to think
of this approach his invention seems to have had no direct influence on
later exegetes. It was effectively buried in the intricacies of his theological observations. The trajectory proper begins in the eighth century
with the Aramaic targum. This established for the first time in Jewish
tradition the historical-allegorical interpretation. This approach was
followed by a number of later Jewish commentators, notably PseudoSaadya (?10th century), Rashi (llth century) and Abraham Ibn Ezra
(12th century). Rashi was particularly important on two counts. First, he
took over intact the targum's schema; and secondly, he influenced
Christian exegesis. The targum/Rashi reading was probably known to
Petrus Aureoli, and certainly to the author of the Expositio hystorica, to
Nicolas de Lyra, to Jaime Perez de Valencia and to Sebastian Miinster.
Lyra's adoption of it was decisive for Christian exegesis and paved the
way for the extreme historical allegorists of the seventeenth century.
These were to a man Protestant scholars: it served well their polemical,
anti-Roman purposes and fitted in with their views of the book of
Revelation. Significantly it was the appearance of the more naturalistic
reading of the great French Catholic scholar Bossuet (who may have
been reacting to Protestant polemical use of the Canticles) which marked
the fall from favour of this interpretation, but in a splendid irony two
French Catholic scholars, Joiion and Robert, both learned Hebraists well
acquainted with the targum, reintroduced historical allegory in the
twentieth century, albeit in modified form. Marvin Pope closes his
discussion of their work with the remark: 'It seems unlikely that this line
will be followed further'. I am not so sure. A tradition which has proved
so vital and seductive for over a thousand years may yet be revived. If it
is, I would predict that the eighth-century Aramaic targum, whether
directly or indirectly, will play a part in this revival.
ONOMASTICA Y TOPONIMIA:
TARGUM, MIDRAS Y ANTIGUO TESTAMENTO
Luis Diez Merino
Introduction
La toponimia y la onomastica son parcelas del lenguaje que revisten
caracteristicas especiales: si por una parte son las mas usadas en el
lenguaje coloquial, son tambien las mas elementales y primitivas, a la vez
que las mas conservadoras y mas antiguas. Como estan continuamente
en boca popular uno se pudiera imaginar que son las mas sujetas a
cambios, sin embargo suelen ser modelos de persistencia tenaz de la
memoria de los pueblos. Existen casos en que van evolucionando a
medida que nuevas lenguas se van sucediendo en un mismo marco
topografico, y en este caso se suelen dar los equivalentes a las nuevas
oleadas lingiiisticas, pero aun en esos casos suelen gozar de sus
caracteristicas de pervivencia e identidad.
La Biblia es un testigo de casi dos milenios de literatura topografica y
onomastica, por eso es un documento de excepcion para valorar la
smtesis historica de un pueblo que conserva en su memoria no
solamente los propios hechos, sino leyendas y narraciones de otros
pueblos que le precedieron en el mismo espacio geografico: monies,
rios, ciudades, accidentes orograficos, etc., testimonian el paso de
pueblos, cultures y lenguas. A veces esta sucesion aparece en los
documentos literarios: lugares designados por los cultos que alii se
realizaron como 3El fOlam, 3El l<Elyon, >El Sadday, >El Berit, >El Roi,
Bet-El, etc., son denominaciones que los hebreos recibieron, adoptaron
y transmitieron como patrimonio propio, si bien tuvieron origen en el
pueblo cananeo que les precedio en el mismo entorno geografico. Las
ciudades a veces seran nominadas con nuevos apellidos, pero se hara
constar su anterior denominacion: Salem-Jerusalen, Qiryat >ArbacHebron, Betel-Luz, etc.
MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia
31
La historia no se detiene: los documentos literarios posteriores

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

(Targum Onqelos), TN (Targum Neofiti 1), TJI (Targum Pseudojonatan), TP
(Targum Palestine), TOB (Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible), CEI (Traduzione
de la Bibbia Conferenza Episcopate Italiana). Traduccion castellana de la Biblia, texto
de Bover Cantera (BAG), Traduccion del Neofiti (A. Diez Macho), Traduccion del
Pseudojonatan (T. de J. Martinez Saiz).
32
Genesis
1.2: TH: tohu-tehom: vacio-oceano: 'Ahora bien, la tierra era nada y
vacio, y las tinieblas cubrian la superficie del oceano'. Antes de que Dios
iniciase la obra creadora habia ausencia de vida (tohu, bohu, cf. Jer.
4.23; Is. 34.11), y habia tinieblas y abismo (tehom, termino cercano a
Tiamaf), e.d. la masa caotica de las aguas primordiales (Gen. 7.11; 8.2;
Sal. 107.26).
Tg: 'La tierra estaba desierta y caotica, privada de hombres y bestias
(TJI: de todo animal), vacia de todo cultivo de plantas y arboles. La
obscuridad se extendia sobre la faz del abismo' (TN). El Tg intenta
aclarar el binomio tohu-bohu y f horn recurriendo a la definition interna
de ambos terminos.
Midras: R. Juda ben R. Simon interpretaba el vacio refiriendolo a las
generaciones. Pero que la tierra estuviese informe se puede referir a
Adan, el cual fue reducido a la nada completa por su pecado; y que
estuviese vacia se puede referir a Cain, quien deseaba volver a la nada.2
Que la tierra estuviese tohu se refiere tambien a la devastation del
Templo (Jer. 4.23), y cuando dijo Dios que hubiese luz se referia a la era
mesianica (Is. 60.1).3
1.2: TH: ruah. espiritu-aliento: 'Mientras el espiritu de Dios se cernia
sobre la haz de las aguas'. Unos autores traducen ruah por 'espiritu'
(TOB) y otros por aliento (CEI). El 'aliento' (o atmosfera) de Dios era lo
que permitia la vida del hombre (Gen. 6.3) y de todos los otros seres
(Sal. 104.30). Algunos ban comparado el 'soplo de Dios' como 'viento
violento' o como 'Espiritu de Dios'.
Tg: 'Y un espiritu de amor de delante de Yahweh (TJI: de delante de
Elohim) soplaba sobre la faz de las aguas' (TN). Espiritu de amor o de
misericordia tambien se usa en el Tg. Gen. 8.1 (TN-TJI).
Midras; Que la creation del mundo hay a sido hecha por amor se
encuentra en el Midras a Sal. 71.1.4 Segun la tradition rabinica el
atributo de la misericordia se aplica a Yahweh, en cambio el de la justicia
a Elohim;5 aqui TJI aplica a Elohim el espiritu de amor. El espiritu
2. Gen. R. 2.3.
3. Gen. R. 2.5.
4. W.G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1959), I, p. 559.
5. E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem Magnes,
1975), p. 451.
33
(ruah) que cubria la faz de las aguas corresponde a: 'Y Dios mando un
viento (ruah) que paso sobre la tierra' (Gen. 8.1).6
2.2-3: TH: Sabbat: Sabado-descanso: 'En ese dia septimo descanso
(wayyiSbot) de toda labor realizada, y bendijo Dios el dia septimo y
declarolo santo, por haber reposado (Mbat)en el de toda la obra que
Dios, al operar, habia creado'. Entre los semitas era un dia en el cual el
trabajo resultaba nefasto, y por lo mismo prohibido. En la Biblia se da
un significado teologico: a) Ex. 23.12 y Dt. 5.12-15 garantizan al
hombre el reposo semanal; b) Ex. 20.8-11 el septimo dia es sabado
(etimologicamente 'cesacion de trabajo') recuerda la creacion
completada por Dios; c) Ex. 31.12-17 es el signo de la alianza entre Dios
y su pueblo, d) Heb. 4.1-11 se refiere a la participacion del hombre en el
descanso de Dios, una vez que concluyo la creacion.
Tg: 'Y el Verbo de Yahweh (TJI: Elohim, Paris 110: el Verbo de
Yahweh deseo) complete, el dia septimo, la obra que el habia creado, y
hubo, el dia septimo, sabado (Sbh) y reposo en su presencia de toda la
obra que el habia creado' (TN). 'Y termino Dios el dia septimo la obra
que habia hecho y las diez cosas que creo al crepusculo. Y descanso en
el dia septimo de toda la obra que habia hecho. Y bendijo Dios el dia
septimo mas que todos los dias de la semana y lo santifico, porque en el
descanso de toda la obra que Dios habia creado y que habia de hacer'
(TJ). El Tg. mantiene y amplia el ambito de la derivacion popular del
sabado, aunque la raiz homofona solamente aparece en TN.
2.7: TH: 'ddam-^damd-*adorn: hombre-tierra-rojo. 'Entonces formo
Yahweh Dios al hombre ('addm) del polvo de la tierra (>addmdh), e
insuflando en sus narices aliento vital, quedo constituido el hombre
como ser vivo'. El hombre (>dddm con articulo, este se pone en hebreo
delante de los nombres comunes) fue extraido de la tierra (3addmdh) de
la cual depende su vida (cf. Jer. 18.11).
Tg: 'Entonces Yahweh Elohim creo a Adam (3dm) (o: al hombre) del
polvo de la tierra (cpr mn >dmf}\ soplo en sus narices un aliento de vida
y Adam (3dm) (o: el hombre) se convirti6 en ser viviente dotado de
palabra' (TN). 'Y creo Yahweh Dios a Adan (>dm) con dos inclinaciones.
Tomo polvo del lugar del templo y de los cuatro vientos del mundo y
una mezcla de todas las aguas del mundo, y lo creo rojo, negro y bianco.
Y soplo en sus narices el aliento de vida, y el aliento se convirtio en el
cuerpo de Adan (3dm) en espiritu capaz de hablar, para iluminar los ojos
6.
Gen. R. 2.3.
34
y hacer oir a los oidos' (TJI). Las dos inclinaciones provienen de las dos
yod que se encuentran en el verbo wayyiserj las dos inclinaciones ya
eran conocidas por el autor del Eclesiastico.8 El polvo de la tierra se
toma expresamente del lugar del santuario en Jerusalen (TJI).
Midras: El verbo wayyiser en el midras se interpreta de muchos
modos; dos formaciones: una de Adan y otra de Eva. Dos nacimientos:
uno a los nueve meses y otro a los siete. Dos formaciones: la de los seres
celestiales, y la de las creaturas terrenales. Dos formaciones: la del bien y
la del mal. Dos formaciones: una en este mundo y otra en el mundo
futuro.9 La tierra de que fue formado era el lugar de la expiacion, e.d.
del lugar del Templo, segiin R. Berekiah y R. Helbo a nombre de
Samuel el Viejo.10 El aliento (niSmai) de vida tiene cinco nombres:
nepeS, ne$ama, hayyd, ruah, yehidd.n
2.8: TH: 'eden: Eden-gozo: 'Luego Yahweh planto un vergel en
Eden'. Eden es la estepa, pero evoca otro termino hebreo que significa
'gozo'.
Tg: 'Y Yahweh (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh) Elohim habia plantado el
jardin en Eden, desde el comienzo, y alii coloco al primer hombre que el
habia creado' (TN). 'Un jardfn habia sido plantado en Eden para los
justos por el Verbo de Yahweh Elohim antes de la creacion del mundo y
alii hizo habitar a Adan cuando el le creo' (TJI).
Midras: 'La escuela de Yannai dijo: ^por que se dice el nombre divino
completo en conexion con esta plantacion? Porque desde el comienzo de
su creacion se requeria una cuidadosa seleccion: antes que un arbol se
desarrolle de su simiente se debe determinar su extension.'12
2.23: TH: 3i$-3i$$d: varon-varona: 'jEsta vez (si que es) esta hueso de
mis huesos y carne de mi carne! A esta se la llamara varona (3i$$d)
porque de varon (3i$) ha sido tomada.' Este sistema de acercamiento
semantico (W-îMd) ) se encuentra tambien en otras lenguas y en otros
pueblos, p.e. entre los egipcios.
7. J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1969), p. 116; Urbach, The Sages, p. 472.
8. J. Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira
(Bruselas: Universite de Bruxelles, 1970).
9. Gen. R. 14. 2, 3, 4, 5.
10. Gen. R. 14.8.
11. Gen. R. 14.9; Deut. R. 2.37.
12. Gen. R. 15.1.
35
Tg: 'Adan dijo entonces: Esta vezy ya nunca masla mujer ha sido
creada del hijo del hombre, como ella ha sido creada de mi, hueso de
mis huesos y carne de mi carne. A ella le conviene ser llamada mujer
porque del hombre ella ha sido creada' (TN). 'Adam dijo entonces: Esta
vezy nunca mas la mujer no sera creada del hombre, como ella ha
sido creada de mi(ella es) hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne:
Ellael dijoes hueso de mis huesos y carne de mi carne. A ellael
dijoes oportuno llamarla mujer, porque es del hombre del que ella ha
sido tomada' (TJI). En este caso el juego de nombres hombre-mujer del
TH desaparece en el Tg., que prefiere filosofar sobre el origen de la
primera pareja humana, pero a la vez reconoce que el modo de creacion
de la primera pareja humana no se volvera a repetir: los primeros fueron
creados, los restantes se reproduciran segun el precepto divino: 'Creced
y multiplicaos y llenad la tierra' (TH 1.28).
Midras: Aprovecha para indicar que del juego de palabras 3iSSd-3iS se
colige que la Torah fue dada en la lengua santa, e.d. en hebreo: 'R.
Pinhas y R. Helkiah en nombre de R. Simon dijeron: Asi como fue dada
en la lengua santa, asi el mundo fue creado en la lengua santa: ^has oido
alguna vez decir gini, ginia; fitha, cittha; antropi, antropia; gabra,
gabrethal Pero si se usa îS-îSM. ^Por que? Porque una forma
corresponde a la otra.'13 Es decir, que ni en griego, ni en arameo, sino
solamente en hebreo se corresponden la forma masculina con la
femenina, por lo cual esa es la forma empleada por Dios.
3.1: TH: carum~3arur. astuto-maldito: 'la serpiente era el mas astuto
3
( arur} de todos los animales salvajes'; 3.14: Tor cuanto hiciste tal,
maldita (>drur) seras entre todos los ganados'. Es una asonancia popular
que se adjudica a la serpiente, en el binomio: serpiente-astuta. 'Desnudos'
(caarummim Gen. 2.25) y 'astuto' (cartim Gen. 3.1); la serpiente era el
mas astuto de los animales (cdrum Gen. 3.1), llega a ser el mas miserable
(3arAr Gen. 3.14).
Tg: 'La serpiente era el mas astuto (hkyni) de todos los animales de la
superficie de los campos' (TN). 'La serpiente era el mas astuto para el
mal (hkym lby$) de todas las bestias salvajes' (TJI). 3.14: Torque has
hecho esto, maldita seras, serpiente, entre todos los animales domesticos
y entre todas las bestias que hay sobre la faz del campo' (TN). Torque
hiciste esto, maldita (lyf) seras entre todos los ganados y entre todos los
animales del campo' (TJI). El Tg. mantiene el mismo sentido, y lo
traduce asi, pero no puede conservar el mismo juego semantico.
13. Gen. R. 18.4.
36
Midras: Esta relacion de Gen. 3.1 con Gen. 3.14 se establece en el

midras a nombre de R. Meir: 'Segun la grandeza de la serpiente asi fue
su caida: porque ella era mds astuta que todos (Gen. 3.1) fue mas
maldita que todos' (Gen. 3.14).14
3.20: TH: hawwd-hay: Eva-vida: 'El hombre puso a su mujer
nombre de Eva (Hawwd), por haber sido ella madre de todos los
vivientes (hay)'. El TH une el nombre de Eva (hawwd) con vida (hayyd)',
la TOB traduce: 'Eva, e.d. la Viviente'.
Tg: 'El hombre llamo a su mujer con el nombre de Eva (Hawwd),
porque ella fue la madre de todos los vivientes (hyy3)'(TN). 'Y Adan
llamo a su mujer con el nombre de Eva (Hwh\porque ella fue la madre
de todos los hombres (bny nP)'(TJI, TO). El juego de rafces se continua
en parte en el Tg. (TN), pero TJI-TO especifican mas, hablando de
'todos los hombres'.
Midras: 'Y el hombre llamo a su mujer Eva-Hawwah e.d. vida (Gen.
3.2). Le fue dada como un consejero, pero hizo de espia como la
serpiente. R. Aha interpreto: "La serpiente fue tu (de Eva) serpiente (e.d.
seductora), y tu eres la serpiente de Adan";15 es un juego de palabras
entre hawwd que se pone en relacion con hawweh (de dafat,una
opinion), e.d. para emitir una opinion, y con hiwya, la serpiente. Como la
serpiente habia tenido un espia cuando Dios mando a Adan que se
apartase del arbol prohibido, asi ella se dirigio a la serpiente para
escuchar cuando el la incite a la desobediencia, y al final persuadio a
Adan. Madre (>em) de todos los vivientes: R. Simeon ben Eleazar dijo:
Eso significa que ella esta asociada con (cim) todos los vivientes.
R. Simon dijo: Madre de todos los vivientes significa la madre de toda la
vida,16 incluso de la de los demonios.'17
4.1: TH: qayin-qamti: Cain-compre: 'Conocio el hombre a Eva, su
mujer, la cual concibio y pario a Cain (Qayiri),diciendo: "He adquirido
(qaniti) un varon con ayuda de Yahweh"'. Eva une el nombre de su
primer hijo (Cain) con un antiguo verbo semftico (qdna) que significa
'procrear' (TOB) o 'adquirir' y subraya el papel que Dios desempena en
su nacimiento (cf. tambien Gen. 29.31; 30.2, 22; 1 Sam. 1.6, 11).
Tg: 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, ella concibio y engendro a Cain,
y ella dijo: "He aqui que un hijo me ha sido dado de delante de
14.
15.
16.
17.
Gen. R. 19.1.
Gen.R. 20.11.
Gen.R. 20.11.
Gen. R. 24.6.
37
Yahweh'" (TN). 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, que estaba encinta de

Sammael, el angel de Yahweh (y concibio y dio a luz a Cam, y dijo ella:
he adquirido por hombre al angel de Yahweh)' (TJI). TJI en el ms. de
Londres omite lo que hemos anadido entre parentesis, tornado de la
Editio Princeps del TJI. En ambos casos el Tg. repite la etimologia fonica
del nombre de Cain que se encuentra en el TH. Sammael ya habia
aparecido anteriormente ante la mujer: 'y la mujer vio a Sammael, el
angel de la muerte, y tuvo temor' (TJI a Gen. 3.6). En la Editio Princeps
del TJI se encuentra una parafrasis diferente: 'Adam conocio a Eva, su
mujer, que deseaba al angel. Ella concibio y dio a luz a Cam. Y ella dijo:
"Yo he adquirido un hombre, el angel de Yahweh"' (TJI Edit. Pr.).
Sammael es un angel caido, que tiene gran importancia en las leyendas
judias, 18 y aparece como tentador y enemigo del hombre, en estrecha
relacion con la serpiente.19 Dicho nombre significaria, segun E.E.
Urbach: 'aquel que se hizo a si mismo dios'.20 Tal angel se encuentra
tambien en la literatura apocrifa.21 Este midras nacio de la diferencia
entre Gen. 5.3 (que menciona la semajanza entre Set y su padre) y Gen.
4.1 (que nada dice de la semejanza de Cam). Que Cain sea hijo de
Sammael es una tradicion muy repetida en la literatura judia,22 y en Jn
8.44 leemos que Jesus acusa a los fariseos de ser hijos del diablo.23
Midras: 'R. Isaac dijo: Cuando una mujer ve que ella ha concebido
hijos exclama: "He aqui que mi marido esta ahora en mi posesion".'24
e.d. que un hijo une al marido a su mujer; por eso traduce: Yo ahora
tengo un hombre (e.d. Adan) en mi posesion, habiendo dado a luz a
Cain.
18. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Filadelfia: Jewish Publication Society
of America, 1909-1946), VII, p. 141.
19. G. Friedlander, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (Londres: Paul, Trench, Trubner,
1916), p. 21.
20. Urbach, The Sages, p. 761.
21. Ascension de Isaias 1.8.
22. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, p. 136; Urbach, The Sages,
p. 169; A. M. Goldberg, 'Kain: Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?',
Judaica 25 (1969), pp. 203-21.
23. N.A. Dahl, 'Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk 7, 1
und Joh 8, 44)', Aphophoreta Festschrift E. Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 70-84; R.
Le Deaut, Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament (Roma: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1965), pp. 59-61.
24. Gen. R. 22.2.
38
4.2,8: TH: hebel-Abel: aliento: 'Mas tarde volvio a parir, pariendo a

su hermano Abel...Y cuando estaban en el campo, acometio Cain a su
hermano Abel y le mato': En el texto subyace el sentido etimologico del
nombre Abel, que se interpreta como vida corta, efimera, y por
consiguiente se extinguio como un soplo o un aliento.
Tg: 'Ella dio a luz seguidamente a su hermano, Abel. Abel fue pastor
de ganado menor y Cam cultivaba la tierra...Sobre el tema estaban los
dos disputando en campo abierto, cuando se levanto Cain contra su
hermano Abel y lo mato' (TN). 'Ella dio a luz seguidamente de Adam,
su marido, Abel y su (hermana) gemela. Abel fue pastor de ganado
menor y Cain era un hombre que cultivaba la tierra... Y con motive de
estas palabras estuvieron disputando en el campo. Y se levanto Cam
contra su hermano Abel y hundio una piedra en su frente y lo mato'
(TJI). En las principales recensiones targumicas (TN, TgFragm 440, 110,
Moscu 264, Geniza B y Tosefta a Genesis 4.8) encontramos implicita la
derivation popular, pero no se especifica.
Midras: 'Esto corrobora lo que R. Yosua ben Qarha dijo: Ascendieron
a la cama dos y descendieron siete';25 se refiere a la tradition judia que
mantiene que nacieron con Cam una hermana gemela, y con Abel dos
hermanas gemelas.26 Diferentes motives de disputa se exponen en la
literatura midrasica: dividir la tierra (tierrabienes muebles), edificacion
del Templo en terreno propio, la primera Eva.27 El instrumento con que
Cain mato a Abel fue un baston (R. Simeon, cf. Gen 4.23), una piedra
(los rabinos, TJI).28
4.17: TH: hanok-hdnak: Hanok-edifico: 'Y pario a Hanok, y,
edificando (hdnak) el por entonces una ciudad, llamo a tal ciudad con el
nombre de su hijo Hanok'. Este nombre, y otros similares, evocan la
dedication de una ciudad o de un monumento.
Tg: 'Y Cain conocio a su mujer, ella concibio y dio a luz a Enoch
(Hanok).El construyo (hwh bny) una ciudad (NM: ciudades) y llamo a la
ciudad segun el nombre de su hijo Enoch (HanokY(TN, TJI). El Tg
continua la figura etiologica del TH, si bien la semantica no le permite
una imitation literal del TH.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Gen. R. 22.2-3.
b. Sanh. 38b, 58b.
Gen. R. 22.7.
Gen. R. 22.8.
39
Midras: Estas ciudades quedan como un memorial perenne para

deshonra del nombre a quien ban sido dedicadas.29
4.21: TH: yubal-yobel: 'El nombre de su hermano era Yubal, que fue
el padre de todos los tanedores de citara y caramillo'. En el TH
probablemente subyace una etimologia popular de Yubal, como si
procediese de Yobel (toque del cuerno).
Tg: 'El nombre de su hermano fue Yubal: fue el el padre de todos los
que tocan la citara y la flauta (NM: todos los que tocan la citara y el
caramillo)' (TN). 'Y el nombre de su hermano era Yubal; el fue sefior de
todos los que tienen por oflcio el canto con la citara y la flauta' (TJI). El
Tg. sigue directamente al TH, y refleja una misma interpretacion, sin
hacer especial hincapie en su aspecto etimologico.
Midras: 'Y el nombre de su hermano fue Yubal; el fue el padre de
todos los que emplean el harpa y el caramillo', e.d. los que tocan el
organo y los flautistas.30
4.22: TH: Tubal-qayin-forjador: 'Tambien Silla engendro a Tubalqayin, forjador (IdteS)de toda herramienta de cobre y hierro'. El
termino hebreo (cf. 1 Sam. 13.20) significa 'herrero, forjador', tambien
'reja'.
Tg: 'Y Silla tambien ella engendro a Tubal Qayin (twbl qyri), artesano
de toda tecnica del bronce y del hierro' (TN). 'Tambien Silla dio a luz a
Tubal Qayin, sefior de todos los artifices entendidos en el trabajo del
bronce y del hierro' (TJI). El Tg. se limita a traducir con pequenas
variantes el TH, pero tampoco se hace consciente de la etimologia
popular que subyace al TH, si bien entiende que se trata de artifices en
bronce y en hierro.
Midras: 'R. Yosua dijo en nombre de R. Levi: este hombre perfecciono
(tibbel) el pecado de Cain: Cain asesino, aunque le faltaban armas para
asesinar, puesto que el era forjador de todo instrumento cortante';31 asi
interpreta Tubal-qayin como que perfecciono (tibbel) la obra de Cain.
5.28-29: TH: noa/z-Noe: 'Lamek llevaba de vida ciento ochenta y dos
anos cuando engendro un hijo, a quien llamo con el nombre de Noe
(noah), diciendo: "Este nos consolara (yenahaamenu)en nuestro trabajo
y en la fatiga de nuestras manos"'. En esta narracion el nombre de Noe
(noah) se pone en relacion con el termino hebreo que significa
29. Gen, R. 23.1.

30. Gen. R. 23.3.
31. Gen. R. 23.3.
40
'reconfortar, restaurar' (nhm, cf. Is. 40.1) y sugiere que Dios salvara a la
humanidad por medio de el (cf. Gen. 6.8).
Tg: 'Y habia vivido Lamek ciento ochenta y dos anos y engendro un
hijo. El le llamo por nombre Noe, diciendo: "El nos consolara (ynhm) de
nuestras obras malas y de los robos de nuestras manos y de la maldicion
de la tierra por el Verbo de delante de Yahweh"' (TN). 'Habia vivido
Lamek ciento ochenta y dos anos cuando engendro" un hijo. El le llamo
por nombre Noe, diciendo: "El nos consolara (ynhmynn3) de nuestro
trabajo que queda sin exito y de la fatiga de nuestras manos (provocada)
por la tierra que Yahweh ha maldecido a causa de las falias de los hijos
de los hombres"' (TJI). En el Tg. se conserva la misma derivacion
etimologica popular que en el TH, aunque las razones del consuelo scan
un tanto ampliadas.
Midras: Segun R. Yohanan el nombre no corresponde a la interpretation que se le da, ni la interpretation corresponde al nombre. 'El texto
tendria que haber dicho o: "Este mismo nos dara descanso (yanihennu)"
o: "el le Ilam6 por nombre Nahman, diciendo: Este ye-nahamenu", sin
embargo Noe no corresponde a ye-nahamenu'; lo mismo afirmaba el
Resh Laqis. R. Leazar dice que recibio el nombre de Noe por su
sacrificio que fue aceptado como suave olor (riihoah) (Gen. 8.21), y R.
Yose ben R. Hanina dijo que se le llamo Noe porque el area descanso
(wattanah) (Gen. 8.4).'32 El midras aprovecha la misma derivacion del
TH, pero la razon del consuelo varia, e incluso introduce una nueva
derivacion, refiriendose al sacrificio que realiza Noe despues del diluvio.
9.27: TH: yapt-yepet, Yafet-Belleza: 'Dilate (yapt) Dios a Jafet y
more en las tiendas de Sem'. La TOB traduce: 'Que Dios seduzca a
Yafety more'.
Tg: 'jQue Yahweh dilate (ypf) las fronteras de Jafet! jQue la Gloria de
su Shekinah more en medio de las tiendas de Sem! jQue Canaan sea
para ellos esclavo reducido a servidumbre!' (TN). 'jQue Yahweh
embellezca (y$pr) las fronteras de Jafet! jQue sus hijos se conviertan en
proselitos y moren en la escuela de Sem! jQue Canaan sea su esclavo!'
(TJI). El Tg emplea dos raices: ypt (dilatar, TN) y y$pr (embellezca, TJI),
que tambien aprovecha la version de Aquila;33 TN transcribe y traduce
directamente el TH, TJI interpreta una raiz diferente. El TJI aprovecha el
32. Gen. R. 25.2.

33. D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963), p. 152.
41
significado de 'tienda' como 'casa de estudio', que tambien se encuentra

en TN y TJI a Gen. 2S.27.34
Midras: Que Dios dilate a Jafet, lo refiere a Giro que ordeno que se
reconstruyese el Templo. Y que el habile en las tiendas de Sem: Bar
Kappara lo aplicaba a las palabras de la Torah que tienen que ser
pronunciadas en la lengua de Jafet (e.d. en griego) en las tiendas de Sem.
Esto se referiria a la Septuaginta.35 R. Judan decia: De esto aprendemos
que la traduccion de la Biblia esta permitida, e.d. el Targum (Neh. 8.8).
Aqui explica Neh. 8.8 (Escritura, traduccion, acentos, comienzo de los
versiculos).36
10.25: TH: pelegdivision: 'A Eber nacieronle dos hijos: el nombre
del uno fue Peleg, porque en sus dias se dividio (niplegd)la tierra'. El
termino hebreo significa 'dividir', pero puede referirse a la reparticion
de tierras de pasto, o de las tierras cultivables. De el habria descendido
Abraham (Gen. 11.18-26).
Tg: 'A Eber le nacieron dos hijos: el nombre de uno de ellos es Peleg,
porque en su tiempo, los habitantes de la tierra se separaron(}tplgwY
(TN). 'A Eber le nacieron dos hijos: el nombre de uno es Peleg, porque
en su tiempo, la tierra fue dividida (3ytplygty(TJI). En ambos Targumim
se continua la etimologia popular expresada en el TH.
Midras: supone que Peleg significa 'division' porque en sus dias la
tierra se dividio. Dijo R. Jose: los antiguos le llamaron conforme a los
sucesos de sus dias, puesto que ellos conocieron su genealogia. Pero
nosotros no conocemos nuestra genealogia, para llamarnos segun
nuestros padres. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel dijo: Los antiguos, porque ellos
podian confiar en el Espiritu Santo, se llamaban a si mismos en
referencia a los sucesos que podian venir; pero nosotros no podemos
darnos a nosotros mismos el aval del Espiritu Santo para ser nombrados
segun nuestros padres.37 Fundamentalmente se sigue la derivacion del
TH, pero despues da una interpretation general de toda la onomastica, y
es que se trata de una inspiration del Espiritu Santo para imponerse
nombres en la epoca antigua.
34. G.B. Sarfatti, 'The Tent = The House of Study', Tarbiz 38 (1968), pp. 8789; Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, p. 274; Bowker, The Targums and
Rabbinic Literature, p. 178.
35. b. Meg. 9b.
36. Todo el pasaje en b. Meg. 3a; b. Ned. 37b.
37. Gen. R. 37.7.
42
10.25: TH: Yoqtan-qatan: 'Y su hermano se llamo Yoqtan'. El TH

no hace ninguna derivation de esta raiz.
Tg: 'Y el nombre de su hermano fue Yoqtan' (TN, TJI). Tampoco el
Tg se detiene en su etimologia popular.
Midras: 'Y ^por que fue llamado Yoqtan? Porque el minimize
(maqtiri) la importancia de sus negocios.'38 R. Aha dijo: '^Por que fue
llamado Yoqtan? Porque el se humillo (qatan).'' R. Hunia dijo:
'jSabemos que en su nacimiento el fue el mas joven! Pero el joven
(sdcir)significa que el se redujo (mesa'ir) a si mismo. ^Que aprendemos
de eso? Que el obtuvo el derecho de primogenitura. Pues si un hombre
grande se contenta con una position humilde, tanto mas el es
recompensado.'39 Dos derivaciones se ofrecen, una dirigida directamente
al nombre entendiendo que es qatan la base (pequeno), pero resulta que
es el mas joven, y entonces se aprovecha tambien la raiz zfr(joven) para
una nueva signification, que reafirma el sentido anterior.
11.9: TH: babel (puerta de los dioses, Bab-i\am)-balal: 'Por ello se la
denomino Babel, porque alii confundio (balal) Yahweh el habla de toda
la tierra'. Balal se traduce por confundir, y la contrapartida de la
division de los pueblos por sus lenguas se reunificara en Pentecostes
(Act. 2).
Tg: 'Por esto llamo su nombre Babel, porque asi confundio (frbb)
Yahweh las lenguas de todos los habitantes de la tierra (NM: El Verbo
de Yahweh la lengua de toda la tierra) y desde alii Yahweh (NM: el
Verbo de Yahweh) los esparcio sobre la superficie de toda la tierra'
(TN). 'Por esto llamo su nombre Babel, porque alii confundio (crbb)
Yahweh el lenguaje de todos los habitantes de la tierra y de alii los
disperse Yahweh sobre la faz de toda la tierra' (TJI). El Tg. mantiene el
sentido del TH, pero no su tenor verbal, sin embargo TJI Gen 11.8
explica como se realize la division de lenguas: 'Y se revelo el Verbo de
Yahweh sobre la ciudad, y con El los setenta angeles que se
correspondfan con las setenta naciones, llevando cada uno la lengua de
su nation y los signos de su escritura en la mano. Y los disperso desde
alii sobre la superficie de toda la tierra en setenta lenguas y uno no
entendia lo que hablaba otro y se mataban entre si; y cesaron de
construir la ciudad.'
Midras: Un discipulo de R. Yohanan estaba sentado delante de el y no
pudo entender su ensenanza: '^Cual es la razon de esto?', pregunto. 'Es
38. Gen. R. 37.7.
39. Gen. R. 6.4.
43
porque yo soy un exiliado de mi casa', replico el. '^De donde vienes

tu?', 'De Borsif, replico. 'Ese no es su nombre', anadio, 'sino Balsif, de
acuerdo con el texto. Porque alii el Sefior confundio (balal) la lengua
(sepai)de toda la tierra.' Borsif era una ciudad cercana a Babilonia, y R.
Yohanan identified con Babel, poniendo de relieve al mismo tiempo que
tendria que llamarse Balsif, nombre que esta compuesto por balal y
sdpd, y asi demostraria su origen.
11.28: TH: ^wr-fuego: 'Y murio Haran en vida de Terah, su padre, en
su pais natal, Ur de los caldeos'. El TH no aprovecha la posibilidad de
dualidad que le ofrece el significado, popularmente interpretado como
toponimo y como nombre comun: Ur-fuego.
Tg: 'Haran murio en vida de Terah, su padre, en su pais natal, en el
homo de fuego de los caldeos' (TN). 'Y sucedio cuando Nemrod hubo
arrojado a Abram en el horno de fuego, porque no queria rendir un
culto a sus idolos, pues el fuego no habian podido quemarle; entonces el
corazon de Haran se dividio, diciendo: "Si vence Nemrod, estare de su
parte, y si vence Abram estare de su parte. Cuando todo el pueblo que
estaba alii vio que el fuego no habia tenido poder sobre Abram, dijo en
su corazon. ^No esta Haran, hermano de Abram, lleno de adivinaciones
y encantamientos? El, pues, ha usado un ensalmo sobre el fuego para
que no quemara a su hermano. En el acto cay6 fuego de lo alto del cielo
y lo consumio, y murio Haran a la vista de su padre Terah cuando fue
quemado en el pais de su nacimiento, en el horno de fuego que hicieron
los caldeos para su hermano Abram"' (TJI). El TN reconoce la
duplicidad de sentido del toponimo Ur: lugar de Mesopotamia-fuego
(horno de fuego), en cambio el TJI explica ampliamente la razon de la
haggada: no solamente es el fuego el que entra en la explicacion, sino
que se da la razon de dicho fuego: Abram se nego a adorar a los idolos
mesopotamicos, se le quiso quemar, pero no hubo exito, en cambio fue
Haran, hermano de Abrahan el que murio, debido a que estaba lleno de
sortilegios.
Midras: Segun R. Hiyya Terah fue fabricante de idolos, y Abram los
vendia. Despues de convertirse Abram fue puesto a prueba. Haran
estaba indeciso: 'Si Abram sale victorioso (de la prueba), yo dire
pensaba Haranque yo tengo la creencia de Abram, mientras que si
Nemrod sale victorioso, dire que yo estoy de parte de Nemrod. Cuando
Abram descendio al horno de fuego y se salvo, el (Nemrod) le pregunto:
"^De que creencia eres tu?", "de la de Abram", respondio. Despues le
agarro y le arrojo al horno; sus entretelas se chamuscaron y murio en
44
presencia de su padre. De ahi que esta escrito, "y Haran murio en

presencia (calpene) de su padre Terah".'40 Tambien el midras aprovecha
la duplicidad de sentido de >ur como toponimo y como nombre comun.
14.18: TH: Melkisedeq-rey de justicia: 'Entonces Melkisedeq, rey de
Salem, saco pan y vino, pues era sacerdote del Dios Altisimo'. Otro rey
cananeo de Jerusalem llevo un nombre afin, Adoni-sedeq (Jos. 10.1).
Melkisedeq, con su nombre evoca las ideas de soberania y de justicia (o
prosperidad), esta citado en el Sal. 110 y considerado por el NT como
una de las figuras del Mesias (cf. Heb. 7).
Tg: 'Melkisedeq, rey de Salemque es el gran Semofrecio pan y
vino, porque era sacerdote y ejercia el sacerdocio soberano delante del
Dios Altisimo' (TN). 'El juez justoque es Sem, hijo de Noe, rey de
Jerusalen, salio al encuentro de Abram y el ofrecio pan y vino; en ese
tiempo, el oficiaba delante del Dios Altisimo' (TJI). Segun el Tg. Salem
se interpreta como Jerusalen. Algunos piensan que Salem seria Salim, al
noreste de Nablus.41 F. Josefo tambien conocia la identificacion de
Salem con Jerusalen,42 y es lo que sucede en el apocrifo del Genesis de
Qumran: 'El vino a Salem, que es Jerusalen, mientras que Abram estaba
acampado en el valle Shaven'.43
Midras: 'Y Melki Sedeq': este lugar hace a sus habitantes justos (leido
como dos palabras como en el TH). 'Y el rey de Sedeq': El Senor de
Sedeq (Jos. 10.1), como 'Adoni-Sedeq'. Jerusalen es llamada 'Sedeq'
(justo), como esta escrito, 'Sedeq' (justo) se alojo en ella' (Is. 1.21). 'Rey
de Salem' (Shalem): R. Isaac el babilonio dijo: Esto implica que nacio
circuncidado (traduce 'shalem' completo, e.d. el rey 'complete', cf. Gen.
17.1-10).44
16.11: TH: Mmac ^/-escucho Dios: 'He aqui que estas encinta y
pariras un hijo, al que pondras de nombre Ismael, porque Yahweh ha
escuchado ($amac) tu afliccion'. Al nombre de Ismael se le da la
traduccion de 'Dios escucha' (Mmac J7), como otros nombres, esta
formado como el resto de teoforos, igual que Israel, Ezequiel, etc.
Tg: 'He aqui que estas encinta y tu vas a dar a luz un hijo. Tu le
llamaras por nombre Ismael porque tu afliccion ha sido escuchada
40. Gen.R. 38.13.
41. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. A Commentary
(BibOr 19; Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), p. 172.
42. F. Josefo, Antiq. 7.3, 2 67; Bel. Jud. 6.10,1 438; Contra Ap. 1.22 174.
43. GenApoc 22,13; cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, pp. 72s. y 173.
44. Gen. R. 43.6.
45
delante de Yahweh (crwm $myc qdm yyy)'. En este caso TN conserva la

misma raiz que el TH, en cambio desaparece en TJI: 'He aqui que tu
estas encinta y que vas a dar a luz un hijo. Tu le llamaras por nombre
Ismael, porque tu afliccion esta patente delante de Yahweh (>rwm gly
qdm yyy)\
Midras: A proposito de este verso, el midras habla simplemente de
que tres individuos fueron llamados por sus nombres antes de nacer:
Isaac, Salomon y Josias; y algunos anaden que fue tambien Ismael, entre
los paganos, e.d. entre los no judios.45 Pero a proposito de 'el habitara
en presencia de todos sus hermanos', se nota que dice 'el habitara':
mientras que en otras partes se lee: 'el cayo' (Gen. 25.17). En tanto que
Abraham vivio 'el habitara', inmediatamente que murio 'el cayo'. Antes
de que el hubiese extendido su mano contra el Templo, 'el habitara', tan
pronto como extendio su mano contra el Templo, 'el cayo' en este
mundo 'el habitara', en el mundo futuro 'el cayo'. Bacher penso que
con esto se aludia a que Ismael (no se debe aqui identificar con Roma)
ataco el Templo, alude o bien al Aretas, rey de Nabatea, que ataco a
Aristobulo y sitio a Jerusalen,46 o al Principe de Arabia que se unio al
ejercito de Vespasiano.
16.14: TH: b"er lahay ro^f-pozo del viviente que me ve: 'Por eso se
denomino "Pozo del Viviente que me ve" (beyer lahay ro3i)\ Quiza el
nombre designaba una divinidad antigua local, que ahora se pone en
relation con la aparicion del Dios de Israel, que se especifica en un juego
de palabras basado en el verbo 'ver'.
Tg: 'Por eso se llamo: "Pozo junto al cual se ha aparecido aquel que
subsiste por todos los siglos'" (TN). 'Por eso se llamo al pozo "Pozo
sobre el que se aparecio quien vive y permanece"' (TJI). El Tg. traduce
el sentido, pero evita el antropomorfismo, huyendo de la version literal,
y a la vez da una definition teologica de Dios.
Midras: 'R. Aibu lo explico: "Tu eres quien ve los sufrimientos de los
perseguidos"' ,47
16.15: TH: Ismael-$awace/: 'Mas tarde, Agar pariole un hijo a
Abram, el cual al hijo que Agar le habia parido pusole por nombre
Ismael'. 21.17: 'Entonces, Dios oyo la voz del muchacho (wayyi$mac
3
Eldhini), y el angel de Dios llamo a Agar desde el cielo y dijole: ^ Qu
45. Gen. R. 45.8.

46. F. Josefo, Antiq. XIV, 2, 1.
47. Gen. R. 45.10.
46
tienes, Agar? No temas, porque Dios ha oido (ki $amaf 3Elohim) la voz
del chico desde el sitio donde esta.'
Tg: 'Y Agar pario a Abram un hijo. Y Abram llamd el nombre del
hijo que le pario Agar, Ismael' (TN, TJI). 21.17: 'Y Yahweh oyo la voz
(w$myf qdm yyy) (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh ha oido la voz del nifio) del
nino, y el angel de Yahweh llamo a Agar desde los cielos y le dijo: ^Que
tienes, Agar? No temas, porque Yahweh ha oido la voz de la oracion del
nino en el lugar donde esta' (TN). ' Y la voz del nifio fue oida delante de
Yahweh (w$myfqdm yyy) por el merito de Abraham y el angel de
Yahweh llamo a Agar desde los cielos y le dijo: ^Que tienes, Agar? No
tengas miedo, porque la voz del muchacho ha sido oida delante de
Yahweh (3rwm Smyc qdm vvv) y no le ha juzgado por las malas acciones
que va a ejecutar, sino que por el merito de Abraham se ha compadecido de el en el lugar donde esta' (TJI). Si en TN-TJI Gen 16.15 no
indican nada sobre el significado del nombre, porque ya lo habian hecho
anteriormente, pero en Gen. 21.17 vuelven a la etimologia popular de
Ismael, mas con distintos matices: Yahweh ha oido la oracion del
muchacho (TN-TJI), pero por merito de Abraham (TJI).
Midras: Si en Gen. 16.15 no repite la derivacion popular, en Gen.
21.17 dice que el angel de Dios llamo a Hagar por causa de Abraham, y
si Dios oyo la voz del muchacho fue por causa del mismo muchacho,
por cuanto las plegarias de una persona enferma hechas para si misma
son mas eficaciones que las de cualquiera otra persona.48
17.5: TH: 3abram-}abrahdm:Padre excelso: 'No se llamara mas tu
nombre Abram, sino que sera tu nombre Abraham, pues padre de
multitud de naciones (3ab hamori) te he constituido'. 'Padre de
multitudes' (>ab hamori) es un nuevo apelativo que Dios da a Abraham,
'el padre de los creyentes'. En realidad las dos formas (AbramAbraham) parecen solamente variantes dialectales de un mismo nombre,
que significaria: 'el padre (la divinidad protectora del clan) es elevado', o
tambien: 'el padre ama'.
Tg: 'Y no se llamara mas tu nombre Abram, y tu nombre sera
Abraham, porque te he puesto para congregacion de multitud de pueblos
justos (3rwm Iqhl knSt 3wmyn sdyqyn)'(TN). 'Y no se llamara ya tu
nombre Abram, pues tu nombre sera Abraham porque te he designado
padre de una gran multitud de pueblos (I'b sgy swgcy fmmyny(TJI). El
Tg. se hace simplemente eco de la misma derivacion popular del TH.
48. Gen.R. 53.14.
47
Midras: 'Bar Kappara decia: 'Cada vez que Abraham es llamado

"Abram" transgrede un mandamiento positivo. R. Levi dijo: "Un
mandamiento positivo y un mandamiento negative". Tu nombre ya no
se llamara Abram' (Gen. 17.5), esto es un mandamiento negativo. 'Sino
que tu nombre sera Abraham' (Gen. 17.5), esto es un mandamiento
positivo. Pero seguramente los hombres de la Gran Asamblea le
llamaron Abram, segun esta escrito: "Tu...que escogiste a Abram"
(Neh. 9.7). Es diferente porque El le escogio mientras fue Abram. Por lo
mismo, por analogia, ^cuando se llama a Sara "Saray" infringe un
mandamiento positivo? No, porque solamente a Abraham le fue
impuesto respeto a ella.'49
17.15: TH: sard-saray: Senora: 'Dijo tambien Dios a Abraham: "A
Saray, tu mujer, no la llamaras mas Saray, sino que su nombre ha de ser
Sara"'. Sara, como Saray, significa 'princesa'.
Tg: 'Y dijo Yahweh (NM: el Verbo de Yahweh) a Abraham: "Tu
mujer Saray, no llamaras su nombre Saray sino que su nombre sera
Sara"' (TN, TJI). Ni el TH, ni el Tg. se hacen cargo de dar una explicacion del cambio de onomastica.
Midras: El nombre original era Saray, terminando en yod\ el valor
numeral de la yod es de 10; ahora bien si este valor numerico lo
dividimos por la mitad, obtenemos que de una yod salen dos he, que
tiene el valor de 5; una he se anadio a Sarah y la obra se anadio a
Abraham. De ahi que Abraham fuese coronado (su nombre fue
cambiado para expresar su grandeza, cf. Gen. 17.5) por Sarah, pero
Sarah no fue coronada por el. Tambien se pone en esta misma relacion
el cambio que se verifica con el nombre de Oseas: 'Y Moises llamo
Oseas (hw&) al hijo de Nun Josue (y/zwF)'50.
17.19: TH: yishdq: Isaac'Y contesto Dios: "Sara, tu esposa, en
verdad, te parira un hijo, a quien pondras por nombre Isaac, y
establecere mi alianza con el en alianza eterna y con su descedencia
despues de el"'. El nombre de Isaac se relaciona con la risa del padre
(17.17): 'Entonces postrose Abraham rostro en tierra y se rio
(wayyishdq), diciendo en su interior: "Â un centenario le va a nacer un
hijo y Sara la nonagenaria va a dar a luz?"'; y esta risa vuelve a
aparecer Gen. 21.6: 'Por lo cual dijo Sara: "Reir (fhoq)me hizo Dios.
Todo el que lo oiga se me reira (yishdq/?)'".
49. Gen. R. 46.8.

50. Gen. R. 47.1.
48
Tg: 'Y dijo Yahweh a Abraham: No obstante, he aqui que tu mujer

Sara te va a parir un hijo y llamaras su nombre Isaac y establecere mi
Alianza con el como Alianza perpetua y con sus hijos despues de el'
(TN). 'Y dijo Yahweh: En verdad Sara tu mujer te dara a luz un hijo y
llamaras su nombre Isaac, y confirmare mi pacto con el como pacto
eterno par sus hijos detras de el' (TJI). Gen. 17.17: 'Y Abraham se
postro (NM: se incline) sobre su rostro y se admiro (wtmh) y dijo en su
corazon: Âcaso a los cien anos me sera posible engendrar hijos? <<,Y
acaso a Sara, que tiene noventa anos, le sera posible parir?' (TN). 'Y
Abraham cayo sobre su rostro, se maravillo (wtmh) y dijo en su corazon:
Ês que un hombre de cien anos tendra un hijo y Sara, de noventa anos
dara a luz?' (TJI). 21.6: 'Y Sara dijo: Una gran alegria me ha sido hecha
delante de Yahweh (hdw rbh 3fbdd mn qdm yyy) (NM: Para mi alegria ha
hecho Yahweh); todo el que lo oiga se alegrara conmigo (NM: Grande
alegria me ha hecho el Verbo de Yahweh. Todo el que oiga mi voz se
alegrara conmigo' (whdy ly yty wyhdycmy)(TN). 'Y dijo Sara: Yahweh
me ha hecho una cosa maravillosa (tymh3 cbd ly yyy), todo el que lo oiga
se maravillara de mi' (ytmh ly) (TJI). En el primer caso, el Tg. no se fija
en la derivation popular de Isaac del TH, sino mas bien busca una
explication teologica; pero en los dos casos siguientes el Tg. refleja,
hasta por duplicados (TJI) la alegria (reir) que le produjo el embarazo a
Sara.
Midras: Aqui el Genesis Rabbah, en ambas ocasiones (Gen. 17.17, 19)
pasa por alto la risa de Sara, llevado del principio de sublimation de los
antepasados de Israel (en concreto de la matriarca Sara), la cual pudiera
aparecer como irreverente en su incredulidad. En cambio si que se
recuerda su alegria comentando Gen. 21.6: 'Cuando a la matriarca Sara
se le concedio el dar a luz, muchas otras mujeres esteriles recibieron el
mismo beneficio que ella; muchos sordos obtuvieron la audition;
muchos ciegos obtuvieron la apertura de sus ojos, muchos enfermos
obtuvieron la salud'.51
19.22: TH: s^Kar-pequena: 'Corre a evadirte alia, pues no puedo hacer
nada hasta que tu alia llegues. Por eso puco por nombre a la ciudad Soar
(= pequena)' (Sofar).19.20: 'Mira, proxima esta esa ciudad, adonde
quiero huir, y que es pequena (mifdry'.
Tg: 'Apresurate a ponerte a salvo alii, porque no podre hacer nada
hasta que entre alii. Por eso la llamo Soar' (Sofar)(TN, TJI). Ni el TH, ni
el Tg. aprovechan la etimologia popular de este toponimo. 19.20: 'Por
51. Gen. R. 53.8.
49
favor, he aqui esta ciudad cercana para huir a ella; esta proxima (NM: es
pequena, z c r). For favor, voy a ponerme a salvo en ella. <<,No es
pequena? (hi3 zcyr>). Y perdure mi vida' (TN). 'Mira, por favor, esa
ciudad, sus habitaciones estan cerca y conveniente para huir alia, y es
pequena (sybhr) y sus pecados son ligeros, dejame ponerme a salvo alii.
^No es pequena? (sybhr) Y perdurara mi vida' (TJI).
Midras: R. Levi referia esto a una gran ciudad que tenia dos patronos,
uno de una gran ciudad, y otro de una pequena ciudad.52
19.37: TH: Moab-mm Jab-del padre: 'Y pario la mayor un hijo, a
quien puso por nombre Moab. Es el padre de los moabitas (yabi md3db),
que perduran hasta hoy.'
Tg: 'Y la mayor pario un hijo y le llamo Moab: es el padre, el padre
}
( by ^bwhwn) de los moabitas hasta el dia de hoy' (TN). 'Y la mayor dio
a luz un hijo y llamo su nombre Moab, porque de su padre (br ^bwh3)
habia concebido, es el padre de los moabitas hasta el dia de hoy' (TJI).
El TH no deriva el nombre de Moab de ninguna rafz, el TN la conoce, y
el TJI lee la etimologia popular min-^db, e.d. 'de su padre'.
Midras: 'R. Yudan, en nombre de R. Aibu, dijo: "Porque el
primogenito metio en desgracia a su padre y le llamo Moab, que
significa 'por mi padre' (me3db), la Biblia mando 'No te enemistes con
Moab, ni entres en batalla con el' (Dt. 2.9): tu no tienes que entrar en
batalla con ellos, aunque tu puedas desviar sus rios y quemar sus
cosechas con el fuego. Pero porque el mas joven salvo el honor de su
padre, porque 'ella le llamo por nombre Ben-Ammi' (Gen. 19.37),
diciendo: 'El es un hijo (ben) que estuvo conmigo (cimmi\ la Biblia dijo,
'No los has de hostilizar ni atacar' (Dt. 2.19) de ningun modo." R. Juda
y R. Hanan en nombre de R. Yohanan dijo: "Las hijas de Lot estuvieron
dispuestas a hacer un disparate, y fsin embargo quedaron encinta! Por
merito ^de quien fue eso? Por merito de Moab, e.d. de uno que fue
padre (mi 3db), e.d. Abraham, del cual se dice: 'porque padre de
multitud de naciones te he hecho' (Gen. 17.5).'"53
19.38: TH: Ben Ammi-Ben c<2wra?-hijo de mi pueblo: 'Y tambien la
menor pario un hijo y llamole Bar Ammi (= hijo de mi pueblo): el es el
padre de los ammonitas hasta el tiempo de hoy' (TN). 'Tambien la
pequena dio a luz un hijo y llamo su nombre Bar Ammi (= hijo de mi
pueblo), porque era hijo de su padre; es el padre del pueblo de los
ammonitas hasta el dia de hoy'. De hecho en el ms. de Londres del TJI
52. Gen.R. 50.12.
53. Gen. R. 61.11.
50
esta cymyh (= hijo con el), pero en la Editio Princeps esta 'hijo de mi
pueblo'. Tambien hay otra variante disparatada que en vez de escribir
'ammonitas', tanto el ms. de Londres como la Editio Princeps
transcriben 'moabitas'.
Midras: 'Pero porque la mas pequefia quiso excusar el honor de su
padre, por eso 'ella le llamo por su nombre Ben-Ammf, diciendo: 'El es
un hijo (ben) de uno que ha estado conmigo (cimmi), la Escritura
ordeno'. R. Juda y R. Hanan en el nombre de R. Yohanan dijo: Las
hermanas de Lot iban a cometer un disparate, sin embargo jquedaron
encinta! ^Por merito de quien fue esto? Por el merito de Moab, e.d. de
uno que fue el padre (mi 3ab) (e.d. braham, de quien se dice): Torque
padre de multitud de naciones yo te he hecho' (Gen. 17.5).54
s
Conclusiones
1) El libro del Genesis demuestra una particular predileccion por la
derivacion popular de la toponimia y onomastica, dandonos a conocer
tradiciones preisraelitas en ambos dominios.
2) Dentro de las cuatro tradiciones admitidas generalmente en el
Genesis (Yahwista, Elohista, Priesterkodex-Sacerdotal y Deuterononica),
la que mas se senala en los detalles de etimologias y etiologias es la
Yahwista, que a su vez, es considerada como la mas antigua.
3) En el mismo libro del Genesis se nos ofrecen datos de una
evolucion interna, siendo esto expresado con diversas formulas:
'antiguamente se llamaba', o bien: 'que es', para garantizar la fiable
identidad especialmente de los toponimos.
4) El TH ofrece en Gen gran cantidad de datos en que se explican
nombres de personas o lugares por una asonancia fonica popular, que no
necesariamente ha de coincidir con la derivacion cientifica hoy conocida,
pero en general no se suele oponer a tal interpretation cientifica.
5) El TH ofrece muchas explicaciones de topdnimos y de onomastica,
pero en muchas otras ocasiones no aplica la vena popular a esas
derivaciones, y nombres que pudieran haber tenido una facil derivacion
popular, tal derivacion no se constata, aunque no quiere decir que no se
empleara, pues la sabiduria popular es muy amante de tales explicaciones.
6) Si el TH ya ofrecio muchas identificaciones, o narraciones
haggadicas a proposito de toponimos y onomastica, el Tg. amplia
54. Gen. fl. 51.11.
51
notablemente tal campo, ofreciendo nuevas identificaciones, o nuevas

explicaciones a datos ya explicados en el TH.
7) El Midras amplia notablemente tales derivaciones, anadiendo
nuevos datos no solamente al TH, sino incluso al Tg.; pero en ciertas
ocasiones es decididamente amplificador, p.e. en las enumeraciones, si se
trata de Qiryat-'Arba', interpretada como la 'ciudad de los cuatro', el
enumerado de cuatro sera ampliado con una lista de cuatro repetida
hasta la saciedad.
in ]n KSB'FINDING FAVOR IN SOMEONE'S EYES':

THE TREATMENT OF THIS BIBLICAL HEBREW IDIOM
IN THE ANCIENT ARAMAIC VERSIONS*
Bernard Grossfeld
The idiomatic expression 'finding favor in someone's eyes' occurs some

50 times in the Bible.1 The ancient Aramaic Bible versions2 render ]n by
either KJI, K"lon or ôrn, and in some cases by a combination of these
equivalents (see Appendix A).
Aramaic ôm for Hebrew ]n is used more or less consistently by the
targumim and Peshitta as follows:
Targum Onqelos: In all the 27 Pentateuch occurrences.
Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel: In all of the cases in the Prophets.
Targum Rishon: In the six Esther verses.
Targum Ruth: In all of the three verses there.
Samaritan Targum: In all the 27 Pentateuch occurrences.
Peshitta: In virtually all of the 50 cases.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: In virtually all of the 27 Pentateuch occurrences.
Targum Sheni in only three out of six cases.3
Aramaic twn is employed less frequently by some versions but almost

exclusively by others, as follows:
Targum Neofiti: In 85% of the cases but always in conjunction with tnon,
only in four instances is WH just by itself.4
* This thesis was read in its original form at the Society of Biblical Literature
Annual Meeting in Kansas City, November 1991, but has been considerably revised
for the present volume.
1. Including the variations Tin ]n ]PD in Gen. 39.21; Exod. 3.21, 11.3, 12.36;
Tin ]0 WD] in Est. 2.15, 17; 5.2; and just Tin ]FT in Prov. 17.8.
2. Beside the targumim, this includes the Peshitta and the Samaritan Targum.
3. In 5.8, 7.3, and 8.5 but always as ]'nmi tnon.
4. In Exod. 3.21, 11.3, 12.36 and Gen. 39.21.
GROSSFELD TIQ ]n NKQ'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'
53
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: three times onlytwice by itself5 and once6

with ion.
Fragment Targum Yerushalmi: Once onlyGen. 6.8with N~TOn.
Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi: four times7 with K~!0n and
o
once by itself.
Targum Sheni: In three of six Esther verses, always with tnon.9
Kion is the least used term as follows:

Targum Proverbs: In all three verses3.4, 17.8 and 28.23.
Targum Neofiti: In 85% of the 27 Pentateuch verses,10 always with wn.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Once,11 withKTI.
Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi: four times, in each case with
wn.
Targum Sheni: Three times with porn12 and three times with NTI.
Peshitta: In only three of the 50 biblical cases.13
In those 18 instances where ]PI occurs in a context other than Tin ]n

K^Q, it is rendered Kion by Targum Proverbs in 9 out of the 10
occurrences;14 pom in 2 instances,15 once as pQrm Kion,16 and once as
tf]n.17 The Peshitta employs some form of KOm in 10 of these cases,
either by itself18 or in combination with another term.19 In one case
Nan. 3 Athe Peshitta uses ]n.
In the ancient classical versions the situation is much more consistent
than in the ancient Aramaic versions. In the 50 Tin ]FI KXQ cases, the
LXX renders ]n by xocpiq, 'grace' 48 times.20 In the 18 non-Tin ]FT K^ft
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
In Gen. 6.18, and 18.3.

Exod. 12.36.
Gen. 30.27, 34.11, 39.4, and 47.29
Exod. 12.36.
Est. 2.15, 17, and 5.2.
See Appendix A.
Exod. 12.36.
5.8, 7.3, and 8.5.
Est. 2.15, 17, and 5.2.
14. In 11.16 it has the form W1TOO. See Appendix B.

15. Tg. Jer. 31.1; Tg. Eccl. 10.12. See Appendix B
16. Tg. Zech. 12.10. See Appendix B.
17. Tg. Prov. 31.30. See Appendix B.
18. Cf. Jer. 31.1; Prov. 5.19; 11.16; 13.15; 22.1, 11; Pss. 45.3; 84.12. See
Appendix B.
19. Cf. Zech. 4.7; 12.10. See Appendix B.
20. Gen. 19.19 and Num. 11.15 are rendered eXeoq, 'mercy', the expression in
54
cases, x<*pi<; occurs 13 times. The Vulgate is even more consistent, rendering ]n in 48 of 50 cases21 in the idiomatic expression by gratia,
'favor', and in all 18 non-Tin |il N^Q cases by that very same term.
The above data indicate the predominance of Aramaic "fErn as the
equivalent for Hebrew ]n in the idiomatic expression Tin ]n KKE, with
Nion and the literal 3n less commonly used. However, the latter are
employed almost exclusively, and mostly in combination with each other,
by some targumim, especially the non-standard ones such as Neofiti, the
Geniza Fragments of Targum Yerushalmi, and the Targum Sheni. In the
non-idiomatic expressions, Hebrew ]FI is mostly rendered Kion by the
targumim, while the Peshitta still mostly uses KQITI.
A series of interrelated questions concerning this situation may now
be put forward as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Why do most standard targumim and the Peshitta prefer

KQm/pnm rather than the literal KJ1?
On the other hand, why do the non-standard targumim prefer
Kion either by itself or in combination with KJI?
What do the combinations NJI, pmi tnon, pmi Kiom ]n
fcnom indicate concerning the semantic relationship between
these three terms?
In dealing with the first question, it is hereby suggested that the translation Kftm/f'Dm is an interpretive one, meaning 'mercy'/'compassion',
the very same Aramaic equivalent which is used for the Hebrew noun
Dâm by the targumim and the Peshitta in 38 of its 39 occurrences.22
Furthermore, the statistics of the 79 occurrences of the Hebrew verb ]]n
point to an ever increasing use of the Aramaic verb Dm both in the
targumim (19 cases) and in the Peshitta (46 cases) as the interpretive
verbal equivalent. It then logically follows that the noun "porn would
likewise be the interpretive equivalent for the Hebrew noun ]l~f.
The difference in the consistency displayed by the Aramaic Bible
versions in rendering the 50 occurrences of ]n in the Tin ]n tf^Q
situations in contrast to the variety of equivalents offered by them in the
18 occurrences of ]n in the non-Tin ]n ^Q cases is a logical one. In the
former case, only one type of contextual situation exists'finding )n in
someone's eyes', an idiomatic expression. In contrast, in the latter case,
the LXX for Hebrew ion in 168 of its 201 occurrences throughout the biblical text.
21. Gen. 47.25 and Est. 5.2 are paraphrased.
22. The exception being Ps. 79.8, where the targum renders "]'Drn by "[mao.
GROSSFELD Tin ]n K^Q'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'
55
]FI appears in a variety of contexts and consequently it is rendered by the

respective targumim by a variety of equivalents, some literal (where twn
is used twice23), and others giving an interpretive meaning. Thus we
have 'mercy' (where "pam is employed twice24) or 'understanding'
(here rim is the equivalent once25) or 'appearance' (where the rendering
is TT~l once26). Some equivalents are paraphrastic (twice27), and once the
doublet pariTl KIOFI28 is used. Each usage is according to the context of
the verse; even tnon (nine times29) is used.
Concerning the second questionwhy do the non-standard Targumim
use Kion for Hebrew ]H, especially in the TJO ]F1 KSa situation? Chief
among these is Targum Neofiti in 23 of 27 casesthough always with
KJI.30 This question has a second partwhy not use parn? In addressing
the latter, we must first ask do Targum Neofiti and the Geniza Fragment
Targum Yerushalmi have parri in their vocabulary at all? The answer is
yesas the equivalent for Hebrew Dâm, 'mercy'/'compassion' in each
of its three Pentateuchal appearances.31 A contrast is offered by the
Hebrew noun rnriK, 'love' where Neofiti uses nnam/Knam rather than
pam for the two Pentateuchal appearancesGen. 29.20 (infinitive with
verbal force) and Deut. 7.8. The term Kfiarn also occurs in Tg. 2 Sam.
13.15; as Kniym in Tg. 2 Sam. 1.26; in Tg. Eccl. 9.6 as Knnm, and in
the Tg. Prov. 5.19 as NDaimall for Hebrew rQ!"IN. Thus, in answer to
part two of this question, we may say that Targum Neofiti did not use
pam for ]n because it is used exclusively for Hebrew Dâm. This
situation does not, however, hold true for numerous other targumim
which used "pan"! for Hebrew D'Dm as well as for ]n in the Tin ]n N^ft
expression.32 Perhaps Neofiti's reluctance to employ pan") is due to the
fact that the targumist did not understand ]n here to denote the
interpretive meaning 'mercy'/'compassion' but rather the literal meaning
23. Tg.Prov.31.30;Tg.Ps. 84.12.
24. Tg. Jer. 31.1; Tg. Eccl. 10.12.
25. Tg. Eccl. 9.11.
26. Tg. Nah. 3.4.
27. Tg. Zech. 4.7; Tg. Ps. 45.3.
28. Tg.Zech. 12.10.
29. Eight of which are in Tg. Prov.
30. In four cases KJI is used alone.
31. Gen. 43.14, 30; Deut. 13.18 with pronominal suffixes.
32. Cf. Tgs. Onq. and Ps.-J. to Gen. 43.14, 30; Deut. 13.14; Tg. for all 12
instances in the Prophets, e.g. 1 Kgs 8.50; Isa. 47.6; Zech. 1.16; Tg. Ps. in all 11
instances there, e.g. 106.46; Tg. 2 Chron. 30.9.
56
'grace'. However, if that were the case, why use ion in conjunction
with ]n in 23 out of 27 cases? This now leads into the first part of this
question why use "ion here at all? Three explanations are hereby
offered.
1 . Hebrew ]PI = Aramaic K~!0n 'grace '

Targum Neofiti understood ]!"[ in these 27 passages literally as 'grace',
using the literal Aramaic twn four times by itself and in 23 additional
passages in combination with Kion as that term eventually developed
into the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew ]n. The doublet fcnom K]H
outside of Neofiti exists only once in Targum Pseudo- Jonathan, three
times in Targum Sheni, four times in the Geniza Fragments Targum
Yerushalmi, and once in the Fragment Targum.33 Eventually, tfion
began to function by itself as the equivalent for ]PI, as can be seen in the
9 out of 10 cases where Targum Proverbs employs it to mean 'grace' in
the non-Tin ]n K^Q cases.34
2. Hebrew ]FI = Aramaic KlCfi 'compassion '/'mercy'
The term ion appears 201 times in the biblical text. The LXX translates
it eXeo<; 'mercy' 168 times.35 Likewise, misericordia in the Vulgate
follows the LXX pattern of e'A,eo<;. In fact, H.J. Stoebe, in his analysis of
the meaning of "ion in the biblical text,36 points out that in Hebrew, D1CD
replaced ion only after the latter term took on the meaning of D^nn
consequent to its association with that word in doublet form or in
synonymous parallelism.37 This development took place in Aramaic as
well, when KTOn, which originally meant 'kindness'/'favor', took on the
meaning of 'mercy'.38 It was then replaced in Aramaic by one of the
terms of the DIED triadfcQICD/KrQQfiirttas the literal equivalent for Hebrew
33. Gen. 6.8.
34. For which see Appendix B.
35. In Psalms alone, the LXX renders Hebrew ion by etaoq 74 out of 100 times.
36. In 'Die Bedeutung des Wortes hesed im Alten Testament', VT 2 (1951),
p. 248.
37. For which cf. Jer. 16.5; Hos. 2.21; Zech. 7.9; Ps. 103.4; as well as Pss. 25.6,
51.3, 69.17; Isa. 63.7; Lam. 3.32; and especially Dan. 1.9. Further evidence is in the
common formulaic doublet G1ITTI pn (Joel 2.13; Jon. 4.2; Pss. 111.4; 112.4; 145.8;
2 Chron. 30.9) and its reverse Jim Dim (Exod. 34.6; Pss. 86.15; 103.8).
38. Whereas the term ]'Qm was reserved by Tg. Neof. exclusively for Hebrew
D'Qfn and is used in all three verses where it appears Gen. 43.14, 30, and Deut.
13.18.
GROSSFELD Tin |n rc*n'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'
57
ion meaning 'kindness'/'favor'. The doublet ITtDl ion indicates that

Q-'tD eventually became the preferred form for Hebrew "ion rather than
inon. The statistics confirm this development. For the 201 times ion
occurs in the biblical text, one of the three terms of the 31CD triad appears
in the targumim as the equivalent 141 times as opposed to KTOn which
occurs 61 times. In the Peshitta the ratio is even higher in favor of the
JIB triad135 : 12. Thus tnon in the 23 cases in Targum Neofiti means
'mercy'/'compassion', an interpretive translation paralleling that of the
standard targumim which use "pom. How then does one explain the
four occasions on which Targum Neofiti uses tf]n by itself? The
explanation lies in the contextual situation of the verses themselves. The
verses in question are Gen. 39.21; Exod. 3.12, 11.3, and 12.36; their
common denominator is that it is God who places the ]FI of someone
into someone else's eyes. In Gen. 39.21, Joseph's ]FI is placed in the eyes
of the keeper of the prison, and in the three Exodus verses the Israelite's
|n is placed in the eyes of the Egyptians (these four verses have ]n |H]
instead of ]n N2SQ). Here we have a digression from the standard formula
of our idiomatic expression Tin ]n K^Q, which is a spontaneous
reaction on the part of one person towards another. The spontaneity
easily involves the emotion of 'compassion'/'mercy'. Thus Targum
Neofiti renders ]FI here by K3FI exclusively, a term which the targumist
felt did not involve the emotion of 'compassion'/'mercy' as Nion did,
but rather simply 'grace'.
k
3. Hebrew ]n = Aramaic KIDF! 'kindness'/'favor'
As pointed out above, Hebrew ~!0n /Aramaic tnon originally meant
'kindness'/'favor' prior to taking on the meaning 'compassion'/'mercy',
and before being replaced by one of the TIB triad terms which took on
this original meaning of Aramaic Kion. Targum Neofiti's tnon in the 23
Pentateuchal passages in translation of Hebrew ]n may in essence then
reflect this original meaning of 'kindness'/'favor'.
We would thus have three distinct translations for Hebrew ]FI in our
idiomatic expressionTargum Neofiti's interpretive Kion, 'kindness'/
'favor'; the interpretive "pQm/Nnm 'mercy'/'compassion' found in
Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Jonathan to the
Prophets; and the literal translation of the classical versions x<*Pl? and
gratia of the LXX and Vulgate, respectively, meaning 'grace'.
The third question concerns the semantic relationship between the
three terms ]!"!, ion, Dôm in their Hebrew and Aramaic forms. Turning
58
first to the combinatory doublets, in the Hebrew, one of ]n with "ion is

limited to a single caseEst. 2.17 TB^ IDm ]n ^m.39 In contrast, ion
with D'Qrn occurs eight times.40 As for ]FI with D^Qm, they do not occur
in their nominal form, only in their adjectival/substantival forms of ]1]n
and Dim, respectively.
In Aramaic, the situation is different. The doublet NiomfcWFIoccurs 31
times23 in Targum Neofiti, once in Fragment Targums, once in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, four times in the Geniza Fragment Targum
Yerushalmi, and twice in Targum Esther II. The combination ^QmiNlon
occurs four times, once in Targum of the Prophets and three times in
Targum Sheni.41 As in Hebrew, the combination ]FI with Q^Qm is nonexistent. A very revealing passage points to the relationship of the three
terms: Ps. 77.9-10 *]K3 f*B") DN *7K HUH nDe?n...TTOn nÔSn
n^D Tam. Here we see ion, |n and D^Qm in synonymous parallelism.
Everything revolves around the term ion which originally meant
'kindness'/'favor'. It was used both by targumim and the Peshitta in this
sense.42 Moreover, there existed a semantic connection between ]n and
ion to the degree that some ancient versions occasionally used a
common term for both.43 Furthermore, J. Montgomery44 has correctly
39. There are no attested cases where these specific terms appear in synonymous
parallelism to each other, unless you count Pss. 86.15, 103.8, and 145.8, where "ion
is paralleled by ]1TI.
40. Isa. 63.7; Jer. 16.5; Hos. 2.21; Zech. 7.9; Pss. 25.6, 103.4; Lam. 3.32; Dan.
1.9, in addition to two instances where these terms are in synonymous parallelism to
each other, for which cf. Ps. 51.3; 69.17.
41. For which cf. Zech. 12.10 and Est. 5.8, 7.3, and 8.5, respectively. In one Tg.
Est. II manuscriptParma 3235 (Rossi 42/1), this doublet occurs in reverse form,
pom f om.
42. The statistics really tell the whole story. These clearly show the
overwhelming ratio in which the Aramaic 31CD-triad 'favor/kindness' is used over
against Aramaic tfion in translation for Hebrew lOPI by the various targumim and
the Peshitta:
PentateuchTg. Onq. 14 : 3; Ps.-J. 1 3 : 2 ; Peshitta 17 : 0
ProphetsTg. Neb. 27 : 11; Peshitta 3 1 : 1
HagiographaTargumim 87 : 45; Peshitta 86 : 11.
43. In his study, 'Some Implications of Hen for Old Testament Religion', JBL
73 (1954), pp. 36-41, W.L. Reed points out that a study of the versions makes it
clear that the authors of the targums, the Peshitta and the LXX did not find a sharp
difference between hen and hesed. Ordinarily different Aramaic, Syriac and Greek
words were employed to render the two Hebrew words, but in some cases the same
word was used, a practice which would indicate that the translators did not sharply
GROSSFELD TJO |n N:SQ'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes'
59
pointed out that Greek xdpiq of the New Testament renders the idea of
the Hebrew IDFI. Now, as pointed out above, âpic, is the standard LXX
equivalent for Hebrew ]n in 48 of the 50 cases. So there may have
existed a period, probably before it was replaced in Aramaic by various
forms of the TIED triad, when ion was semantically linked with ]n.45 In
the Aramaic Bible versions this phenomenon shows itself in those
targumim where the doublet tnom K2n is found as a translation for
Hebrew ]f[. Targum Neofiti is the best representative of this tradition,
using it in 23 of 21 cases. By contrast, the few times that N2n is used by
itself as a translation for Hebrew ]n reflect a period prior to the evolution
of the brief ]n-"lon semantic link. The final state of that development
which shows K~lon totally representing Hebrew ]FI is indicated in Targum
Proverbs where Kion in this context occurs in 11 out of 12 cases and
twice in the Peshitta (Est. 2.15; 3.2).
The next stage in the semantic development of Kion after the UltQ triad
replaced it as the equivalent for Hebrew 1DPI in the targumim and the
Peshitta is the semantic linkage of Hebrew 1DFI with Hebrew D^Qm. In
the biblical text this phenomenon can be seen by the five cases where
ion and Dôm appear together in a hendiadys type structure in addition
to the numerous cases of synonymous parallelism in which the two
appear. In the targumim, the three occurrences of the doublet Nion/ion
"porni in Targum Sheni signal the demise of the term "pom which was
eventually replaced by ion as the equivalent for Hebrew ]n. Thus, ion
had the versatility to replace tn and 'pom for Hebrew |H since it had
similar connotational value, meaning 'grace'/'favor' as well as 'mercy'.
This is supported by the terms some of the ancient versions use to render
Hebrew ion.
differentiate between the two. In Gen. 19.19 and Ps. 84.11 the LXX has eêoc; for
hen and hannun, but the same Greek word is often used to render hesed. In most
passages the LXX translates hen with the word X^P1?-1 a footnote (23), Reed cites
Pss. 84.11; 111.4, Exod. 22.27, and 34.6, where the LXX renders Hebrew ]1]n with
the Greek eA,eT)uv. I disagree with K. Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in
the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs, 17;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), p. 235, who considers the meaning of 'favor'
for "Ol, where it seems to have fallen together with ]!"!, a late meaning.
44. Cf. 'Hebrew Hesed and Greek Chads', HTR 32 (1939), pp. 97-102.
45. In fact in the modern Bible translations such as the American Revised
Version and the Authorized Version, a multitude of English terms were used in the
translation of "ton. Three of the most common ones were 'grace', 'kindness' and
'mercy'.
60
The LXX translates 168 of the 201 TOFT cases by the stock translation
eêo<;, 'mercy', the very same term it sometimes employs for Hebrew
D^Qm,46 but the LXX also, at times, employs %dpi<;, 'grace'/'favor' (Est.
2.9).47 The situation in the Peshitta is even more revealing. Of 101 cases
of ion in Psalms, it uses NQm a total of 28 times, and NQm is used an
additional 10 times out of a total of 98 cases outside the Psalms.48
Furthermore, of 32 cases of the noun TOPI (mostly in Psalms), the
Peshitta renders this word twice by pmo (Ps. 43.1; 145.17). Targum
Proverbs has ^nmn once (20.6). Finally, there is Est. 7.3 ^n^Q DK
f^QH TIO ]n. In eight different manuscripts of Tg. Est. II, four different
renderings for jFI are given: Sassoon 282 has "form "ion; Budapest
National Museum 24, and London Or. 9924-9925 (Caster 299) have
pnT) tnon; Parma 2867 (Rossi 345) has Kiom KJTT; Berlin 1 OR. Fol.
1-4 (Kennicott 150) has pm; and British Museum Or. 2375, 2377, and
2374 have all three]<Drm Kiom 3R.
46. Cf. Deut. 13.18; Isa. 54.7, 63.7; Ps. 103.4.

47. Cf. G. Farr, The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea', ZAW 70 (1958),
pp. 98-107. Farr points out that although %apiq ('grace') is not the usual translation
of "TOn in the LXX, where it is generally represented by eXeog, in the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus and Esther, as well as Symmachus, %apic, becomes more and
more the equivalent for ion.
48. In the Prophets and the Hagiographa, for which cf. 2 Sam. 9.3; 16.7; Isa.
54.8; Jon. 2.9; Prov. 14.22; 20.6; 31.26; Ezra 9.9; Neh. 13.22; and Lam. 3.22.
Appendix A
Who in Whose Eyes
1. Noah in the Lord's
7. Abraham in the Angel's
12. Lot in the Angel's
17. Laban in Jacob's
23. Jacob in Esau's
24. Jacob in Esau's
25. Jacob in Esau's
26. Jacob in Esau's
27. Jacob in Esau's
28. Jacob in Esau's
29. Jacob in Esau's
30. Jacob in Esau's
31. Jacob in Esau's
32. Jacob in Esau's
33. Jacob in Esau's
34. Jacob in Esau's
35. Jacob in Esau's
36. Jacob in Esau's
37. Jacob in Esau's
38. Jacob in Esau's
39. Jacob in Esau's
40. Jacob in Esau's
41. Jacob in Esau's
42. Jacob in Esau's
43. Shekhem in Jacob's and his Sons'
Referencee
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 6.8
Gen. 183
Gen. 18.3
Gen. 18.3
Gen. 18.3
Gen. 18.3
Gen. 19.19
Gen. 19.19
Gen. 19.19
Gen. 19.19
Gen. 19.19
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 30.27
Gen. 32.6
Gen. 32.6
Gen. 32.6
Gen. 32.6
Gen. 32.6
Gen. 33.8
Gen. 33.8
Gen. 33.8
Gen. 33.8
Gen. 33.8
Gen. 33.10
Gen. 33.10
Gen. 33.10
Gen. 33.10
Gen. 33.10
Gen. 33.15
Gen. 33.15
Gen. 33.15
Gen. 33.15
Gen. 33.15
Gen. 34.11
Hebrew Text
'- Tin in Kin ra

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

TTH Tin ]n KiDb
TTH Tin ]n Kin1?

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

TTH Tin in KiQH
TTH Tin in KiOR
CTin in Kinn
Aramaic Bible Version
Aramaic Text
Conversion
Fragment Targum
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms E
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms C
- n-p R-cm R7n n;oR nr,

Tin worn FCOR nn
rtiira/rsa crin/em apn nr.
"n cip -cm ]n rccR nr
"n Dip "am FCDR nr,
"n c~p Rrn noot< nn
frra Qm nncas
prca ci-irapoKi
-jQ-prpSR2 -cm ]n r,n^3R
-Q-ipr]rjn]-an-, rrnroR
p'f >cn rrrCTK
77H3 warn Tas n3o
]n to tricrr, ten
|n to torn
]- to crin/Cm
]n to -nm ;n
;n tofarn
]- to ten
,n to sarn
]n to c-iri
]n to -cm ]n
]- tor-am
;n toRrn
,n toom
]n tocrcn
n to -ram ]n
]n tofani
]n to]*anp to Tom ;n
]n toam
]n totrrn
]n to Tom ]n
n to fan
]n to pom
}n to"om
]n to am
]n to crn
]- to tom ]n
n topani
in toam
]n to mm
]n to Tom ]n
]n to "Dm
]n tofam
]n to tcm
]n to m
]n to ism ]n
;n tofam
;n to "am
]n toRDm
p to mm
]n to -cm ]n
]n tofom
]n topm
;n to -cm ;n
~"'I72 US~t -["as BpCJR
-irB=Aia-ip T=m -n -TOH n^

-p"3O/-pTp "QTPi ~"CiJ PCC7K
-p-p yarn TOB nco

jaTp -cm -n rroox
-p-sn ani rraon
-[Thtra/Trffia cm rapros
jDTp/jsaG -cm, -n rrrCTK
TîOAp-p "Dm rrrcoM
-;rm 7am nrcc
7/B2 fam RrooR1?
7"^2 am, nroR7^0/7701 crm/tin riDpna^
~aT,p/72R3 -cm ]n nrcoab
-rm fom rza6
-Q TS3 warn rcoRi
'2i rntra/TKj cmArn nspnab
~2~i cnpr;D2 "cm ]n Rnsoa^
j-3-1 TBS fom Rnrot6
'nrn TK5 "am, RTCOR^
77^2 warn nrcoR
7Tnra/7ra3 mArB-i ncpTOR
70f/7SR3 -cm ]n rrnrcTR
yea f am nrooR
7/H2 ]-am rrrcoR
-a Tin Ram naoR
rrtrn/Tsa Dirn/trri raprnn
ran mprara -err, ]n FDOR
ran Tra ]-om FDOR
rn, cnp am, rcoR
^sa~!p "cm, ;n rcoR

49. Joseph in the Captain of the Guard's
55. Joseph in the Prison Warden's
60. Joseph's Brothers in Joseph's
65. Jacob in Joseph's
71. Joseph in Pharaoh's Household
76. The Israelites in the Egyptians'
Gen. 34.11
Gen. 34.11
Gen. 34.11
Gen. 34.11
Gen. 34.11
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.4
Gen. 39.21
Gen. 39.21
Gen. 39.21
Gen. 39.21
Gen. 39.21
Gen. 47.25
Gen. 47.25
Gen. 47.25
Gen. 47.25
Gen. 47.25
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 47.29
Gen. 50.4
Gen. 50.4
Gen. 50.4
Gen. 50.4
Gen. 50.4
Exod. 3.21
CDTin ]n K2
DDTSQ ]n R1S3
CSTS2 pKiDR
CDTH3 prciDN
CCTffl p KfflR
rrin p pr K^D"!
TTB3 ]n ]CT SHOT
rrjn ]n pr Itaa*!
rrm ]n ^CT Ran
rrffl ]n pr (Can
TTJO p pr Kan
TDTT m TO Tin 130 ]IT1
lion n-3 ~a Tin Tjn ]rn
TTOn 173 ^0 Tra tn ]m
TTOH IT3 "ID Tin in ]tn
-non TO ~a Tin m ]m
T TM ]n 10333
'318 *TSQ ]n SlKfl
'3TR '7^3 ]n Kô:
T TB3 ]n RH33
TW TB3 ]n ICB33
7720 ]P! -i:G
frm ]n TIKSD
"Tra ]n 'nicas
-prffl fi TKcas
jrin ]n 'rH3
jrjn ]n THC33
CSTra ]n TTWaa
nyrsn ]n TMS3
DSTK1 |n TS3
G2TB3 ]n TTK33
orrm Tfi TKSD
CTTSn Taa np DOT |n r *nn3
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms E
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms D
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
fOTJn om rcc
pDmtTD/pyrin m/tr:nrapOR
p'S3 Tom ]n fDDS
pD'Dlp/pTJn f Dm PDDK
form f Dm PCOK
'1SK3 TOm ]n pr room
vnrjn KQrn rpr rcOKl
rmrn/Tin CTJn "pr Bpotfl
"EKa Tom p ]07 matt
TTirJO yarn ÔT PDOSI
'Tin fnrn epr room
RTDR TO m TJJ3 KDrrt> mm
aiTON TO mim/Tin nrnOBI 3T1
rrmnn !T3 IT) 'EQ 1]n 'TO
'TOR 173 31 Tin fornbran
'TOR TO 31 Tffl rrmarn rT3Tl
pa Tea Qm rcO3
mtm/Tfla crn rpnm
'jn-,TTEJ3 Tom ]n PDO]
'ID'l Tfl3 f on rom
'TO"I Tin fDTn rco:
~mp Tom p rrroiw
7710 Horn nrODK
77U3 urn ru)pon
^DTprpsra Tom ]n r,ro3K
^rra fan rrrDDR
"JOTp fan rTTDDR
[Drm NOn PTDOR
fomtrn/fcrrin urn nrporw
jID'SKJ TOm ]n rrrDDR
JOTB3 "Dm rrrDDK
fOTIO fnrn WTDDR
.D-l^DI fTPTBa Dmb tU/7 Trr'nttl
]n to tm
]n to m
]n to Tom ]n
]n to f DTP
]n to f Qm
]n to Tom ]n
|n to twrn
]n totTJn
ptoiomp
]n tofnrn
f! tofDm
]n toKDm
]n to Fin
]n to ]n
]n tofDm
jn to yarn
]n toJWrn
]n to nrn
]ntotorn]n
]n tofnrn
|n tofnm
ptoTorr, ]n
jn toKQm
]ntocrrn
]ntoTDiTl]n
]n to 'Qm
]n to fan
]n toSOrn
]n to crrn
]ntoicm]n
]n to f Dm
]n tofon
]n toWm
Exod. 3.21
DHS3 %3'r3 ntn can ;n rw Tnn
Samaritan Targum
r"ca3 rmin ]m nnr nrn rr 3TW
jntocrm

Exod. 3.21
Exod. 3.21
Exod. 3.21
Exod. 11.3
Exod. 1 1 . 3
Exod. 1 1 .
Exod. 1 1 . 3
Exod. 1 1 . 3
Exod. 12.36
D"233 TJO nm DBT! ]n r 'nnjl

D~aD Tin ~n DOT p IK Tftn
D"an T S3 rm Dm p f Tim
CTTSD Tin DOT p n 'n ]m
D-anT:O DW p r'n jJTl
C"EfflTin COT p r'n ]m
n"anTin COT p rw ~n ]rn
D-anTJJ3 COT p r ~n pn
C-fiaaTM DOT p n ;n'
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Cairo Geniza Frag. Ms AA
-am jTrEMQ fVwn DT1 ]TT3n rr JTO1

'KI^D T1O f am1? f TT KQfl rr ]PR1
'tnsn Tin f Dm1? f Tn DB rr ]rrw
-am ffrrra KDrn^ O!^ R'TD f 3m
'KTS33 mtrn ]TI rm m tT 3nl
""am fTTStQ D!n fT3n "n'W
tram Tin forrt" DD IT 'n 3m
Tram Dip fnrr6 KDJ) IT'" 3T1
nosn fi3n rr IT "m mnoi
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p

Exod. 12.36
Exod. 12.36
Exod. 12.36
D"lHD TB3 DOT p r ]TD "u

D-an TH3 DOT p n jra "r
C-anTS2 COT p r ]T13'm
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Onqelos
K"am ]7rrjn (mb RD^P "in fOR 3m

iran mtn2 HDU ]m rr 3' "m
"HTSn Tr3 fnrrfr N3 rr 3T ^m
to p
tofnm
tofDm
to Dm
torn
top
tofnm
tofDm
top
nram JITSIQ f Vn
p toDm
p to m
p tofnm

92. Moses in the Lord's
1 1 0 . Moses in the Lord's
132. The Gadites and Reubenites in Moses'
Exod. 12.36
Exod. 12.36
Exod. 33.12
Exod. 33.12
Exod. 33.12
Exod. 33.12
Exod. 33.12
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.13
Exod. 33.16
Exod. 33.16
Exod. 33.16
Exod. 33.16
Exod. 33.16
Exod. 33.17
Exod. 33.17
Exod. 33.17
Exod. 33.17
Exod. 33.17
Exod. 34.9
Exod. 34.9
Exod. 34.9
Exod. 34.9
Exod. 34.9
Num. 1 1 . 1 1
Num. 1 1 . 1 1
Num. 1 1 . 1 1
Num. 1 1 . 1 1
Num. 1 1 . 1 1
Num. 1 1 . 1 5
Num. 11.15
Num. 1 1 . 1 5
Num. 1 1 . 1 5
Num. 1 1 . 1 5
Num. 32.5
Num. 32.5
Num. 32.5
Num. 32.5
Num. 32.5
CTTSO Tin csn ~n nn ira "m

iTisa Tin cm ~n ira "rn
Tin ,n neaa cr,
Tin ]n nrcia en
7m in ntem m
Tin ]n neaa en
Tin ]n ra: en
7?ra ]n -nKin
jrm ]n KD ]sd7
7rm ]n -nK;a
jrm fi y iBa1?
7rm ]n -nsa
771:3 ]n R23K ]rab
jrra ]n 'nsn
jrm ]n KJDK ]ud7
TTsn ]n -rucia
jrm fi K^Q ]Bob
yrra 71 -na3 -D
77in ]H 7TH223 '2
77m in TMin 'D
7rra ]n -nea o
Tm in riNia -D
rm ]n mcia -2
TB3 ]n nKJQ '3
T^3 in nRna -3
Tin in rwiio '3
Tin in rwsn '3
7710 in -nreia
77in in TMSQ
77in in TWSQ
77^ in TKSD
7710 in -raeia
77in in TWSD b nafr,
77in in -nKso vb no1?!
77ra in Ticffl vb no'pi
77ra in TireaD sb noVi
7710 in 'oca vb naî
77ra in 'rwsn
77in in THSD
77in in 'raeia
77ra in 'racia
7710 in -reeia
77U3 in 1322
77ra in isn
77:13 in ia2
7rraimSD
77in in lacia
Targum Neofiti
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Onqelos
Targum Neofiti
Rino cop Tom irr? ROD IT 3rr ~rn

iisai yrrsta RODI ymn rr -ID "rr,
Tin warn nrccR ^RI
"oip/rntm/Tin nrn nDpnns
'aip Tom p nn3CR TTTTI
aip yarn RnrooR ^RI
oip yam nrcon TIRI
771)3 warn ITCORI
771)3 warn ITCORI 'TOO
"jmtrn crm TinpoR
~]mtrn crm nporiR
70ip lorn p rrrooR
7aTprysR3 lorn p rrcoR ni ^ta p
70ip yam rrn3O ]
-jQip yam n3oi "7-n
IDTp yam rrraw
7a~ip yorn rcoRT "T^JS p
771)3 warn nrDBtn
purn/77in o-m rapn vbn
70ip Tom p nn30K DI-
pip yarn rrrDDR "
ôip yam rrrDDH cniR
Tin Rorn JTDEI
Tin crn /trin nDpons R^n
"OTpAsta Tom p ITCOK DTM
-DTp yam nrcoK. --
-alp yarn nn3D raiR
771)3 Rarn nrooR
7Tn3 o-m nnpDR
7mp Tom p nrDox
-joip yam rrn3D
7a~ip yam rrn3ox
771)3 warn nn3o vb joaî
771)3 crm nrpn* vb noî
-p3 Ton/Tnn p nrooR vb ]so na'71
70ip yarn rrrDO vb RO'TI
7aip yarn rrrDOK vb HO'TI
771)3 warn nroot*
771)3 trrn ni)pra
70Tip/7sR3 Tom p rrrcxaK
pip /77D3 yam n-n3o
joip yarn HTDOR
77in warn in3DR
77in cm i3i)pD
7/in yarn wn3o
7a-npriE3 iom p prcs
TJip yarn jn3o
p to -cm p
P top
p to warn
p to crm
P to icm p
p to yarn
p to yam,
p tosam,
p to warn
p
P
p
p
to crm
to crm
to icm p
to iom p
p to yarn
p to yam
p to yarn
p to yam
p to warn
p to DTP,
p to Tom p
P to yam
P to yam
p toRom
p to am
p to lorn p
p to yam
p to yam
p to warn
p
p
p
p
p
p
to DTP,
to Tom p
to yam
to yam
to Ram
to crm
p
p
p
p
p
p
to icm p/ion
to yarn
to yarn
to warn
to crrn
to lorn p
p to yam
p to yarn
p to warn
p to crm
p to yarn
p to torn p
p to yarn
137. A Woman in her Husband's

142. Gideon in the Angel of the Lord's
143. Gideon in the Angel of the Lord's
144. Hanna in Eli's
145. Hanna in Eli's
Deut. 24.1
Deut. 24.1
Deut. 24.1
Deut. 24.1
Deut. 24.1
Judg. 6.17
Judg. 6.17
I Sam. 1 . 1 8
1 Sam. 1.18
'Tin f; RfflTi R1? CR

T7in ]n RS3T! vb OH
T7in in Ran vb OH
T7in ]n RSDTi R1?
T7in ]n RSDTi 6 CN
77S3 ft Tfla
~T!12 ft THSO
7723 ft fiTED RSan
77in f! -jnnSD HSBTl
Peshitta
Samaritan Targum
Targum Neofiti
Targum Onqelos
Peshitta
Targum Jonathan
Peshitta
Targum Jonathan
146. David in Saul's
1 Sam. 16.22
Tin ]n neD T
Peshitta
147. David in Saul's

148. David in Jonathan's
152. David's Young Men in Nabal's
153. David's Young Men in Nabal's
154. David in Akhish's
155. David in Akhish's
156. Joab in David's
157. Joab in David's
158. David in the Lord's
159. David in the Lord's
160. Ciba in David's
!61.Cibain David's
162. Hadad in Pharaoh's
163. Hadad in Pharaoh's
164. Man in God's and Man's
I Sam. 16.22
1 Sam. 20.3
1 Sam. 20.3
1 Sam. 20.29
1 Sam. 20.29
1 Sam. 25.8
1 Sam. 25.8
1 Sam. 27.5
1 Sam. 27.5
2 Sam. 14.22
2 Sam. 14.22
2 Sam. 15.25
2 Sam. 15.25
2 Sam. 16.4
2 Sam. 16.4
1 Kgs 1 1 . 1 9
1 Kgs 1 1 . 1 9
Prov. 3.4
TS3 fi nWffl "3

7nn ft THS3'3
7nn ]n TKffl '3
7TH3 ]n TlKffl
7710 |n TJCa
7753 ]n cnon usa^
7^0 ]n ffTCTt TRSO1!
77K3 ]n T*Cn
7710 p TKSQ
77:0 ft TRSJ '3
~fTSn ]n TTRffl *3
7! TB3 p KSBR
T7 "7E2 jn KSC*
"TR Tin ;n R1JDR
TTR Tin ]H RSOR
runs '7K1 ]n Tn R^Q'l
rare TB3 ]T7 Tin RSffl
CT!R1 CTft TJ2 310 1OTl ft KiDT
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
165. Man in God's and Man's
Prov. 3.4
CTKl DTf*'73 3 "?3ffi ]n SO1
Targum
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
vnmp ROm ITCOR R1? ]R

T7in cm nspDR R1? at
'TBRSAZTip TOT) ft J773OR R1? ]'R
'Tin parn nHTOTi R1?'-8
TITin pam rcon R1? CR
77in Rnm rrroOR
~D~pr;rjn pam rrrcoR
77in HOTTl TT rcon
70Tp/7/D3 pam "TOR roon
ft to torn
]ntocvri
fltoTOmfl
ft tofom
]n to parn
fitoRom
]n to parn
71 toROTI
fitopam
Tin Rom nrcoRi "Toa
fitoRarn
-nnp/TJn f am FTDDR
77OT Dm nrCDKI "7TQD
7/10 ]"Drn rrrDD "T
7710 om nri3D
7710 porn irrco
77K2 Ram VCa^V ]inro]
7753 parn WQ^TIS pT3I3*i
7-^3 ROrn nrDDR
7723 parn mac*
77^2 Rom matr.
-psa pan rrrCDR 'TR
R"Q Tin RQm rcOR
~n Dip parn n3D
Ra 7710 ROTH ITCDR
D3 f am rDOR
JUTE '7C3 RQm inrcOTRl
TUTS 'T!n porn TTJ rraat!
R^TCI Rri-3'Dl RQm rDORl
RD '3 dpi RTfrR Dip
R!T3'D1 R'TSJl R"Dn rcom
]n tofOTn
ft to ROTH
]n toforn
]n toorn
]n toparn
]n toRDrn
]n toparn
]n toROrn
]n toparn
]n toRDm
]n to]'am
]ntoRQrn
]n toforn
]ntoRDm
]n toparn
]n toRQTn
p tofQrn
]n to ROTH
ft toRTOn
HEnK 'E D"!p1 RTi^R Dip
166. Bribery in User's

167. Bribery in User's
168. One who admonishes Another
169. One who admonishes Another
170. Ruth in Boaz's
171. Ruth in Boaz's
Prov. 17.8
Prov. 17.8
Prov. 28.23
Prov. 28.23
Ruth 2.2
Ruth 2.2
172. Ruth in Boaz's

173. Ruth in Boaz's
174. Ruth in Boaz's
Ruth 2.10
Ruth 2.10
Ruth 2.13
175. Ruth in Boaz's

176. Esther in Hegai's
179. Esther in All Who Saw her
Ruth 2.13
Est. 2.9
Est. 2.9
Est. 2.9
Est. 2.15
Est. 2.15
Est. 2.15
rbm TB3 "ran ft pR

"rtun '7JO tnon ft pR
RSD' ]n 'TTW DTRIT21D
RST ft 'TTIR GTH r?3TD
T7S2 ft RSOR TOR nCR
THO fl RH TOR T
77^0 ]n -nein crra

77M fi Tnaa ana
'7TK Tin ft RS3R
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
Targum
'" rfTTl ]RQ TiO 'H RTEO twrm RSRD

rfr bpm ]Q 'SR3 Rnn RTon im31 RS'D
nrtm RDrn RDTTZ1? C3Qrcra Rion 'TBTp RD3 TS1? C301
TTDTin RDm PCDRT R^ffl TT2
TT17B3 parn mama
ft toROrn
intoRtcn
fi toROTFi
]n to Rton
fi to ROrn
ft tofDrn
Peshitta
Targum
Peshitta
77^ Rnm rcoRT 'TBB

7/jn pam rrrtx f Ta
~o jnn warn nrcoRt "TOO
fi to Ron
ft to parn
|n to Rnrn
TTR Tin ft RSDR

rsb ion RDm
TBb Tin RDTT1
rxh ion RDTT,
rrRT "73 TB3 p PRO:
rrRT ta '7S3 ft HRcn
mn to Tin fifiKBJ
Targum
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
TOT -jQTp fOTH rrrCOR

-niQ-p RTOHrtpoi
-imp RTC'n raiO'Rl
TTOTp ionrfJOJl
rr'Tm "73 Tin Rionrtpo
RHOn to T f am nrDDD
RTT'Tn to OTp RTOm R7n RÔ3
fi to parn
ft to RICH
fi to Rion
frtoRTOn
jntoR-TDn
]n to f arn
ft to RTOTTl R7H
182. Esther in the King's

Est. 2.17
Est. 2.17
rz> icn ]n KDn

xh ion in HOT;
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
mmp p KICK rfppoi

191 Esther in the King's
197 Daniel in the Chief Officer's
Est. 2.17
Est. 5.2
Est. 5.2
Est. 5.2
Est. 5.8
Est. 5.8
Est. 5.8
Est. 7.3
Est. 7.3
Est. 7.3
Est. 8.5
Est. 8.5
Est. 8.5
Dan. 1.9
TE'P icn ~n won*

ma 71 nun
rrsa TT HMB:
TTiaprD;
Yi Tin ;n -r*m
jboi Tin ]n TS:
-f?on Tm in TWSD
-fTon Tin 71 TKSD
J^DTT TIG ;n -ntc;D
fTtli Tin ]n -niein
rs^TTnea
rs1? ;n -niea
rafrinTKB
'arn r c-n^wn ;rr
co'ion TD -zfe cnrrfri icrf?
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
Targum Rishon
Targum Sheni
Peshitta
imp RIOT, mm rtorrKi

monp Rion rt>po
iDf -atn vom rsaxiK
TB3 rnm rSECm
imp K-icm srn rtorwi

tcte -p-:o KDTD rvEss
Kho Tra fnrr, rrnDOi
-pip ;-nrm iron HTCOR
IC'TQ 7rjn unm rrcra
ic'n ~o~ "Dm DTCOK
~mp "ami -sn rrrsoH
I-TBMQ Hnm rroos
rrmp ôrn rrrDC
~mp ]T^m TDH rncDH
'TKTft RDrn-. WT3-D rf 2TT1
Rirna 2n try
-cn;ntoion
ion ;n to
croi tram
Dn]ntoKi3mic-i
]n to Kicn
;n to;-nm
1~ to KICTTi ICn
;ntoKDrn
]n to ;-arn
jn to form io-n
n tosorn
;n to f om
;n toômi icr
;n to son
;n to far,
]n tofomi ion
c-nrni ion to
KamiRnin'D
Appendix B
]H IN CONTEXTS OTHER THAN TIO ]0 K^Q
Ref.
MT
Targum
Peshitta
LXX
Vulgate
toon
SHIN'
xP l
gra/w
3.34
4.9
5.19
n.16
-pvrb en ]n rn1? '3

-ps> c"n vm
jT.j-u'p ]m
|n p c-jjj'n
]n rr^ -[osi1? ]nn
]n n^'T D3n n^-N
1133 ionn |n no
toon
ion
Kion
Kion
ni'on
Kami
^n~i;
sm-n
Knorrn
n-;Qn-)Q
xocpiq
Xpi<;
xpi<;
xPl<;
evxapiatcx;
graria
^rar/am
gmtiarum
gmtissimus
gmtiosa
13.15
22.11
]n |rr 3H3 ^30

310 ]n 3HTQ1 ^030
NIOn
SlDn
SOni
ni:QniQ
XP l< ;
%dpig
gratiam
grar/a
22.11
31.30
]n 3^> lino 3n
"svn "P3m ]nn ipo
ion
s;n
sanio
Km-
ancop,oi
dpeaKeta
gratiam
gratia
pmnsEn ]n pîn
'n ]rr 11331 ]n
nsu; mi
;n
soni
oni
xPl(i
xPl<;
grar/a
gratiam
n1? ]n]n mE?n
paraphrase nviiD
X"Pl(5
Prov.
1.9
3.22
Pss.
45.3
84.12
Zech.
4.7
KOnm
12.10
gratiam
gratiae
c';i;nni ]n mi
|'onn Nion ^smii

Nonin
xP^
grariae
131Q3 |n NKQ
]'nni
Qni
6ep|a6v
gratiam
rso3 rbia ]n raita
iri
]n
E7t{xapi<;
grariae
]n rirr1? ? ai
]n C3n -s -131
nra
]'Dni
sn3i2;
nni3Dn
xpi?
xP l< 5
^rariam
srar/a
yr.
31.1
Nah.
3.4
cc/.
9.11
10.12
SHEM, MELCHIZEDEK, AND CONCERN WITH CHRISTIANITY

IN THE PENTATEUCHALTARGUMIM*
Robert Hay ward
Although Melchizedek appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Gen.

14.18-24; Ps. 110.4), the earliest Christians regarded him as a figure of
great significance. The epistle to the Hebrews is the earliest Christian
document to speak of him as a type of Christ the eternal high priest.
There we read:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met
Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed
him, to whom also Abraham divided a tithe of everything, is by
interpretation first 'King of Righteousness', and then 'King of Salem',
which is 'King of Peace'; without father, without mother, without a
genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but being like
to the Son of God, for ever remains a priest (Heb. 7.1-3).
The epistle says nothing explicitly of the bread and wine which
Melchizedek the priest brought out (Gen. 14.18); but the Church Fathers
held these things to be types of the eucharistic sacrifice (e.g., Cyprian,
Ep. 63.4, PL 4 cols. 387-88; Ambrose, De Sacramentis IV. 10; V.I;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.25). They also continued to speak
of Melchizedek as a type of Christ and as a righteous Gentile who prefigured the rise of the universal Church and its non-Aaronic priesthood
(e.g., Justin, Dialogue 19.4; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 2; Origen, Comm. in
Joh.3).
Melchizedek is identified with Shem, son of Noah, by most of the
extant targumim of the Pentateuch (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg.
P and V of Gen. 14.18), and in these same targumim Shem is head of a
Beth Ha-Midrash which bears his name (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag.
* This essay is presented with all good wishes to Martin McNamara on his
sixty-fifth birthday, in grateful acknowledgment of his distinguished scholarship and
outstanding service in the study of the Aramaic targumim.
68
Tg. P and V of Gen. 24.62; same targumim and Tg. Neof. glosses of
Gen. 25.22). Melchizedek is thus given a genealogy which makes him a
Semite par excellence and ancestor of the Jews, a great Torah scholar,
and head of an academy. That these texts offer a Jewish counterblast to
Christian claims about Melchizedek seems prima facie a probability, and
the case for so understanding them claims the support of some influential students of the targumim.1
A careful analysis of verses in pentateuchal targumim which allude to
Shem and Melchizedek, however, reveals a complex interpretation of
the two men which cannot simply be explained as anti-Christian polemic,
and which may be wrongly understood if such polemic is invoked.2
Indeed, not only were there groups apart from Christians who held
distinctive opinions about Melchizedek: the biblical data about him and
Shem are brief, obscure, and ambiguous, requiring careful exegesis by
the Jewish authorities themselves.3 This essay will seek to show that the
targumic traditions about the two figures may reasonably be explained
without reference to anti-Christian sentiments, especially when Shem is
fully integrated into the picture.
1. See especially M. Simon, 'Melchisedech dans la polemique entre juifs et
Chretiens et dans la Legende', RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93-113, esp. pp. 60-62; J.
Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), pp. 196-99; R. le Deaut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genese (SC, 245;
Paris: Cerf, 1978), pp. 163-64 and literature there cited; M. Maher, Targum PseudoJonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, IB; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press,
1992), p. 58. For the identification of Shem with Melchizedek as providing the latter
with Israelite identity, see J.A. Fitzmyer, '"Now this Melchizedek..." (Heb 7.1)', in
Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1971), p. 230.
2. A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.;
Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) [in Hebrew], I, p. 98, 117, shows how difficult it can be to
pinpoint objects of supposed targumic polemic. This essay tends to confirm his
observations.
3. See Hippolyus, Refut. Omn. Haer. 20 for the Melchizedekians who acknowledged Melchizedek as the highest supernatural power; they appear also in Epiphanius,
Adv. Haer. ILL haer. 55. Jerome, Ep. 73 adEvagrium (Evangelum) Presbyterum 2
lists the views of Christian writers, beginning with Origen's belief that Melchizedek
was an angel. This last recalls 11Q Melch, where Melchizedek appears as a heavenly
figure, probably identical with the archangel Michael: see G. Vermes, The Dead Sea
Scrolls in English (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 3rd edn, 1987), p. 300, and M.J.
Davidson, Angels at Qumran (JSPSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp.
255-64.
HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity
69
1. Shem as Noah's Eldest Son

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

as a Torah scholar. His Beth Ha-Midrash receives more attention in this
targum than in any other (see Gen. 22.19; 24.62; 25.22), so it is natural
that his 'greatness' be understood in this way, and not with reference to
his age.
None of these targumim, however, feels it necessary to emphasize
Shem's seniority. The concerns that motivated Jubilees appear to be
70
absent, and they feel no need to engage with any case which Christians
might have put forward in the name of Japheth's privilege as the firstborn son of Noah.
2. Noah's Blessing ofShem and Japheth
Along with their apparent lack of concern about Shem's seniority, the
targumim seem to have no particular anxieties about Gen. 9.26-27. In
these verses, Noah blesses his sons Shem and Japheth because they
'covered his shame' when he lay in a drunken stupor (9.21-24). The
story is obscure; but it appears that Canaan, the son of Ham, had done
some disgraceful thing to Noah (9.24), for which Noah cursed him
(9.25). Then he blessed Shem and Japheth:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to
them. (9.26) May God enlarge Japheth; and may he dwell in the tents of
Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.27)
Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous. In v. 27, the one who shall dwell
in the tents of Shem may be either God, or Japheth himself; the same
ambiguity persisted in the LXX, and was thus ripe for use by Christian
exegetes. As early as Justin Martyr's time (c.lOO-c.165) this verse was
taken to mean that the Gentiles, represented by Japheth, would take
over the position of Shem and 'dwell in his tents'; the Gentile Church
would thus oust the Jews from their place as God's people (Dial, with
Trypho 139.2-3). Other interpreters, notably Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.5.3;
Dem. 21), followed suit.
This Christian use of the verse, however, is not reflected in the
targumim. For v. 26, Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. are extant. The
first of these offers a straightforward translation of the Hebrew; the
second specifies only the wish that Canaan be a servant subjected in
slavery to them, and is otherwise literal. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem whose action was righteous;
therefore Canaan shall be servant to him.
Shem's righteous deed is given as the reason for Canaan's loss of status;
but this is readily explicable as a reasonable deduction from the Hebrew
text itself. The idea that Canaan shall be Shem's rather than 'their'
servant is already expressed in Jub. 7.11. Shem's concern with righteousness will feature again in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 14.19, where in the
HAYWARD Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity 11

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

tents, not Japheth. This is the solution also of Targum Neofiti:
May the Lord enlarge the boundaries of Japheth, and make the Glory of
His Shekhina dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be a servant
subjected in slavery to them.
Targum Neofiti says that the boundaries of Japheth should be enlarged,

displaying a positive attitude to these Gentiles. Only Canaan, cursed by
the Bible itself, is censured. Targum Neofiti's marginal glosses are fragmentary, but clearly represent a tradition found fully in Targum PseudoJonathan:
May God beautify the boundaries of Japheth; and may his sons become
converts, and dwell in the Study-house of Shem. And may Canaan be
servant to them.4
Here it is Japheth, not God, who shall dwell in the tents of Shem (cf. b.
Meg. 9b). Furthermore, his sons become converts to Judaism, to the
worship of the one true God, a tradition found exclusively in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan and the margin of Targum Neofiti.5 Consonant with
this remarkable interpretation is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's translation
of Hebrew yapt, 'may He (God) enlarge' as 'may he beautify': this is not
found in the glosses of Targum Neofiti. The Hebrew is taken as deriving
from yph, 'be beautiful', and concentrates the exegesis on the spiritual
nature of what shall happen to Japheth's sons.
In none of these interpretations is anti-Christian sentiment at work.
Astonishingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum
4. The glosses of Tg. Neof. read: '...and when his sons become converts, may
they dwell in the Study-houses of Shem, and may Canaan be subjected [in
slavery]...'; and '... in the Study-houses of Shem the Great may they be...' For the
text and further exegetical details, see B.B. Levy, Tar gum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), I, p. 120.
5. See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 343; and Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis, p. 46.
72
Neofiti point in quite another direction. They predict a conversion of

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

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

Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti and glosses, Fragment Targum V and
P, all define Salem as Jerusalem,7 agreeing with Ps. 76.3; Josephus Ant.
1.180; War 6.437; and Gen. R. 43.6. No anti-Christian tendency is
6. According to Gen. R. 36.8, bar Qappara interpreted the verse to mean that
Torah would one day be spoken in the language of Japheth, that is, in Greek; and
according to m. Meg. 1.8 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel allowed the scriptures to be
written in Greek, a matter discussed more fully in b. Meg. 9b;y. Meg. 1.9.10;
b. Yarn. 9b.
7. See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 6;
Wilmgton, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 69.
73
implied in this interpretation, which is attested in the pre-Christian

Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.8 The Palestinian targumim identify
Melchizedek with Shem, and differ from one another only in detail.
Frag.
Tg., P
And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, who is Shem the

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

Great: he was priest to God Most High.
Tg.
Neof.
And the king Zedek,9 the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the

Great, brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest ministering in
the High Priesthood before God Most High.
Tg.
Ps.-J.
And the righteous king (mlk3 sdyq3}, he is Shem son of Noah,

the king of Jerusalem, went out to meet Abram, and brought forth to
him bread and wine; and at that time he was ministering before God
Most High.
Melchizedek is a priest: although Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does not use

the word khn here, Shem is so styled in Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 38.6, 24.
Furthermore, the expression 'at that time he was ministering' makes
best sense if 'ministering', m$m$, is taken to mean 'acting as priest',
since an ordered temporal succession of priests is attested elsewhere in
rabbinic tradition.10 The title Shem the Great suggests a well-known
worthy with a history to his credit: what this might be, we shall discover
presently. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan uniquely calls him the righteous
king, an interpretation of the name Melchizedek found also in Philo
(Leg. All. 3.79) and Josephus(Ant. 1.180; War 6.438). This meaning of
the name was known also to the writer of Heb. 7.2, as is Targum
8. IQapGen 22.13. For full discussion of this passage, see F.L. Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976), pp. 62-64.
9. This could be a mistake for Melchizedek, or an attempt to compromise
between the version of Tg. Ps.-J. mlk3 sdyq} and the Hebrew mlky sdq: see the views
of Fitzmyer and le Deaut respectively, summarized by A. Rodriguez Carmona, 'La
figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targumica', EstBib 37 (1978), p. 84.
10. Pace Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58. The most natural
sense ofmSmShere and in Tg. Onq. of this verse is 'acting as priest': see Grossfeld,
The Targum Onqelos, p. 69 and literature there cited; and Rodriguez Carmona, 'La
figura', p. 92. For a temporal succession of priests in pre-Aaronic times, see Num.
R. 4.8;;. Meg. l.ll',Ag. Ber. 42; andcf. b. Ned. 32b
74
Pseudo-Jonathan's note that he 'went out to meet Abram'. None of

these unique details in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems directed against
Christianity. Rather, the Epistle to the Hebrews may here be dependent
on Jewish tradition.11
The constituent elements of targumim of this verse so far examined
appear quite unaffected by Christianity. It is only the equation of Shem
and Melchizedek which arouses suspicion in some scholars' minds that
anti-Christian bias is at work. But not all belong to this persuasion. In a
careful analysis of b. Ned. 32b, whose argument assumes the equation,
JJ. Petuchowski dismissed such suspicion, suggesting that the equation
originated in the sort of familiar 'midrashic conceit' which can, for
example, identify Putiel with Jethro, or Phinehas with Elijah.12 His argument makes sense, and can be supported with evidence which has largely
been neglected.
This evidence indicates that Shem was regarded as a priestly figure in
pre-rabbinic sources. The tendency of Jubilees to exalt Shem as firstborn son of Noah has already been noted. This book also describes
Noah's blessing of Shem as prophecy (Jub. 8.18), that God would dwell
in the dwelling of Shem (7.12; 8.18), that is, in Shem's allotted territory;
for Noah knew
that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the
Lord, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zionthe
centre of the navel of the earth: these three were created as holy places
facing each other.13
God dwells in land for which Shem is responsible: we may therefore

assume that Shem has the proper qualifications, which will necessarily
be priestly, to deal with this. Priestly service had already been offered
before Shem's days, by Adam (Jub. 3.26-27), Enoch (4.25-26) who
knew the rules of sacrifice (21.7-10), and Noah (6.1-3). Further, Noah
gave all that he had written to Shem his eldest son (Jub. 10.14). Charles
quite properly compares this with the statement of Jub. 45.16, that
11. See further Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura', pp. 84-85, 94; and Horton,
Melchizedek, pp. 56, 82-83.
12. See J.J. Petuchowski, 'The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek', HUCA 28
(1957), pp. 127-36. The whole article supports the point; but see especially pp. 12830.
13. Jub. 8.19, translated by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902),
pp. 71-72. Charles notes (Jubilees, p. 71) that the three holy places on earth belong to
Shem.
75
Jacob gave all his books to Levi, who was priest, to preserve them and
renew them for his children.14 It will be recalled that Josephus was at
pains to point out to his pagan readers that the official records of the
Jewish people were written and preserved by the priests (Apion 1.2936). Jubilees also records that Shem built a city and named it after his
wife Sedeqetelebab (7.16), a word meaning 'righteousness of the
heart'.15 The implication may be that Shem particularly among Noah's
sons followed his father's repeated injunctions to observe 'righteousness'
(7.20, 34, 37). This may have influenced his later identification with
Melchizedek, dubbed by Philo (Leg. All. 3.79) and Josephus (Ant. 1.180;
War 6.438) 'the righteous king'. Finally, Jubilees makes Shem the
particular recipient of divine blessings which are carried forward in Jacob,
who is Israel. Abraham blesses Jacob, praying that God grant him all the
blessings with which He blessed Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Shem (19.27).
As noted earlier, Jubilees makes the first three of these men perform
priestly service; Shem is thereby placed in distinguished priestly
company.16
Jubilees offers sufficient evidence to show that, already in the midsecond century BCE, the necessary elements of the tradition that Shem
was a righteous priest were known, and available for further development. Indeed, the characterization of Shem which we find in Philo's
work represents a great advance on Jubilees. For Philo, Shem is the
type of a good and wise man, who is described in most noble terms
(Quaest. et Sol. in Gen. 2.75-76). He thus devotes a large part of De
Sobrietate (51-67) to Shem, whose name means 'good', and whom
Moses counts worthy of the prayer recorded in Gen. 9.26-27. This last
speaks of the Lord and God of the universe as peculiarly, by special
favour, the God of Shem: therefore Shem and the universe are of equal
value, and a man granted such privileges is God's friend, like Abraham.17
14. See Charles, Jubilees, p. 81.
15. See Charles, Jubilees, p. 61.
16. In Hebrew Sir. 49.16 Shem, with Seth and Enoch, is said to have been
'visited' (i.e., by God), and is linked to Adam as the 'beauty' (Hebrew tip'erei) of
the created order: the priestly connotations of the word are seen in the following
verse 50.1, which speaks of the Zadokite high priest Simon as the tipêret of his
people. See also P.W. Skehan and A. A. di Leila, The Wisdom of ben Sira (AB, 39;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 545.
17. Sobr. 51-55. In associating Noah's blessing of Shem with Abraham as
friend of God, Philo comes close to the sentiments of a Qumran fragment (4Q252)
which juxtaposes the prayer 'may he dwell in the tents of Shem' (Gen. 9.27) with
76
Philo's understanding of Shem is a lofty one. Shem, whose God is

God of the universe, has passed the bounds of human happiness. He is
nobly born, with God as his father, and himself as only adopted son of
God having all riches; he is alone king, deriving universal sovereignty
from his God who is God of the world; and he is alone a free man.
Because of this, he praises his patron with words, songs, and hymns,
which is the only fitting recompense he can pay (Sobr. 56-58). Philo
thus glorifies the ancestor of the Jewish people, the nation whose high
priest he depicts as representing the universe before God (Vit. Mos.
2.133-35; cf.Wis. 18.24).
Turning specifically to Gen. 9.27, 'May God enlarge Japheth, and
may he dwell in the tents of Shem', Philo follows the LXX reading of
'houses' instead of 'tents', and fully recognizes the ambiguity of the
subject of the verb 'dwell'. Taking God as subject of this verb, Philo
understands that it is fitting that he should dwell in a soul perfectly
purified (Sobr. 62); such is his interpretation of 'the houses of Shem'.
Philo points out, however, that God does not dwell in a place; rather, his
special providence watches over the place, so every householder has the
duty of taking care of the house (Sobr. 63). From this we may conclude
that Philo held Shem responsible for the maintainance of those 'houses'
in which God dwells, a thought which probably motivated the author of
Jubilees in noting that God's dwellings were pre-eminently in Shem's
territory (Jub. 8.19).
Having given these allegorical interpretations of Noah's blessing of
Shem, Philo then (Sobr. 65) argues that the unadorned scriptural narrative itself (TO priTov) supports what he has said. For Shem, he declares,
is as it were a root (oxjavei piâ) underlying what is noble, from which
issues the tree 'wise Abraham', whose fruit is the self-taught Isaac. From
that fruit Isaac arises the seed Jacob: this Jacob Philo describes as an
athlete, trained in wrestling with the passions, using the angels who are
reason to anoint himself for the contest (cov oc0Xr|Tr|<; ecmv 6 TTIV npbq
7coc0T| 7cocX,T|v yeyu|ivaa|a.evo<; 'locKco^ ayyeA,oi<; aleircTan; X6yoi<;
Xpcbuvo<;). This is clearly an allegorical interpretation of Jacob's famous
the words 'He gave a land to Abraham His friend'. The Hebrew of the fragment
reads: wfrhly Sm ySkwn crs ntn Kbrhmchbw;see T.H. Lim, 'Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1,
cols, i-ii', JJS 44 (1993), p. 123. For comment on the text and interpretation of this
fragment, see H. Jacobson, '4Q252 fr. 1: Further Comments', JJS 44 (1993), p.
292, and M.J. Bernstein, '4Q252: From Re-written Bible to Biblical Commentary',
JJS 45 (1994), pp. 11-12, who also comments on the targumim of Gen. 9.27.
77
struggle with the supernatural being described in Gen. 32.24-31 (cf.

35.9-12), after which his name was formally changed to Israel. Significantly, it is precisely at the point when Jacob's name becomes Israel that
Jubilees places the ordination of Levi to the everlasting priesthood
(32.1-17), a tradition which is probably reflected in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen.
35.11.
Philo crowns his exegesis of the verse by declaring that Jacob forms
the beginning (Kaidpxei) of the twelve tribes: the verb mid p%ew has
strong cultic significance, and may mean 'to begin sacrificial rites, to
consecrate, to slay in sacrifice'. The twelve tribes, Philo reminds his
readers, are called by scripture (Exod. 19.6) paoiXeiov Kai iepoVceuiia
Geot), 'a royal dwelling place and priesthood of God',
in accordance with the sequence of things first (set forth) with reference to
Shem, of whose houses prayer was made that God might be the
indweller. For 'royal dwelling place' is indeed the house of a king, in
18
reality a temple and alone inviolable.
The word rendered 'sequence of things' is dKoXo\)0(a, which has the

sense of 'series, regular succession': it shows clearly how Philo regards
Shem as the point of origin of that series of individuals who, in
succession and from ancient times, bore the privileges of kingship and
priesthood which bear fruit in Jacob, named Israel after his struggle with
the angel. Philo concludes his comment with a brief note on the other
possible sense of the verse, that Japheth should dwell in the tents of
Shem (Sobr. 67-68).
Conclusions
The evidence examined here leaves no doubt that, by the early first
century at the latest, the figure of Shem had assumed an importance in
Jewish thought out of all proportion to the meagre information given
about him in the Bible. In particular, the priestly characteristics of the
man, obliquely conveyed by Jubilees, much more strongly in evidence
in Philo's work De Sobrietate, are seen to be ripe for exploitation. Both
writings also make it clear that Shem was a wise and learned man. Now
according to the Hebrew Bible, Shem lived for 500 years after the birth
18. Sobr. 66. The Greek has: Kocta rf|v upoq TOY neanov Zrm ocKoXccoGmv
oi) Toiq OIKOK; r\v e^xri TOY Geov [ev]oiKfjaou. paa(X,eiov yap 6 paaiXecoq
8Ti7i(n)6ev oiKoq iepoq ovtax; xai novoq ao-oôq.
78
of Arphachshad (Gen. 11.10), which means that he was still alive thirtyfive years after the death of Abraham.19 Such great age can only mean
that Shem was possessed of wisdom, and righteousness also, in the
highest degree.
Thus it is not difficult to see how the ground was prepared for the
eventual identification of Shem with Melchizedek, the righteous king
and priest who blesses righteous Abraham. One need only consider the
reverence accorded to Abraham in Second Temple and tannaitic times
to recognize that a person recorded in the Bible as having blessed
Abraham must himself have been of the highest eminence. Neither
Jubilees nor Philo, however, were able formally to equate Melchizedek
with Shem. The chronological system used by Jubilees put the birth of
Shem at 1209 anno mundi (Jub. 4.33); he lived for 600 years (Gen.
11.10-11), and Abraham was not born until 1876 anno mundi (Jub.
11.15). Philo followed the LXX text of Genesis, which gives a period of
1072 years from the flood to the birth of Abraham, during which period
Shem would have died.20
What these sources demonstrate, however, is the availability of learned
tradition about Shem which could be brought to bear on the question of
who is Melchizedek, once the chronology of patriarchal times was
investigated from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Both Jubilees and
Philo offer a vivid picture of an aged, highly respected sage with priestly
characteristics, who might be consulted by his juniors. The targumim of
the Pentateuch entirely accord with such a picture. Shem's judgments
are God's judgments, which the wicked Nimrod tried to persuade his
generation to abandon (Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 10.9). Tg. Ps.-J. of
Gen. 22.19 says that Abraham took Isaac to Shem's study-house (cf. Tg.
Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 24.62, where Isaac leaves
the study-house of Shem): this is not surprising, since Jubilees itself
insists that Isaac knew the Torah, and he must presumably have
acquired his knowledge from a teacher. Similarly Rebecca, seeking
God's mercy when carrying the twins Jacob and Esau, visited the studyhouse of Shem (Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. and glosses, Frag. Tg. V and P of
19. For the numerical calculations of his age based on scripture, see Horton,
Melchizedek, pp. 115-16.
20. A comparative chronological table according to the calculations of the
Hebrew, LXX, and Josephus listing patriarchs from the flood to the birth of Abraham
is found in H.St.J. Thackeray's translation of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (Loeb
Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), IV, p. 73.
79
Gen. 25.22); and even Jacob himself had studied there (Tg. Neof. of
Gen. 25.27, first marginal gloss).
Nothing remaining in the story of Melchizedek as the targumim
present it requires anything but a Jewish origin. Thus at Gen. 14.19
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti respectively speak of God
Most High 'who for the sake of the righteous' or 'who by His Word'
created heaven and earth, thoroughly Jewish sentiments.21 Tg. Onq. and
Tg. Neof. of Gen. 14.20 fairly literally translate the final part of
Melchizedek's blessing, and follow the Hebrew in retaining at the end of
the verse the ambiguous words 'he paid tithes to him'. Targum PseudoJonathan, however, leaves no room for doubt:
And blessed be God Most High, who has made your enemies like a
shield which takes the blow. And he gave to him one tenth of all that he
had brought back.
It was Abraham who had brought back the goods stolen by the four
invading kings (Gen. 14.16); so Targum Pseudo-Jonathan makes it clear
that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the very interpretation adopted
by Jub. 13.25-27; Josephus Ant. 1.181; Philo Cong. 93, 99; and, of
course, the epistle to the Hebrews.22
In the light of the material examined in this essay, it seems reasonable
to suggest that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in the
pentateuchal targumim arose simply and naturally from Jewish study of
biblical texts about the two men together with traditions about Shem
which were demonstrably current in Second Temple times. At no point
has it been necessary to invoke external stimuli to account for the
identification, and it seems unlikely that it originated in anti-Christian
thinking. In this regard it should be recalled that Jerome certainly knew
of the identification and quoted it more than once, apparently discerning
in it nothing to conflict with Christian teaching (Ep. 73.2; Quaest. Heb.
in Gen. on Gen. 14.18).23 It is true that the identification ensures that
Melchizedek is seen as a historical figure; for this reason, it may have
21. See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46.
22. See Heb. 7.4; cf. Gen. R. 43.8, and Rodriguez Carmona, 'La figura', pp. 9596.
23. In both of these writings Jerome notes that the identification depends on
calculating the years of Shem's life according to the Hebrew text of Genesis, which
he regards as authentic. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 2.6, haer. 35) attributes the
identification of Melchizedek with Shem to the Samaritans, and rejects it with
chronological data culled from LXX, which for him is authoritative.
80
been developed as a counter to the kind of speculation represented by

1 IQMelch, where Melchizedek is a celestial figure. But of this there is
no proof, nor do we know when the identification was first made
explicit. It is sufficient merely to note once more that no polemic of any
sort is necessary to account for it, and that the Aramaic targumim give
no indication that polemic is part of their exegesis.
TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN OF EXODUS 2.21

Michael Maher
Pseudo-Jonathan's rendering of the Hebrew text of Exod. 2.21 is

preceded by a rather lengthy 'pre-translation haggadah'! which describes
the experiences of Moses in the house of Reuel before the latter gave
him his daughter Zipporah as wife. Neofiti, our only surviving Palestinian
targum of this verse, is, like Onqelos, satisfied with a literal rendering of
the biblical verse.
The closest parallel to Pseudo-Jonathan's targumic addition is found in
the Chronicle of Moses, a composition which probably dates from the
tenth century and which belongs to the literary genre of 'the rewritten
Bible'.2 The author of the Chronicle constructs a life of Moses from his
infancy to his death, frequently adding descriptive narratives that have
no basis whatsoever in the biblical story. The writer makes use of traditional midrashic texts, adding material from sources which have been
lost, and contributing his own personal ideas as well. The story is written
in pseudo-biblical Hebrew rather than in the language of the Sages. It
1. The term 'pre-translation haggadah' refers to haggadic material which Ps.-J.
frequently adds before his translation of the biblical verse. For other examples of
long 'pre-translation haggadoth' in Ps.-J. see, e.g., Gen. 11.28; Exod. 1.15. See
further A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (in
Hebrew) (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), I, pp. 39-83; idem, The Embroidered
Targum. The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (in Hebrew)
(Publication of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), pp. 52-55.
2. G. Vermes uses the title 'Rewritten Bible' for his study of the life of
Abraham in haggadic tradition; see G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism.
Haggadic Studies (SPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961; 2nd rev. edn, 1973), pp. 67-126 (in
both editions); P.S. Alexander, 'Retelling the Old Testament', in D.A. Carson and
H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in
Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),
pp. 99-121.
82
serves no theological or didactic purpose, and it seems to have been

intended mainly for the delight of the readers. It portrays Moses not as a
prophet or a lawgiver, but as a heroic military leader who performed
mighty deeds by his own wisdom and strength. Although some scholars
claimed that the Chronicle is an ancient work,3 the more commonly
accepted opinion today is that it was probably composed in the tenth or
eleventh century.4
The Chronicle was published by A. Jellinek,5 and another version has
been edited by A. Shinan from MS Heb. d. 11, 30-50 of the Bodleian
Library in Oxford.6 The text published by Shinan differs considerably
from that of Jellinek, but is almost identical with the version of the
Chronicle that has been incorporated into Sefer ha-Yashar,1 the date
3. See, e.g., M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel; or, The Hebrew Bible
Historiale (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1899; repr., with a Prolegomenon by
H. Schwarzbaum, New York: Ktav, 1971), pp. Ixxxviii-lxxxix, who believes that it
was written 'at a time near that in which Josephus flourished' (p. Ixxxix).
4. Cf. H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), p. 361. D. Flusser maintains that since the
Chronicle was influenced by the Josippon which was composed in 953 it cannot
have been written before that date; cf. D. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica. An Unknown
Source of Biblical Legends', in J. Heinemann and D. Noy (eds.), Scripta
Hierosolymitana, 22 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), p. 64, n. 62; idem (ed.), The
Josippon. [Josephus Gorionides] (in Hebrew) (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,
1978, 1980), II, p. 151.
5. Cf. A. Jellinek (ed.), Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner Mirdaschim und
vermischter Abhandlungen aus der dltern jiidischen Literatur. Parts 1-4 (Leipzig,
1853-57); Parts 5-6 (Vienna, 1873-87) (reprinted in 2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1967). For
the Chronicle of Moses see Part 2, pp. vii-xi, 1-11.1 will refer to this version of the
Chronicle as 'Jellinek'. The same text is published in J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar
Midrashim. A Library of Two Hundred Minor Midrashim (2 vols.; New York,
1915; Tel Aviv, 1969), II, pp. 357-61.
6. See A. Shinan, The Chronicle of Moses our Master' (in Hebrew), Ha Sifrut
24(1977), pp. 100-16.
7. Sefer ha-Yashar is another example of the 'rewritten Bible'. Written in
pseudo-biblical Hebrew it tells the biblical story from creation to the beginning of the
age of the Judges. Besides using classical midrashic works and the Babylonian
Talmud the author borrows from such late texts as Macase Abraham, Midrash vaYissa'u, Josippon, and the Chronicle of Moses. The author of Sefer ha-Yashar added
to the version of the Chronicle that was available to him. This view seems preferable
to the opinion of Ginzberg and others who regarded the Chronicle as an abridged
version of Sefer ha-Yashar; cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (7 vols.;
MAKER Targum Pseudo- Jonathan of Exodus 2.21
83
and place of origin of which cannot be determined with certainty,8 and

into Yalqut Shinfonii (vol. I, para. 168), which was probably compiled in
Germany in the thirteenth century.9 It is probable that the two versions
(that of Yalqut Shim'oni, Sefer ha-Yashar and Shinan on the one hand,
and that of Jellinek on the other) stem from one source, and that the
differences between them are due to copyists and editors who modified
the text in the course of its transmission.
Pseudo-Jonathan and the Chronicle
So that the reader may be able to compare Pseudo-Jonathan's 'pretranslation haggadah' in Exod. 2.21 with the relevant passage in the
Chronicle of Moses, I will offer a translation of both texts.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909-46), V, p. 402, n. 65. See further
Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 102, with nn. 25-26.
8. Some hold that it may have been written in Spain in the eleventh or twelfth
century. This view has often been repeated since it was put forward by Zunz; cf. L.
Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden (Frankfurt, 1832; 2nd enlarged
edn, 1892; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), pp. 162-65; idem, 'Das Buch Jaschar',
Spenersche Zeitung (29 November 1828); reprinted in L. Zunz, Gesammelte
Schriften (3 vols.; Berlin, 1875, 1876; 3 vols. in one, Hildesheim and New York:
Olms, 1976), III, pp. 98-100. D. Flusser is a modern defender of this view; cf.
Flusser, The Josippon, I, pp. 17-24. Others believe that the work was composed in
Italy at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Cf., e.g., J. Dan, The Hebrew Story
in the Middle Ages (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 137-38. Although it
was believed that Sefer ha-Yashar was first published in Naples in 1544 it seems
that it was in fact published for the first time in Venice in 1625. M.D. Herr, 'Sefer
ha-Yashar', EncJud 16, col. 1517; J. Dan, 'On the Question of the Naples Edition of
'"Sefer ha-Yashar'" (in Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 49 (1974), pp. 242-44; idem, The
"Uses" of "Sefer ha-Yashar'" (in Hebrew), Sinai 75 (1974), pp. 255-58; idem,
'When was "Sefer ha-Yashar" Written?' (in Hebrew), in S. Werses et al. (eds.),
Sefer Dov Sadan (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1977), pp. 105-10; J. Genot,
'Censure ideologique et discours chiffre: Le Sefer Hayasar, oeuvre d'un exile
espagnol refugie a Naples', REJ 140 (1981), pp. 433-51; Strack and Stemberger,
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pp. 359-60. Sefer ha-Yashar became a
very popular work and was published many times. An edition frequently referred to
is that of L. Goldschmidt, Sepher hajaschar. Das Heldenbuch. Sagen, Berichte und
Erzahlungen aus der israelitischen Urzeit (Berlin: Harz, 1923); the text of the
Chronicle of Moses is to be found on pp. 238-86 of this edition. English translation:
M.M. Noah, The Book of Jasher; referred to in Joshua and Second Samuel (New
York: M.M. Gould & A.S. Gould, 1840); the text of the Chronicle of Moses is to be
found on pp. 210-56.
9. Cf., e.g., Y. Elbaum, 'Yalkut Shimoni', EncJud 16, cols. 707-709.
84
Ps.-J. Exod. 2.21

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

13-112, 14. Compare Jellinek, p. 7; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, pp. 258-55
262-63).
11. Here the author summarizes Exod. 2.16-20.
12. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 258) agrees with this version of the story
saying that Reuel wanted to ingratiate himself with the Ethiopians. According t<
Jellinek's version of the Chronicle (p. 7) Jethro said to himself: This is the ma:
who put forth his hand to the crown. Now I will take him and deliver him into th
hand of Pharaoh.' This refers to the midrash which says that when Moses was
child 'he used to take the crown of Pharaoh and place it upon his own head'; cf., e.g
Exod. R. 1,26; Eng. trans, by S.M. Lehrman, in The Midrash Rabbah. II. Exodm
Leviticus (new compact edn in 5 vols.; ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon; New York
Soncino, 1977), pp. 33-34. The magicians saw this as a bad omen and they advise
Pharaoh to have the child killed. The child's life was spared through the interventio
of the angel Gabriel. According to the Exod. R. 1,26 version of the story (cf. als<
Midrash Wa-joscha [Jellinek, Part 1, pp. 41-42]) it was Jethro, who was one o
Pharaoh's counsellors, who devised the plan that saved Moses' life. This traditio
about the child Moses and the crown is recorded in the Chronicle of Moses (Shinar
'The Chronicle', pp. 108-109, 6; Jellinek, p. 3; Yalqut 166 [(Jerusalem, I960;
MAKER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21
85
there for ten years.13 But while he was imprisoned there Zipporah,
Reuel's daughter, had pity on him and provided him with bread and
water. After ten years she spoke to her father and said 'No one inquires or
asks about the Hebrew whom you have confined in jail these ten years.
Now, if it seems good to you, my father, let us send (someone) and see
whether he is dead or alive'. Her father did not know that she had
provided for him. Reuel answered and said, 'Could it happen that a man
would be held in prison for ten14 years without eating and still be alive?'
Zipporah answered her father and said, 'Have you not heard, my lord,
that the God of the Hebrews is great and awesome and does wonders for
them at all times. He delivered Abraham from the fire of the Chaldeans,
and Isaac from the sword, and Jacob from the angel when he wrestled
with him at the ford of the Jabbok. For this man also the Lord has done
great things. He has delivered him from the river of Egypt and from the
sword of Pharaoh, and he is also able to rescue him from this place.' This
seemed good to Reuel, and he did as his daughter said, and he sent to the
pit to see what had become of him. And they looked and saw that the man
was alive, standing erect, and supplicating [the God of] his ancestors.15
So they took him out of the pit, shaved him, changed his prison clothes,
and he ate bread.
The man then went into Reuel's garden at the back of his house, and he
prayed to his God who had done great wonders for him. And while he
was praying he looked in front of him and saw a staff made of sapphire
fixed in the ground, and it was planted in the middle of the garden. When
he approached the staff he saw engraved upon it the Name of the Lord of
Hosts, clearly written (ktwb wmpwrS) upon the staff. He read it, and
pulled it up as a forest tree is pulled up from the thicket. And it became a
staff in his hand. It was the staff that was created in the world among the
p. 108]) and in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 245); a similar story is preserved

in the Palaea Historica, a Greek Old Testament history from Adam to Daniel which
was not written before the ninth century; cf. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica', pp. 48-79,
esp. pp. 64-67. The tradition on which these stories is based is very ancient since it
was known to Josephus who records that when Pharaoh put his diadem on the head
of the child Moses the latter threw it on the ground and trod on it; cf. Ant. 2.233-36.
13. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 262); Yalqut 168 (p. 110). Jellinek (p. 7)
reads 'seven years'.
14. The MS translated by Shinan reads 'twelve'. Other MSS and Sefer ha-Yashar
(Goldschmidt, p. 262) have 'ten'; Jellinek (p. 7): 'for so many years'.
15. Jellinek (p. 7): 'praying to his God'. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263):
'praising and supplicating the God of his ancestors'. According to Midrash Wajoscha, which may date from the eleventh century, Zipporah rescued Moses from
the pit after seven years; cf. Jellinek, Part I, p. 43.
86

works (of God)16 after he had created the heavens and the earth and all
their array.
We shall now examine Pseudo-Jonathan's rendering of Exod. 2.21,

paying special attention to the light which the text from the Chronicle of
Moses may cast on it.
Moses' Story
Ps.-J.: When Reuel learned that Moses had fled from Pharaoh...
Reuel could have learned of Moses' flight from no one else but the
fugitive himself. Pseudo-Jonathan, however, gives us no idea of what
Moses told the father of the young women who had taken him to their
home. The Chronicle of Moses in the passage quoted above is more
informative, stating that:
Moses told him that he had fled from Egypt, that he had ruled as King
over the Ethiopians, and that they had taken the kingship from him and
sent him away.
This is a summary account of a long series of events that is recounted in

considerable detail at an earlier stage in the Chronicle. This account
informs us that when Moses left Egypt he came to the camp of the king
of the Ethiopians who was at war with external enemies and faced with
revolt in his own country. Moses allied himself with the king's forces,
distinguished himself in his army, and soon became one of the king's
counsellors. He was eventually crowned king of the Ethiopians who gave
him the former king's widow in marriage (wgm }t hkwSit hgbyrh ntnw
Iw l^h). After some years, however, the Ethiopians decided they wanted
to have one of their own people as ruler, and having given rich gifts to
Moses they sent him away.17
The story of Moses' warring encounters with the Ethiopians was
known long before the author of the Chronicle produced his version of
it. The author of the earliest known version was Artapanus, an Egyptian
Jew who may have composed his work toward the end of the third
16. The text is obscure here, reading hmth hnbr3 btbl mpclwt. This is also the
reading in Yalqut 168 (p. 110). The corresponding text in Sefer ha-Yashar reads as
follows: 'This was the staff with which all the works of our God were created (hnbr3
bh kl mpflwt 3lhynw) after he had created the heavens and the earth' (cf. Goldschmidt,
p. 163).
17. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', pp. 109-11, 8-12; Jellinek, pp. 5-7. The story
is told at greater length in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, pp. 249-58).
87
century BCE. However, the work of Artapanus is known only from

fragments that have survived in the writings of Eusebius,18 who, writing
about 300 CE, depended on Alexander Polyhistor who summarized the
work of Artapanus about the middle of the first century BCE.
Josephus preserves a developed account of a campaign by Moses
against the Ethiopians.19 An important new element in Josephus's
version is the account of Moses' marriage to the daughter of the king of
the Ethiopians who fell madly in love with the heroic Moses. Moses'
marriage to an Ethiopian woman also features in the account of the
Chronicle which I summarized above, and was known to PseudoJonathan (see Ps.-J. Num. 12.1, 8).20
Since Pseudo-Jonathan at Num. 12.1 knew of 'the Cushite woman
whom the Cushites had married to Moses during his flight from
Pharaoh', it is clear that he knew of Moses' adventures in Ethiopia in a
version that was similar to the narrative in the Chronicle. Furthermore,
Pseudo-Jonathan seems to have presumed that his readers were familiar
with the legend of Moses' adventures in Ethiopia, so that the targumist's
reference to Moses' marriage to the Cushite illustrates Pseudo-Jonathan's
tendency to make a simple allusion to a well-known haggadah and to
avoid entering into details which were presumed to be familiar to his
readers.21
18. Praep. Evang. 9. 18, 23, and 27.

19. Ant. 2.238-53.
20. On the complicated question of the relation between the different versions of
the story of Moses in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian woman see A.
Shinan, 'Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in The Chronicle of
Moses', Scripta Hierosolymitana, 27 (Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art throughout
the Ages; ed. J. Heinemann and S. Werses; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), pp. 66-78;
idem, 'From Artapanus to Sefer ha-Yashar: On the History of the Haggadah of
Moses in Ethiopia' (in Hebrew), Eshkolot 2-3 (1977-78), pp. 53-67; T. Rajak,
'Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature', JJS 29 (1978), pp. 111-22. On the text
of Artapanus in particular see J.J. Collins, 'Artapanus', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.),
The Old Testament Pseudepigraphaa(2 vols.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1983, 1985), II, pp. 889-903. On the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian woman see
B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to
Numbers(The Aramaic Bible, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 103,
n. 1. On some Syriac legends concerning Moses in Ethiopia see S. Brock, 'Some
Syriac Legends concerning Moses', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 237-55.
21. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, pp. 160-71; idem, 'A Word to the Wise is
Sufficient' (in Hebrew), Criticism and Interpretation 18 (1982), pp. 69-77.
88
Reuel's Reaction
Ps.-J.: [Reuel] threw him into a pit
Pseudo-Jonathan gives no reason for Reuel's extraordinary reaction to

Moses' story. Like Pseudo-Jonathan, Jellinek's version of the Chronicle
fails to mention Moses' experiences in Ethiopia. It simply informs us that
Moses told Jethro 'all that had happened him in Egypt'. However, the
unexpected visitor's story led Jethro to conclude that Moses was 'the
man who had put forth his hand to the crown' of the king of Egypt,22
and he decided to 'take him and deliver him into the hand of Pharaoh'.23
In haggadic terms it would not be unreasonable for Jethro, who was said
to have been one of Pharaoh's counsellors,24 to hand over to Pharaoh
the man who as a child had so narrowly escaped death at the hands of
Pharaoh's servant. By so doing he would, as the Chronicle (Jellinek's
version) says, hope to win the favour of Pharaoh.
Jethro's eagerness to ingratiate himself with Pharaoh would be even
more understandable if, as the Chronicle states, he had been expelled by
the Egyptian ruler for counselling him not to destroy the Israelites who
were multiplying in Egypt (cf. Exod. 1), but to send them to the land of
Canaan.25 If Jethro were now to return the fugitive Moses to Pharaoh he
might win back that ruler's favour.
According to Shinan's version of the Chronicle, and according to
Sefer ha-Yashar, Moses told Reuel about his experiences not only in
Egypt but also in Ethiopia. Having heard Moses' account Reuel decided
to put him in prison because he thought that this would please the
Ethiopians.26 This is not a very logical explanation of Reuel's decision,
since these two versions of the story have just informed us that the
Ethiopians had sent Moses away only because they wanted to give the
22. This is a reference to an episode which is recounted earlier in the Chronicle,
and which describes how the three-year-old Moses 'reached out his hand, took the
crown from the king's head and put it on his own'. See above, n. 12.
23. Cf. Jellinek, p. 7.
24. Cf. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in
Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (Brown Judaic Studies, 47; Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1983), pp. 45-74.
25. Cf. Shinan, 'The Chronicle', pp. 110-11, 11; Jellinek, p. 4. This passage is
an addition in the position in which it is placed in the editions of Shinan and Jellinek;
cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', pp. 103, and 105, n. 40. In Sefer ha-Yasharit is more
correctly placed near the beginning of the Chronicle (cf. Goldschmidt, pp. 239-40).
26. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, 13; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 258).
MAHER Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21
89
kingship to a member of their own royal family. Moses had not incurred
their ire in any way, and he had not fled from them. He had, in fact,
been given many gifts and sent away with great honour.27
The order of things is somewhat different in Midrash Wa-joscha. In
this text Moses tells in the first person how he arrived in the house of
Reuel and shared a meal there and then asked his host to give him his
daughter Zipporah in marriage. Reuel answered that he would do so if
Moses could uproot the staff that was fixed in the middle of the garden.
To the astonishment of Reuel Moses pulled up the staff effortlessly.
Having seen this great feat Reuel concluded that this was the prophet
who was destined to destroy Egypt, and he threw Moses into a pit that
was in the garden.28
What is noticeable in any case is that, unlike Pseudo-Jonathan, both
the Jellinek and Shinan versions of the Chronicle explain why Reuel
threw Moses into prison. The Jellinek rendering says that he wished to
win favour with Pharaoh, while the Shinan rendering states that he
wished to ingratiate himself with the Ethiopians. It is very probable that
Pseudo-Jonathan knew of one or other of these traditions and that he
presumed that his audience was also familiar with them. He was
therefore satisfied to mention the fact that Moses was imprisoned, and
he took it for granted that his readers would know why. In other words,
Pseudo-Jonathan is once again content to make an allusion to a
haggadah with which his readers would have been familiar.
In the Pit
Ps.-J.: But Zipporah, his son's daughter, provided for him in secret for
ten years. At the end of ten years he took him out of the pit, and Moses
went into Reuel's garden and gave thanks and prayed before the Lord
who had performed miracles and mighty deeds for him.
Already in v. 18 Pseudo-Jonathan had identified Reuel as the grandfather

of the young women whom Moses had encountered at the well, and in
line with that identification Zipporah is now said to be the daughter of
Reuel's son. This identification is based on a midrashic interpretation of
Num. 10.29. The biblical verse is rather ambiguous, and it continues to
27. Cf. Shinan, 'The Chronicle', p. I l l , 12; Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt,

p. 258).
28. Cf. Midrash Wa-joscha (Jellinek, Part I, pp. 42-43).
90
raise problems for biblical scholars.29 It can be taken to mean that

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

Exod. 2.18, and again in v. 21 where Zipporah is referred to as the
daughter of Reuel's son.
Pseudo-Jonathan states in laconic terms that Zipporah provided for
Moses while he was in prison and that the prisoner was released at the
end of ten years. This is but a prosaic summary of the Chronicle's
romantic description of how Zipporah looked after the prisoner and
eventually persuaded her father to release him. Like Pharaoh's daughter
who rescued the infant Moses by nullifying her father's decree in his
regard (cf. Exod. 2.5-10), Zipporah saved the adult Moses from her
father's designs against him. Pseudo-Jonathan felt no need to fill in the
details which would have been familiar to his audience and which we
know from the Chronicle.
It is not surprising that both Pseudo-Jonathan and the Chronicle
inform us that Moses, having been rescued from the pit where he was
imprisoned, and finding himself in Reuel's garden, prayed to the Lord
who had performed so many miracles for him. Any pious Jew would be
expected to react in the same manner in the circumstances. No specific
miracles are mentioned, but that is scarcely necessary since the Chronicle
is to a large extent an account not only of the miracles that were worked
on behalf of Moses, but also of the mighty deeds which Moses
performed and which were a proof that God was on his side. We may
note, however, that according to the Chronicle Zipporah, having
29. Cf., e.g., W.F. Albright, 'Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew
Tradition', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 1-11; B. Mazar, The Sanctuary of Arad and the
Family of Hobab the Kenite', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 297-303; M. Noth, Numbers
(OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 77-78.
30. Sifre Num., Beha'alotka 78; H.S. Horowitz (ed.), Siphre D'Be Rab.
Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta (Leipzig: Fock, 1917;
repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1966), p. 72. See also Rashi in his comment on Num.
10.29.
91
mentioned the miracles that God had done for Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, reminded her father that God had delivered Moses 'from the
river of Egypt and from the sword of Pharaoh'.31
The Staff
Ps.-J.: He noticed the staff that had been created at twilight on which was
clearly engraved the great and glorious name, with which he was to
work wonders in Egypt, and with which he was to divide the Sea of Reeds
and bring water from the rock.
Many Jewish texts list a number (six, seven, ten or more) of things that
were created at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.33 'The staff
which is the most thinly attested member of the list is mentioned in
Pirke Abot 5, 6[9]; Mekilta to Exod. 16.32;34 ARN A 41;35 ARN B 37;36
PRE 19(18);37 cf. also PRE 40,38 and in Ps.-J. Num. 22.2S.39 Some
31. On the deliverance from the sword of Pharaoh see above, n. 12. See also
Exod. R. 1,31 (Lehrman, p. 39); and cf. Midrash Psalms 4, 3; see S. Buber (ed.),
Midrash Tehillim (Vilna, 1891; repr. Jerusalem, 1977), p. xl; W.G. Braude, The
Midrash on Psalms (2 vols.; Yale Judaica Series, 13; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1959), I, pp. 61-63.
32. Both the editio princeps and the only surviving MS (British Library Aramaic
Additional MS 27031) read whqyyn wmprS. The formula hqyq wmp(w)rSoccurs 28
times in Ps.-J. (cf. E.G. Clarke, with collaboration by W.E. Aufrecht et. al., Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance [Hoboken, New Jersey:
Ktav, 1984], pp. 238-39), and we should read whqyq wmprS in our present text also.
33. W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic 'Enumeration of Scriptural Examples' (Leiden:
Brill, 1973), pp. 66-71, studies nine sources of these lists. See also A.J. Saldarini,
The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Aboth de Rabbi Nathan), Version B
(Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 306-10; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, I, p. 83; V, p. 109,
n. 99.
34. Cf. J. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1933), II, pp. 124-25.
35. S. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan. The two versions edited with an
Introduction, Notes and Appendices (in Hebrew) (Vienna, 1887; corrected repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1979), p. 67a; J. Goldin, The Fathers according to Rabbi
Nathan (New York: Schocken Books, 1974), p. 173.
36. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 48a; Saldarini, The Fathers according to
Rabbi Nathan, p. 217.
37. Cf. D. Luria (ed.) Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (in Hebrew) (Warsaw, 1852; repr.
Jerusalem, 1963), p. 44a. 'The rod' is not mentioned in all versions of PRE; cf.,
e.g., G. Friedlander's version, The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great (London,
1916; New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981), p. 124, and see M. Perez Fernandez, Los
92
sources specify that the rod was that of Aaron. See Sifre Deut. 355;40 b.
Pes. 54a; Mek. SbY. to Exod. 16.32.41 ARN A and ARN B include both
'the rod (of Moses)' and 'the staff of Aaron'. The Mekiltato Exod.
16.31, having mentioned 'the rod' in its list of ten things goes on to say
that 'some say: also the garments of the first man and the rod of Aaron
with its ripe almonds and blossoms'.42
Like the passage from Pseudo-Jonathan in which we are interested
(Exod. 2.21),43 the different versions of the Chronicle of Moses as
preserved by Shinan,44 and the Yalqut,45 while not enumerating a list of
things that were created on the eve of the first Sabbath, state that the
staff which Moses discovered in Reuel's garden had been created when
God completed the works of creation. Sefer ha-Yashar describes it as
'the staff with which all the works of our God were performed after he
had created the heavens and the earth and all the host of them...'46
Jellinek's version does not associate the staff with the eve of the first
Sabbath.47
Ps.-J. Exod. 4.20 refers to the staff of Moses as 'the staff which he
had taken from the garden of his father-in law', and informs us that it
Capitulos de Rabbi Eliezer (Biblioteca Midrasica, 1; Valencia: Institution Jeronimo

para Investigation Biblica, 1984), p. 150 and n. bb.
38. Cf. Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The Chapters of
Rabbi Eliezer, p. 312.
39. The list given in this text includes 'the mouth of the speaking ass', the ass
referred to being Balaam's, so that the inclusion of the list in Num. 22.28 is
understandable since this verse forms part of the story of Balaam's ass.
40. Cf. L. Finkelstein, Sifre ad Deuteronomium (Berlin: Jiidischer Kulturbund,
1939; repr. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), p. 418; R. Hammer,
Sifre. A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (Yale Judaica Series,
24; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 372.
41. Cf. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed, Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b. Jochai
(Jerusalem: Hillel Press, 1955; repr., 1979), p. 115.
42. Cf. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, II, pp. 124-25. On the rod of
Aaron that put forth blossoms and bore almonds see Num. 17.1-11 (English
versions).
43. See also Ps.-J. Exod. 14.21 which states that the staff was created 'at the
beginning (mn syrwy'y.
44. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, 14.
45. Cf. Yalqut 168 (p. 110), and 173 (p. 113).
46. Cf. Goldschmidt, p. 263.
93
was made of sapphire,48 that it weighed forty seahs, that the divine
name was engraved on it, and that Moses worked miracles with it.49 In
his rendering of Exod. 14.21 Pseudo-Jonathan adds that 'the ten signs'
with which Moses had smitten the Egyptians, the names of the
patriarchs and matriarchs, and of the 'twelve tribes of Jacob' were all
inscribed on the staff. The same targum at Deut. 34.12 repeats that the
staff weighed forty seahs, and that Moses divided the sea and struck the
rock with it. In Exod. 2.21 and in the texts just mentioned (Exod. 4.20;
14.21; Deut. 34.12) we see an example of Pseudo-Jonathan's practice of
taking up the same haggadic tradition in several texts, adding different
elements of the tradition to different verses.50
The Great and Glorious Name
The formula 'the great and glorious name', which Pseudo-Jonathan uses
in association with the rod of Moses and its miraculous powers, is
without parallel in the other targums.51 With regard to the targumists'
use of the divine name in general Shinan has pointed out that while the
other targums mention it only in places where it is called for by the
biblical text, Pseudo-Jonathan uses it more freely.52 The Palestinian
targums mention the ineffable name (Sm* mprP) in their additions to the
biblical text only in their accounts of the Golden Calf; see Exod. 32.25
(Neof., P, V, N;53 see also Ps.-J.); 33.6 (Neof., P; see also Ps.-J.). In 33.4
Pseudo-Jonathan uses the formula 'the great and holy name'.
48. The Chronicle of Moses also states that the staff was made of sapphire; cf.
Shinan, 'The Chronicle', p. 112, 14; Jellinek, p. 7; Yalqut 168 (p. 110); Sefer haYashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263).
49. For midrashic parallels cf. Tanhuma, Wa-Era, 9; Tanhuma, Tazri'a 8;
Tanhuma B, Tazri'a 10; Exod. R. 8,3 (Lehrman, pp. 118-19). See further A.
Rosmarin, Moses im Lichte derAgada (New York: Goldblatt, 1932), pp. 75-76.
50. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, pp. 119-31; idem, 'The "Palestinian"
TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions', JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72-87.
51. Cf. A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal
Targumim (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), p. 346.
52. Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, II, pp. 279-83; idem, 'Folk Elements in the
Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch' (in Hebrew), in I. Ben-Ami
and J. Dan (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Jewish Folklore (Folklore Research
Centre Studies, 7; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), pp. 151-53.
53. P = fragmentary targum, MS Paris, Bibliotheque nationale Hebr. 110; V =
fragmentary targums, MS Vatican Ebr. 440; N = fragmentary targum, ms Nurnberg,
Stadtbibliothek Solg. 2.2.
94
Pseudo-Jonathan on the other hand refers to the great and glorious

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

55. On the magical uses of the divine name in Judaism see L. Blau, Das
altjiidische Zauberwesen (Strassburg: Triibner, 1898; 2nd edn, Berlin: Lamm,
1914), pp. 117-46; J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition. A Study in Folk
Religion (New York: Behrman, 1939), pp. 90-97; E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their
Concepts and Beliefs(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), I, pp. 124-34. Islam also
attributed magical powers to the staff of Moses; cf. A. Fodor, 'The Rod of Moses in
Arabic Magic', Acta Orientalia 32 (1978), pp. 1-21.
56. Cf. Yalqut 168 (p. 110); Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263).
58. Cf. PRK 19,6; B. Mandelbaum, Pesikta de Rav Kahana according to an
Oxford Manuscript(Hebrew) (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1962), I, p. 308; Eng. trans. W.G. Braude and I.J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975), p. 328.
59. Cf. Yalqut 474 (II, p. 801).
MAKER Tar gum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 2.21
95
of Moses,60 and as one might expect that interpretation is repeated in

Midrash Psalms to that verse.61 Deut. R. describes how Moses took the
staff on which the ineffable name ($m mpwrS) was written and put the
Angel of Death to flight.62
From Pseudo-Jonathan's version of Exod. 14.21 we learn that 'the
ten signs with which he (Moses) had smitten the Egyptians' were written
on the staff of Moses, and many sources repeat the tradition that the
name of the ten plagues were written on the staff in abbreviated form.63
When PRE mentions the letters that were on the rod64 the reference
could be either to the ineffable name or to the abbreviated names of the
plagues.
The Staff of Miracles
The staff of Moses/Aaron figures prominently in the account of Moses'
activities in Egypt (cf., e.g., Exod. 7.8-13; 8.16-17; 9.23; 10.13). The
importance of the staff is indicated already in Exod. 4.17 where the
Lord addresses Moses and says to him 'Take in your hand this staff,
with which you shall perform the signs'.65 In translating Exod. 2.21, the
passage under discussion in this essay, Pseudo-Jonathan anticipated this
formula by describing the staff of Moses as that 'with which he was to
work wonders in Egypt'. A similar formula occurs in the targums of
Exod. 4.20 (Neof., Onq., Ps.-J.)66 and 17.9 (Neof., Onq., Ps.-J), where
60. Cf. Deut. R., Ekeb, 17a; Eng. trans, by J. Rabinowitz in The Midrash
Rabbah. III. Numbers, Deuteronomy (new compact edn in 5 vols.; ed. H. Freedman
and M. Simon; New York: Soncino, 1977), p. 76.
61. Cf. Midrash Psalms 114,9, Buber, Midrash Tehillim, col. Ixxv; Braude, The
Midrash on Psalms, II, p. 221.
62. Cf. Deut. R., We-zoth ha-Berakah, 40a (Rabinowitz, p. 186).
63. Cf., e.g., Exod. R. 5, 6 (Lehrman, p. 84) and 8, 3 (Lehrman, p. 119).
Tanhuma, Wa-Era 9; Tanhuma (Buber), Wa-Era 8.
64. Cf. PRE 40 (Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The
Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, p. 313).
65. Neof. translates this as 'the staff with which you will perform wondrous
signs (nsy prySt'Y.
66. Cf. M. McNamara, R. Hay ward and M. Maher, Tar gum Neofiti 1: Exodus.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1994), p. 24 with n. 13, and p. 172 with n. 20; B. Grossfeld, The
Targum Onqelos to Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 7; Wilmington, DE: Michael
Glazier, 1988), pp. 10-11, with n. 11.
96
the biblical text refers to 'the staff of God'.67 In translating Num. 20.8-9
which tells how Moses brought water from the rock Pseudo-Jonathan
twice refers to the staff of Moses as the 'staff of the miracles (htr nysy'Y.
The same term (htr nysyy')is employed in the targum version of the
Crossing of the Reed Sea which was published by Y. Komlos,68 and in
the Targum Tosefta of Exod. 13-15 in the Mahzor Vitry (htr dnysy').69
The Mekilta to Exod. 17.5 asserts that the Israelites must regard the staff
as 'a means of performing miracles for them (mth...SI nsym.y.7Q The
Chronicle of Moses refers to the staff that Moses found in the garden of
Reuel as 'the staff of the signs (mth /rVfvv?)'.71 The texts referred to in
the preceding paragraph which state that the names of the plagues were
written on the staff all bear witness to a belief in its miraculous power.72
Dividing the Sea
According to Exod. 14.21 'Moses stretched out his hand over the sea'
and the Lord drove the sea back. Although several targums preserve the
67. Cf. McNamara et al., Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus, p. 74 with n. 8, and p. 211
with n. 14; Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Exodus, pp. 48-49 with n. 6.
68. Cf. Y. Komlos, The Targum Version of the Crossing of the Reed Sea' (in
Hebrew), Sinay 45 (1959), pp. 223-28, at p. 227,1. 31.
69. Cf. S. Hurwitz (ed.), Machsor Vitry, nach der Handschrift im British
Museum (Cod. Add. No. 27200 u. 27201) (Leipzig, 1889; 2nd edn, Nurnberg, 1923;
repr. Jerusalem: Aleph, 1963), p. 307.
70. Cf. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, II, pp. 131-32. See also the
parallel text in Mekilta de R. Shim'on bar Yohai (Epstein and Melamed, p. 118). On
the text in the Mekilta see G. Bienaime, Moise et le don de I'eau dans la tradition
juive ancienne: targum et midrash (AnBib, 98; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984),
pp. 71-72; Towner, Rabbinic 'Enumeration of Scriptural Examples', pp. 126-30.
Cf. Pseudo-Philo, LAB 19,11, where the staff of Moses is referred to as the staff by
which miracles were performed (virga tua, in qua facia sunt signa), and where the
Lord says that on seeing this staff he would be moved to mercy and would forgive
the Israelites their sins.
71. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, 14. In the Yalqut version (168, p. 110)
it is called mth h'wtywt, 'the staff of the letters'. The corresponding term does not
occur in Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263), and the relevant passage is not
found in Jellinek's version of the Chronicle (p. 7).
72. On further haggadic traditions concerning the staff of Moses see Rosmarin,
Moses im Lichte der Agada, pp. 75-76. Cf. also M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage zur
Semitischen Sagenkunde (Leiden: Brill, 1893), which deals on pp. 152-85 with
legends, mainly Jewish and Arabic, about Moses; the section concerning the staff is
on pp. 162-64.
97
full text of this verse (cf. Neof., P, Onq., Ps.-J.; V and N preserve only
one word) Pseudo-Jonathan is the only targum to state explicitly that
Moses held the staff in his hand on that occasion. This idea is implicit in
the texts quoted above which state that the sea fled when it saw the staff
of Moses with the writing on it.
The biblical text explicitly mentions Moses' staff when describing how
he brought water from the rock (cf. Num. 20.8, 9, 11). Pseudo-Jonathan
anticipates this event in his version of Exod. 2.21. Following the
principle that 'there is no before or after in the Torah'73 the targumist
can refer in a particular verse to an event that will be described only at a
later stage in the biblical narrative.74 The reader of the targum would be
familiar with this disregard for chronology and would find nothing
disconcerting in Pseudo-Jonathan's reference in Exod. 2.21 to the story
from the wilderness period about water from the rock.
Planted in the Garden
Although Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the staff which Moses saw in
Reuel's garden with 'the staff that had been created at twilight' he does
not explain how it happened to be in the garden of Reuel in Midian.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear from Pseudo-Jonathan's text why the
author should have introduced the story of the staff into a verse that
simply tells us that Moses lived in the house of Reuel and married his
daughter. A story in PRE fills in these details as follows:
The rod which was created in the twilight was delivered to the first man
out of the garden of Eden. Adam delivered it to Enoch, and Enoch
delivered it to Noah, and Noah [handed it on] to Shem...to Abraham...
to Isaac...to Jacob, and Jacob brought it down into Egypt and passed it
on to his son Joseph, and when Joseph died and they pillaged his
household goods, it was placed in the palace of Pharaoh. And Jethro was
one of the magicians of Egypt, and he saw the rod and the letters that
were upon it, and he desired in his heart (to have it), and he took it and
73. Cf., Sifre Num. 64 (Horowitz, p. 61).

74. Thus, for example, Ps.-J. Gen. 27.29 presumes that Balaam, son of Beor, is
well known even though the Bible mentions this personality for the first time in
Numbers ch. 22. See further, M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The
Aramaic Bible, 1; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 90, n. 38.
98

brought it,75 and planted it in the midst of the garden of his house. No one
was able to approach it any more.
When Moses came to his house he went into the garden of Reuel's
house, and saw the rod...and he put forth his hand and took it. Jethro
watched Moses, and said: This one in the future will redeem Israel from
Egypt. Therefore he gave him Zipporah his daughter to wife...76
This story also occurs in the Chronicle of Moses where we are also told
that whoever wished to marry Zipporah had to try to uproot the staff in
her father's garden. But no one was able to do so. Therefore when
Moses came and uprooted the staff Reuel was amazed and he immediately gave him his daughter in marriage.77
Pseudo-Jonathan knew these details about the staff, how it came to be
in the possession of Reuel and planted in his garden, and how it was
associated with the choice of a husband for Zipporah. But he telescopes
events, and he is satisfied to tell us in the briefest terms that Moses put
forth his hand and took the staff. Taking for granted the haggadic
traditions which I have just recorded, the most logical statement after
Pseudo-Jonathan's declaration that Moses took the staff would be that
Reuel gave him Zipporah as wife. But the order of the biblical verse
obliged Pseudo-Jonathan to record that Moses wished to stay with the
man, and only then could he add that the man gave him Zipporah as
wife.
75. The Chronicle of Moses (Shinan, The Chronicle', p. I l l , 11) also states
that when Jethro fled from Egypt he 'took Jacob's staff in with him'. But see the
comment on this passage in n. 25 above. Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 240)
also asserts that Jethro took the staff with him from Egypt.
76. PRE 40 (Luria, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, p. 94a; Friedlander, The Chapters of
Rabbi Eliezer, pp. 312-13). Essentially the same story is known in Syriac tradition;
see E.A.W. Budge, The Book of the Bee. The Syriac Text with an English
Translation (Anecdota Oxoniensia. Semitic Series, vol. 1, part 2; Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1886), p. 50. This text says that the staff was handed on from Adam, to Seth,
Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and Pharez. At the time of Pharez there
was war everywhere and an angel hid the staff in a mountain in Moab. There it was
found by Jethro who gave it to Moses when he married Zipporah.
77. Cf. Shinan, The Chronicle', p. 112, 14; Yalqut 168 (p. 110) and 173
(p. 113); Sefer ha-Yashar (Goldschmidt, p. 263). See also Midrash Wa-joscha
(Jellinek, Part 1, pp. 41-42). For a somewhat similar legend from the tales of King
Arthur see the story of the knight Balin who distinguished himself by drawing a
damsel's sword from its sheath when all the other knights, and even King Arthur
himself, had failed to do so; cf. E. Vinaver (ed.), The Works of Sir Thomas Malory
(London: Oxford University Press, 1954), pp. 44-47.
99
Well-known Traditions
Pseudo-Jonathan gives a more prominent place in his narrative to the
staff of Moses than do the other targums. See Ps.-J. Gen. 4.15; Exod.
2.21; 4.20; 14.21; Num. 20.8-9; 22.28; Deut. 34.12. It has been pointed
out that other writers too showed an interest in the same staff. Ancient
writers such as Artapanus, Ezechiel the Tragic Poet, Josephus, and
Pseudo-Philo, were, as I have noted, all intrigued by the staff with which
so many wonders were worked.78 Traditions about the staff continued to
grow in the Jewish community and we find them in a developed stage in
the Chronicle of Moses and Sefer Ha-Yashar. Pseudo-Jonathan, who
composed his work before these writers, also knew the haggadot that
surrounded the staff. He has discreetly incorporated several elements of
these haggadot, as well as other haggadic details about the life of the
young Moses, into his version of Exod. 2.21. He did not need to
elaborate on those details because he knew that they were familiar to his
audience. He was satisfied to allude to the traditions and to allow his
readers to complete the picture for themselves.
78. Cf. D.L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS, 1;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 170-73.
THE ATTITUDE TO WOMEN IN THE PROLOGUE OF TARGUM JOB

Celine Mangan
I owe my continuing involvement in targumic study in large part to

Martin McNamara. Every time in the past when my interest flagged, he
was at hand with some new project. It was with pleasure, therefore, that
I agreed to be associated with this tribute to him. We are indebted to
him in particular for his work on the project, The Aramaic Bible,1 which
has opened up this vast field of the past understanding of the Hebrew
scriptures to many scholars in the English-speaking world.
Introduction
The world of the Hebrew text of the book of Job is undoubtedly
patriarchal; male power over women is clearly apparent. Job's wife is
obviously only a foil for her husband; the lost children are hers also, yet
there is no mention of her grief at the loss of them.2 Her talk is said to
be that of 'foolish women', a stigma that has attached itself to women
ever since. The daughters also appear within a patriarchal setting: in 1.4
it is only the sons who are heads of households. Granted, they at least
invite their sisters to feast with them but, presumably, while there the
daughters behave themselves very demurely because when Job is
offering sacrifice he is only afraid that the sons 'have sinned and cursed
God in their hearts' (1.5). The three new daughters at the end of the
book are proclaimed for their beauty. Women in patriarchy often exist
1. Cf. M.J. McNamara, The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible
Project: Some Reflections', in D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The
Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 103-15.
2. The LXX does, however, acknowledge the anguish of the wife of Job: 'your
sons and your daughters are no more, those who were the pains and travail of my
womb, and for whom I exhausted myself in vain' (LXX 2.9).
MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Targum Job
101
to be looked at and Job's new daughters are no exception.3

In between Prologue and Epilogue, Job, in spite of his affliction,
comes across as a dominant male in a patriarchal society. He speaks of
his past life as one who was prepared out of his bounty to be kind to the
widow (29.13), who in such a society was dependent on the good-will,
or lack of it, of men (cf. 22.9; 24.3, 21). Women are there to give birth
(cf. 3.10-11; 10.18; 14.1; 15.14; 25.4), to be protected from the
rapacious (cf. 31.1,9), but even in this the woman is the man's property
and so must bear his punishment (cf. 31.9-12).
At first glance Targum Job seems to present a far less patriarchal view
of women than does the Hebrew text. In Tg. Job 1.2-3 the property that
is Job's is given not only to the sons but also to the daughters and even
to the wife. However, as the text goes on, it is clear that there is very
little change; in fact things get worsea much more negative attitude to
women emerges in Job's words to his wife (2.9-10). This paper will
confine itself to an examination of these two targumic developments in
the Prologue of the book of Job.
Women's Inheritance in Targum Job
In the Hebrew text of Job the second group of Job's daughters are said
to inherit 'among their brothers' (42.15). There is no such mention of
inheritance for the first trio and it is clear from the text that they, unlike
their brothers, do not own property since, although they are invited to
their brothers' houses in turn, they do not reciprocate the hospitality
(1.2-4). The targum changes all that, giving an inheritance not only to
the daughters, but also to Job's wife:
Seven sons and three daughters were born to him, and his flock consisted
of seven thousand sheep, a thousand for every son; three thousand
camels, a thousand for every daughter, five hundred yoke of oxen for
himself;five hundred she-asses ashis wife's sole property(Tg. Job 1.3).4
3. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, 'Why is there a Book of Job and what does it do to you if
you read it?', in W.A.M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of Job (BETL, 114; Leuven:
Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1994), pp. 1-20.
4. Some manuscripts of the targum omit these additions to the Hebrew: cf. C.
Mangan, J.F. Healey and P.S. Knobel, The Targum of Job, The Targum of
Proverbs, The Targum of Qohelet (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 24-25. This translation of the text will be discussed
further below.
102
It is worth considering the possible contexts in Judaism which could

allow such additions to the text of Job.
1. Inheritance in Judaism
If the targumic text implies that the daughters and the wife are to inherit
from Job then it is clearly in contravention of the basic Jewish laws
concerning inheritance. In the earliest legislation in Israel only sons could
inherit (cf. Deut. 21.15-17), the first-born receiving a double portion
(Deut. 21.17); if there were no sons, levirate marriage was the means of
providing an heir to the property (Deut. 25.5-10).5 In the celebrated case
of Zelophehad's daughters (Num. 27.1-11), where a male heir was no
longer possible, daughters were allowed to inherit if there were no sons
(Num. 27.8). However, heiresses were then expected to marry within
the tribe so that the land would not pass to another tribe (Num. 36.112). The principle that a daughter could inherit only if there were no son
became the accepted law in the Mishnah (cf. m. B. Bat. 8.2). The wife,
however, was not to inherit from her husband:
A man inherits from his mother, and a husband from his wife and sisters'
sons but they do not bequeath property to them. A woman bequeaths
property to her sons, a wife to her husband and maternal uncles, but they
do not inherit from them (m. B. Bat. 8.1).
2. Ketubah
Even though daughters were not allowed to inherit if there were sons,
maintenance for them by way of a dowry took precedence over the
inheritance of their brothers:
If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the
sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance; but if the property
was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go a-begging
(m. B. Bat. 9.1).
What, then, of the 'five hundred she-asses' for Job's wife in Tg. Job 1.3?
Is it a question of the wife's ketubahl6 Jastrow would seem to imply as
much by translating Igrm in conjunction with 3tty3of the Aramaic text
5. Cf. S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century
(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 518ff.
6. Very strict laws governed the rights of a woman relating to her ketubah, a
whole tractate of the Mishnah and Talmud being given over to a consideration of the
matter.
MANGAN The Attitude to Women in Tar gum Job
103
'as his wife's sole property'.7 However, I do not think that what is in
question in Tg. Job 1.3 is the ketubah of Job's wife since it is clear that
there is no distinction between the way the property is assigned to the
wife, to Job himself and to the sons and daughters, the preposition /being used in each case: Ikl br} ('to each son'); Ikl brt3 ('to each
daughter'); Igrmyh ('as his own') and Igrm 'tty3 which I translated
earlier,8 following Jastrow, 'as his wife's sole property' but which I now
think would, as in the case of the son and the daughter, be better translated as 'as his wife's'.9
3. Gifts
The passage may, however, be within the laws of Mishnah and Talmud,
if what we have here is a matter of gifts rather than inheritance. Whereas
a bequest by way of inheritance to other than the legal heirs was null
and void, a bequest by way of gift was valid:
If a man says, 'Such-a-one, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double
portion', or 'Such-a-one, my son, shall not inherit with his brethren', he
has said nothing, for he has laid down a condition contrary to what is
written in the Law. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word
of mouth and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal
with the firstborn his words remain valid...If a man said, 'Such a man
shall inherit from me', and he has a daughter; or 'My daughter shall
inherit from me', and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has laid
down a condition contrary to what is written in the Law (m. B. Bat. 8.5).
Giving one's property as gift was clearly frowned upon, however, since
the Mishnah goes on to say:
If a man assigned his goods to others and passed over his sons, what he
has done is done, but the Sages have no pleasure in him.
This attitude is spelled out in great detail in the Talmud (e.g. b. B. Bat.
50b-52a). It is clear, then, that a daughter could obtain property by deed
of gift even if there were sons, though not by deed of inheritance. The
7. M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and
Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 270; cf. J. Levy, Chalddisches
Worterbuch fiber die Targumim (Leipzig, 1867), p. 155.
8. Mangan, The Tar gum of Job, p. 24.
9. There are instances in the targums, however, where grm is associated with
the giving of property, for example, Tg. Neof. Gen. 15.2; cf. M.J. McNamara,
Tar gum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1992), p. 95.
104
discussion among the Rabbis about this in the Talmud comes from the
time of the early Amoraim (cf. b. B. Bat. 5la). It is possible, therefore,
that what was meant in Tg. Job 1.3 was that Job was giving gifts to his
daughters and his wife in his lifetime, rather than waiting until after his
death when they would have no inheritance. This, however, still leaves
the mention of actual inheritance in 42.15 unaccounted for.
4. Practice outside the Usual Jewish Norms
It is clear that from time to time in Judaism there emerged a tolerance
for the inheritance of women which, however, rarely lasted for any
length of time. An example can be seen in the papyri from the fifth
century BCE Elephantine military colony where women appear as parties
in independent business and legal transactions including the bestowal of
property.10 Two other movements within the history of Judaism also
tolerated the inheritance of women. The earliest was that of the
Sadducees. The Talmud refutes vehemently the position attributed to
them:
R. Huna said in the name of Rab: Anyone, even a prince in Israel, who
says that a daughter is to inherit with the daughter of the son, must not be
obeyed: for such (a ruling) is only the practice of the Sadducees. As it was
taught: On the twenty-fourth of Tebeth we returned to our (own) law; for
the Sadducees having maintained (that) a daughter inherited with the
daughter of the son, R. Johanan b. Zakkai joined issue with them. He said
to them: 'Fools, whence do you derive this?' And there was no one who
could reply a word, except one old man who prated at him and said: If the
daughter of his son, who succeeds to an inheritance by virtue of his son's
right, is heir to him, how much more the daughter who derives her right
from himself!' (b. B. Bat. 115b).n
The suggestion has been made that the reason the Sadducees allowed
the inheritance of women was to accommodate the succession of Herod
to Hasmonean property by means of his wife, Mariamne.12 Upper-class
Jewish women in the Hellenistic era seemingly had obtained some legal
10. Cf. A. Cowley, Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra (New York:
Macmillan, 1919), pp. 42-48.
11. Cf. J. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1972), pp. 299303. The Rabbis Huna and Rab are third century CE quoting the first-century R.
Johanan b. Zakkai.
12. Cf. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens, pp. 304-305; V. Aptowitzer, 'Das Erbrecht
der Tochter bei den Sadduzaern', HUCA 5 (1928), pp. 283-89.
105
improvement in status.13 But that it was not a general trend is clear from
the Testament of Job which, even though it is more or less contemporaneous with the Sadducees,14 contends that women are outside the laws
of inheritance. Only males could inherit (46.1), and when Job's daughters
objected they were given instead three magic cords which were to lead
them 'into the better world, to live in the heavens' (47.3). They made it
clear, however, that they could not earn a living from the cords.15
Another three daughters are mentioned as receiving inheritance in Ps.Philo, Bib. Ant. 29.1-2, where the three daughters of the judge Kenez
are given a vast inheritance. In general, Pseudo-Philo's attitude to
women would seem to be very positive and this incident may be his way
of preparing the ground for the very favourable treatment of the judge,
Deborah. But, from the point of view of inheritance, the passage merely
reiterates the ruling on the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27.16
Although the Sadducean halakah disappeared in large part within
Judaism after the fall of the Temple, it is clear that some of its traditions
lived on to reappear from time to time.17 This is particularly true of early
Karaite law. David ben Boaz gave equality of inheritance to daughters
and sons, while Daniel al-Qumisi allowed daughters a third of the estate.
But this did not last and later Karaites reverted to rabbinic practice.18 It
would be possible to see in this early Karaite law another model for
Targum Job in allowing women to inherit with men, thus placing the
date of the targum as late as the ninth century. A caveat against this,
however, is the fact that Saadiah Gaon (d. 942), who quotes the targum
13. Cf. L.L. Bronner, From Eve to Esther: Rabbinic Reconstructions of Biblical
Women (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), p. 7; Z. Ben-Barak, 'The
Daughters of Job', in S. Ahituv and B.A. Levine (eds.), Eretz-Israel 24: Avraham
Malamat Volume (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1993), pp. 41-48.
14. Cf. R.P. Spittler, The Testament of Job', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I. Apocalyptic Literature (London: Darton, Longman
& Todd, 1983), pp. 833-34.
15. It is interesting that when L. Ginzberg (The Legends of the Jews
[Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1920], II, p. 241) speaks of the inheritance of Job's daughters, it is from the Testament of Job that he takes his material
rather than from the targum.
16. C.A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of
Biblical Women (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), pp. 39-41.
17. Cf. S.W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1957), V, pp. 25 Iff.
18. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, V, pp. 243, 402 n. 41.
106
frequently with approval, would presumably have objected strongly if he

considered it to embody Karaite law.19
5. Job as a Foreigner
Another possible explanation for the presence of female inheritance in
Targum Job is that the author considered Job a foreigner and therefore
not bound by the Israelite laws of inheritance. The LXX had identified
Job as the Edomite king, Jobab, and the Testament of Job asserted that
he was 'from the sons of Esau' (1.6). There was controversy among the
Rabbis as to Job's origin (cf. b. B. Bat. 15b). While a few contended
that he never existed, most considered him an Israelite, but there were
some who had doubts, especially among those who knew the protesting
Job of the poems rather than the Job of the Prologue and Epilogue. One
tradition went so far as to say that he was one of Pharaoh's counsellors
and therefore an enemy of Israel.20 The tradition that Job was a Gentile
was known among the Rabbis as early as tannaitic times (cf. y. Sot. 20c)
and was put forward sporadically through the centuries (cf. b. Sank.
106a; Exod. R. 27.3).
Laws of inheritance outside of Judaism were as prejudiced against
women as those of Israel. While there were some sporadic cases of
women inheriting their father's property, most systems in antiquity only
allowed sons to inherit. In Egypt, for example, throughout most of its
history, sons and daughters received equal inheritance. Indeed the
daughter kept her inheritance even on marriage and passed it on intact
to her children. Greek law, on the other hand, did not allow the
inheritance of women: at Athens daughters could not inherit with sons,
but again there was the obligation on brothers to provide a dowry for
them.21 Macedonian law was much more liberal, as women there had a
more prominent-place in society.22 Roman law, however, especially from
the time of the Justinian code allowed both wife and daughters to inherit
equally with sons provided they were still within the jurisdiction of the
19. S. Poznanski, writing in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1940), VII, p. 664, suggests that Saadyia made it
'one of the great tasks of his life' to combat the Karaites; other scholars are not so
sure: cf. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, V, p. 275.
20. Cf. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors (Brown Judaic Studies, 47; Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 131, n. 23.
21. Cf. Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, VII, pp. 299ff.
22. Cf. B. Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 10-12.
107
paterfamilias s at the hour of his death.23 It is tempting to think of the

author of the targum writing within a Roman colony and taking on
board the mores of the surrounding society.24 At a much later stage in
Islam the law was that a male should inherit twice as much as a female.25
This Muslim period is certainly not reflected in the verse we are considering since the daughters would seem to do far better than the sons and,
even though the wife gets only 'five hundred she-asses', it is as least
equal numerically to Job's own portion.
6. Targumic Systematization
At the end of this brief study on the inheritance of women in Tg. Job
1.3,1 am forced to say that none of the explanations I have considered is
totally satisfactory. Maybe the truest conclusion is the simplest one: that
a targumist of a mathematical bent decided to compute the MT's 'and
their father gave them inheritance among their brothers' (Job 42.15) to
the conveniently phrased three thousand camels for the three daughters
and the seven thousand sheep for the seven sons. Combining this with
the supposition that Job was a Gentile meant that there was no need to
worry about his keeping the precise Jewish laws regarding inheritance.
The author of the targum did not stop to think that the women were
doing very well indeed out of the bargain, camels presumably being of
much more value than sheep.
The Wife of Job (Targum Job 2.9-1 la)
Women do not seem to do well in the second text for consideration,
where the wife of Job, far from being the object of Job's benevolence as
she was in the earlier text, is seemingly vilified by him. There have been
recent attempts to rehabilitate the wife of Job. Claudia Camp, for
example, in a work on Proverbs, has suggested that Job by accusing his
wife of speaking as 'one of the foolish women would speak' clearly
23. Witherington, Women and the Genesis of Christianity, pp. 310-11; R.S.
Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews,
and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), pp. 55-56.
24. For the vexed problem of dating Targum Job, cf. C. Mangan, 'Some
Observations on the Dating of Targum Job', in K.J. Cathcart and J.F. Healey (eds.),
Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Dermot Ryan
(Dublin: Glendale Press, 1989), pp. 67-78.
25. Cf. Qw3an 4.10 for the mathematics involved in female inheritance.
108
expected wisdom and not folly from her.26 Likewise a recent book on
Job goes to great lengths to show that the retention of the wife's words
to Job to 'bless God' in both the Vulgate and the targum should be
taken literally and not as a euphemism for 'curse', as the MT is usually
understood, and in that case shows the wife in a very favourable light
indeed.27 The targumic expansion of the Hebrew text reads:
His wife, Dinah, said to him: 'Are you still holding fast to your integrity?
Bless the Memra o/the Lord and die,' And he said to her: 'You talk as
any woman who acts shamefully from the house of her father talks. Since
we accept good from beforee the Lord should we not accept evil?'28
Calling Job's wife Dinah was a commonplace in the Midrash.29 The

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

of 'from the house of her father' to 2.10. Job insults his wife by implying
that she was deviant even while still in her father's house.
26. C.V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Bible and
Literature Series, 11; Columbia: Almond Press, 1985), p. 87.
27. Cf. D.J. O'Connor, Job, his Wife, his Friends and his God (Dublin:
Columba Press, 1995), pp. 25ff. The retention of 'bless' in the Vulgate, while
generally considered a euphemism for cursing, has from time to time been taken in a
more positive light; cf. F. Kermode, The Uses of Error (London: Fontana Press,
1991), pp. 425ff.
28. Mangan, The Targum of Job, pp. 26-27.
29. Cf. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors, pp. 17-18.
30. For texts cf. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, p. 313, n. 285.
109
Indeed some of the midrashim would suggest that this deviancy was
the very reason why Dinah had been given to the foreigner, Job. The
identification of Job with the Edomite, Jobab, of Gen. 36.33 is possibly
behind the link with the family of Jacob made in Ps.-Philo and the
Testament of Job (cf. 1.6), but the Rabbis were not content with merely
taking over the older identification of Job's wife with Dinah. They made
the link by themselves by means of the word nebdlah occurring both in
Job 2.10 and Gen. 34.7. They put forward various possible epochs for
the date of Job, that for the time of Jacob reading:
Some say that Job lived in the time of Jacob and married Dinah the
daughter of Jacob. [The proof is that] it is written here [in the book of
Job], thou speakest as one of the impious women [nebdldth] speaketh,
and it is written in another place [in connection with Dinah], Because he
had wrought folly [nebeldh] in Israel (b. B. Bat. 15b).
The downward spiral in the understanding of the Hebrew text's use of

'foolish' in relation to the wife is already apparent in the Testament of
Job where Job's first wife, Sitidos, is considered as 'one of the senseless
women who misguide their husband's sincerity' (26.6; cf. LXX 2.10).31
The picture of the women in the first part of the Testament of Job is
basically negative.32 The doormaid and Sitidos are portrayed as agents
of Satan and easily fooled by his ruses. That foolishness leads to the
wife's exposure by the public shearing of her hair, thereby leaving her
open to sexual shame.33 Thus there is a subtle link already in the
Testament of Job between the 'foolishness' of the Hebrew text and
sexual shame.34
The targum, by translating nebalah by qelana ('shame, disgrace,
31. Some MSS of the Vulgate add 'mulieribus' to 'stultis'; cf. Libri Hester et Job
(Biblia Sacra, 9; Rome: Vatican Press, 1951), p. 100.
32. Cf. S.R. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex" in the Testament of Job', JBL 112
(1993), pp. 55-70; P.W. van der Horst, 'Images of Women in the Testament of
Job', in M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in the Testament of Job
(SNTSMS, 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 93-116.
33. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex'", pp. 61-63.
34. This link is also made by contrasting the wife's 'weakness of heart' (T. Job
25.10) with Job's own steadfastness. A woman leading a man astray by means of a
wrong use of 'heart' is also a targumic addition to the text of Prov. 7.10; cf. J.F.
Healey, The Targum of Proverbs (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 24. It is common in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs; cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the
Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 234.
110
nakedness') is clearly within the same tradition and therefore not

necessarily dependent on the later tradition of the Babylonian Talmud.
When there is no question of a sexual context nebdldh and cognates are
usually translated in the targums by words connoting wickedness such
as ri&a (e.g. Tg. 2 Sam. 3.33; Tg. Isa. 32.5), Siqra (e.g. Tg. Isa. 9.16; Tg.
Ezek. 13.3), qelana being usually reserved for an act of a sexual
nature.35 Though it can refer to the violation of a man (Tg. Judg. 19.23),
it usually refers to a woman, either as a shameful act done to a woman
(e.g. Tg. Onq. Gen. 34.7; Tg. 2 Sam. 13.12) or done by a woman herself
(e.g. Tg. Deut. 22.21; Tg. Hos. 2.11-12).36
Conclusion
In conclusion, therefore, it has to be said that, though women's
inheritance in Tg. Job 1.3 would seem to be a liberation from the
patriarchal setting of the Hebrew text, it is doubtful if such a liberation
was in the mind of the targumist who made the addition. It is much
more likely that he was merely delighting in making the Prologue of the
text fit in neatly with the Epilogue in the matter of inheritance. That his
opinion of women was even more depressing than that of the Hebrew
text is clear from the development at 2.10. No more than to the
Testament of Job, can we look to the targum for a 'visionary precedent
to feminism'.37
35. Tg. Job 42.8, where the friends have acted in folly, is an exception. Cf. C.
Mangan, 'Cursing and Blessing in the Prologue or Targum Job', in forthcoming
collection of papers read at the Second Targumic Conference, Cambridge, 1995.
36. qln' is used for menstrual flow in Tg. Onq. Lev. 20.17-18 thus showing the
deep mistrust of womanly functions within the targumic traditions: cf. B. Grossfeld,
The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to Numbers (The
Aramaic Bible, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), pp. 43-44.
37. Cf. Garrett, 'The "Weaker Sex'", p. 70.
THE IMAGE OF ISRAEL ACCORDING TO TARGUM EZEKIEL

Josep Ribera
1. The Spiritual Meaning of the Name 'Israel'

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

according to which the nations must be esteemed like 'beasts' (b. B. Mes. 114b); cf.
L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New
York: Ktav; Baltimore: The Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983), pp. 3-4, nn. 19-20;
E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible. Contents and Context (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1988), p. 184. On the distinction between 'Juda' and 'Israel' in the Roman
period, cf. K.G. Kuhn, 'Israel', TDNT, III, pp. 356-69.
112
of a typical expression in the targumic version: 'the congregation of

Israel' (keniSta" de-Yisrffel:16.14, 20, 32).2
2. Israel's Fidelity to their Lord
As for the religious vision of Israel, Targum Ezekiel notes their disloyal
behaviour: the people do not accept the Word (memra) of the Lord
(Tg. Ezek. 3.7); they pay no heed to the Prophets (7.13; 20.25; 21.18);3
their deeds are comparable to those of scorpions (Tg. Ezek. 2.6),4 while
they do not perform good deeds (Tg. Ezek. 13.5) and they suppose that
their actions are unknown to the Lord (8.12). They are a rebellious
people (2.7) with foolish hearts, who have forsaken the worship of their
God (6.9). The greatest wrongdoings are, for Targum Ezekiel, the
worship of idols (14.6), rendered on the heathen altars (6.4, 5), and the
forsaking of the fear of the Lord (11.15), and hence the transgression of
the Torah (16.61). Israel do not wish to repent of their sins (21.18; 24.6),
and thus provoke the anger of the Lord (8.17).
3. The Lord Punishes his People Justly
Targum Ezekiel insists on the divine will that Israel should give up
idolatrous worship and return to his worship (Tg. Ezek. 18.30) in order
to find instruction before him and thus reach genuine repentance (14.46).5 Targum Ezekiel insists that God always punishes justly, according to
the crime committed (21.32);6 so the punishments inflicted on Israel are
2. Cf. B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the
Isaiah Targum (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 134, n. 4.
3. This attitude of contempt for or rejection of the prophets is often stressed in
Tg. J.; cf. J. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias; version critica, introduccion y notas
(Biblioteca Midrasica, 6; Valencia: Institucion S. Jeronimo para la Investigacion
Biblica, 1988), p. 141, n. 9 and p. 241, n. 8.
4. The Aramaic root dhl means 'fear', 'worship' and 'divinity'; cf. J. Ribera,
Traduccion del Targum de Jeremias (Biblioteca Midrasica, 12; Estella [Navarra]:
Verbo Divino, 1992), p. 48.
5. Repentance, which in the Targum means above all the return to the worship
of Yahweh (cf. Tg. Ezek. 14.6; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 126), is a basic attitude
in Judaism and hence the targumic literature lays special emphasis on it; cf. Smolar
and Aberbach, Studies, p. 210, n. 513.
6. According to the well-known rabbinic sentence, 'measure for measure'; cf.
Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, p. 139, n. 7.
RlBERA The Image of Israel according to Tar gum Ezekiel
113
the result of a judicial condemnation (puiânut, 5.8), the final retribution

(7.2) made by divine decree (5.15).7 He raises up his destructive might
against his people (6.14) in the time of retribution for sins (7.9, 12).8 For
that reason the Lord removes his Shekinah (7.22) and does not accept
the prayers of the people (8.18), whom he abandons (9.9), though not
for ever (11.16).9 He delivers the land to sinners and the wicked (7.21)
for its destruction (7.25) and Israel suffers the great punishment of exile
(4.13; 21.18; 24.6).10 Israel still felt the lack of Torah instruction (7.26).11
Nevertheless, Targum Ezekiel insists that the divine punishment inflicted
for sin leads to the spiritual and moral purification of the chosen people
(23.27).
4. A Theological Reflection on Israel's History
There are in the book of Ezekiel a number of summaries of varying
lengths about the history of the salvation and punishment of Israel,
which are often described in a metaphorical manner and are interpreted
by Targum Ezekiel in a moral sense.
Ch. 16 is a classic example; it tells the allegory of a young abandoned
woman, who practised harlotry and was taken under the Lord's protection to become his spouse.12 Targum Ezekiel interprets it by evoking
7. Every divine word is an unappealable decision, a decree; cf. Smolar and
Aberbach, Studies, p. 134, n. 35.
8. Divine wrath is always justified in the Targum because of the wrongful
behaviour of the chosen people; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 80.
9. The text mentions synagogues as a provisional substitution for the temple of
Jerusalem, which is expected to return very soon; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version,
p. 142.
10. Exile is accepted more as a divine punishment for the moral depravity of the
people than as a result of a political or social force; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies,
p. 201. The targumic interpretation of Ezek. 24.6 ('exile upon exile her people has
been driven out') refers to two exiles: presumably one to Babylon in 586 BCE and
the other after the Roman conquest in 70 CE.
11. The fact that Tg. Ezek. regards prophets as teachers and promotors of the
Law is the reason for the rendering in this passage and in Tg. Ezek. 12.17 of 'vision'
(hdzon) as 'instruction'; cf. J. Ribera: 'The Image of the Prophet in the Light of the
Targum Jonathan and the Jewish Literature in the Post-Biblical Period', in
Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World
Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), p. 128; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 144.
12. This chapter and ch. 1 of Ezekiel caused grave difficulties for the
canonization of the book; a rabbinic tradition therefore forbade their reading in the
114
various stages of the history of Israel from antiquity, passing through the
present state of distress towards a hopeful future of renewal. The subject
of all these events is 'the congregation of Israel' (Tg. Ezek. 16.14, 20,
32, 34, 35).
Targum Ezekiel begins its interpretation by evoking the divine
revelation to Abraham, to whom the future slavery and liberation from
Egypt are announced (16.3). Targum Ezekiel does not agree with MT
that Abraham is an Amorite and Sarah a Hittite (vv. 3, 45). Israel, like a
little child, feels banished, abandoned and oppressed by slavery (vv. 4-5).
Targum Ezekiel refers to God's covenant with the Patriarchs, the sign of
which is the blood of the circumcision and Passover (v. 6).13 Likewise,
the liberation, prosperity and expansion of Israelequivalent to the
puberty of a virgin according to MTdepends for Targum Ezekiel on
the merits of forefathers (v. 7).14 Similarly the time of love and election
of the naked young girlreferring to the slavery and oppression in
Egypt (v. 8)as spouse by the Lord is understood in relation to the
Sinaitic revelation, which is the culmination of the spiritual redemption
from sin and the physical liberation from oppression, when Israel
becomes the elected people who worship the Lord alone (vv. 8-9).
According to Targum Ezekiel the embroidered garments of the bride
mean the constitution of Levitical and Aaronic priesthood (v. 10). The
jewels and ornaments are the precious stones of the Mosaic Law and the
sanctification of Israel in the name of the Lord (v. 11). The ark of the
covenant, the cloud of glory, the angel who guides the people, and the
tabernacle are for Targum Ezekiel the components of the stage of the
divine election of Israel, which becomes prosperous and a ruler of kingdoms; in the MT these elements (vv. 12-13) represent royal ornaments of
the bride.
But Israel have defiled their holiness and dignity by idolatrous worship
(vv. 15-16): the Israelites have performed human sacrifices to idols
(vv. 20-21), they have built heathen altars and participated in the worship
of idolsthis is how Targum Ezekiel understands the provocative
activity of prostitution (vv. 24-25); therefore the Lord has raised the
striking power of his might against the people. Israel has ignored the
synagogue; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 52, n. 297.
13. Both the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael in its commentary on Exod. 12.23 and
b. Ker. 9a provide the same causes in regard to the liberation from Egypt.
14. The Targum emphasizes on many occasions the saving power of the merits
of the Patriarchs; cf. Ribera, Targum de Jeremias, p. 46, n. 158.
RIBERA The Image of Israel according to Targum Ezekiel
115
Torah and repentance (vv. 28-29); their behaviour is like that of the
unfaithful wife, who abandons her husband and prostitutes herself
(v. 32); therefore, in anger the Lord has delivered them to death (v. 38).
In spite of punishments Israel did not renounce their abominations
(v. 43). They had behaved like Canaanites, after the behaviour of Sodom
and Gomorrah, although their ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, rejected
idolatry in the midst of the heathens (v. 45). For this reason the sin of
Israel becomes worse than that of Samaria and Sodom (vv. 46-47).
Israel have assumed the responsibility for their guilty decisions and their
abominable worship (v. 58). The Lord, then, shall take revenge on his
people who have altered the covenant (v. 59)15 and who have not
observed the Law (v. 61). Nevertheless in the future Yahweh shall
conclude a new covenant with Israel, who shall cease to be arrogant in
their words when they feel forgiven for their ignominy (v. 63).16
Chapter 19 offers, in its turn, another brief summary of the spiritual
history of Israel, with the metaphor of a vine.17 The luxuriant vine,
which withers and dries up (19.10-14), symbolizes prosperous Israel
while they obey the Law (vv. 10-11) and their ruin and exile due to the
sins of pride and the incapacity of their rulers (vv. 12-14).18
In ch. 20 there is also a brief outline of the immoral behaviour of
Israel throughout their history, and the condemnation of the Lord.
Targum Ezekiel enumerates the reasons for Israel's punishment in the
past, the refusal to receive the prophets, to abandon idolatrous worship
(20.8, 25, 28), or to heed the Word of God (memra, v. 39); rebelling
against him (vv. 13, 21, 25) and his ordinances (v. 16), the observance of
which is, according to Targum Ezekiel, the sure way to reach eternal
15. The targum mitigates the forthright statement of MT 'break the covenant' by
using 'change the covenant' (see also Tg. Ezek. 17.18); cf. J. Ribera, 'La imatge
d'Israel en el targum dels profetes',in La Paraula al servei dels homes (Barcelona:
Associacio Biblica de Catalunya, 1989), p. 58; K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The
Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 14; Wilmington, DE: Michael
Glazier, 1989), p. 214, n. 34.
16. Mekilta Ba-HodeS, parasah 9 (ed. Lauterbach, II, pp. 273-74), explains that
the humble man attracts the Shekinah, which moves away from the haughty one.
17. Already in Tg. Isa. there is a clear application of the allegory of the vine to
Israel. Cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, pp. 78ff. See also Tg. Hos. 10.1.
18. The principle of Deuteronomic ideology that prosperity and destruction of the
people are closely linked with the observance or rejection of the Torah is frequently
stated in the Targum; see also Tg. Jer. 11.16; Tg. Amos. 9.1; Tg. Mich. 5.14; cf.
Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 49, n. 39.
116
lifee (vv. 11, 21). Therefore the Lord banished them (v. 25) taking
revenge through a judicial sentence (vv. 36-37). Nevertheless, in the
future, Israel shall recognize with regret the misdeeds they have
committed (v. 43).
Many historical details are added to MT of ch. 21. Targum Ezekiel
distinguishes between the tribes of the South (Judah, Benjamin) and those
of the North (Israel) when it deals with the exile of the kingdoms (Israel
and Judah) owing to their idolatry (21.15-17).19 Then some historical
particularities are indicated with mention of the proper names (the
removal of the high priest Seraiah and the king Zedekiah; and the
murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael; vv. 31-32).20 At the same time Targum
Ezekiel points out the refusal of the people to turn back from their
misdeeds in spite of the persistence of the prophets; therefore they shall
be exiled (v. 18) and slain by judicial punishment (vv. 19-22).
Some erotic expressions from ch. 23, which are also found in ch. 16,
take on a moral feature in Targum Ezekiel. The young breasts handled
and pressed as well as the harlotry are symbols of the heathen worship
and the wrongdoings of the earlier age of Israel.21
The wicked behaviour of the rulers of Israel is the principal subject of
ch. 34, in which the MT uses the allegory of the shepherds and the herd.
Targum Ezekiel explains how the rulers have abused their subjects and
have thereafter abandoned them (34.2-4), emphasizing the image of a
people which has strayed and been delivered to the plunderer kings
(v. 8).22 From this miserable profile of the past Targum Ezekiel foresees
an eschatological time when the transgressors and sinning leaders will be
destroyed (vv. 10, 16). In addition, Targum Ezekiel points out that the
trial shall be performed personally: the Lord will judge between sinners
and transgressors (v. 17), between rich and poor (v. 20), between man
and man (v. 22). Likewise the national and cultic unity in the future is
emphasized: 'I set up over them one leader, who shall provide for them,
19. Tg. Zech. 11.7 also deals with these two tribal groups; cf. Cathcart and
Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 213, nn. 23-24.
20. It seems reasonable to assume that Tg. Ezek. borrowed these historical
details from the books of Kings and Jeremiah; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies,
pp. 194-95, nn. 180-83.
21. The Targum usually understands words and sentences with erotic meaning as
idolatry; see for example, Tg. Jer. 3.8; 23.26; Tg. Nah. 3.6; cf. Levine, Aramaic
Version, pp. 101-102.
22. There is apparently an influence from Ezek. 34.2 on Tg. Zech. 11.7ff.; cf.
Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 212, n. 16.
117
my servant David...he shall be their leader' (vv. 23-24) while Israel shall
settle in the holy sanctuary (v. 26). They shall be liberated from the
nations which oppressed them (v. 28), and they shall become an elected
community over which the name of the Lord shall be called (v. 31).
5. Jerusalem is Spiritually Identified with Israel
In the mind of the author of Targum Ezekiel, Jerusalem, although
politically the capital of Judah, is identified with the community of Israel
(Tg. Ezek. 22.24). In Jerusalem all kinds of crimes (24.12) and intrigues
are carried out, among them the shedding of innocent blood (22.2; 24.8).
All the social categories of the city are denounced for abusing their
power: the scribes (MT prophets), priests, magistrates and prophets (these
last because of their false messages, 22.25-28). The perversion of the city
is such that nobody can be found to do good deeds and implore mercy
for the others (13.5; 22.30).23 Jerusalem refuses to repent (24.6).
For this reason God has decreed a just and punitive condemnation
(24.14), therefore Jerusalem becomes a city full of dead bodies (24.5), a
desolation (24.11), its people carried into exile (24.6). One of the most
awful punishments is the destruction of the temple (24.25).24
6. The Congregation of Israel and Personal Responsibility
Targum Ezekiel denies clearly the solidarity of the community in sin; by
no means do the sons have to be punished when the fathers sin
(Tg. Ezek. 18.2). Guilt falls only on the guilty (18.20), and so the judgment must be passed person by person (34.22). Among the individual
sins, Targum Ezekiel explicitly mentions idolatrous worship (18.6, 15).
The Lord also personally calls the wicked to return to his worship and to
repentance, because he does not take pleasure in the death of those who
deserve to die (18.31-32).25
23. Cf. also Tg. Isa. 63.5.
24. The destruction of the temple is not considered to be a result of a political and
historical event but an inevitable punishment because of collective wickedness; cf.
Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 175, and n. 2, where other quotations from the Targum
regarding the same issue are found.
25. In contrast to the collective influence of the merit of Ancestors (cf. n. 14),
post-biblical Judaism does not accept solidarity in sin and, consequently, in punishment; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, pp. 83, 110-11; R. Le Deaut and J. Robert,
Targum du Pentateuque. II. Exode et Levitique (SC, 256; Paris: Cerf, 1979), p. 165.
118
1. The Hopeful Future for Israel

Targum Ezekiel describes a future Israel who repent for the evil
committed (Tg. Ezek. 20.43); they shall dwell in the land of life, in which
sanctuary shall be found and their offering shall be accepted (20.40-41)
and the observance of the Law, which is the fountain of eternal life, shall
be fulfilled (20.11, 21).26
In ch. 36 Targum Ezekiel recounts the moral behaviour of Israel
throughout history and foresees a spiritual renewal in the future. Because
of the innocent blood shed and the idolatrous worship, the Israelites have
been exiled, removed from the Shekinah (36.18-21).27 But the Lord
shall approach them again28 and forgive their wrongdoings through the
expiatory sacrifices (vv. 24-25);29 he shall change their evil heart,
inspiring fear in it (v. 26; cf. 11.19; 18.31), and putting his holy spirit in it
(v. 27), for Israel shall fulfil his will (v. 26; 11.19)30 and become a holy
and purified people through repentance for their sins (v. 31), a people
that shall be renewed and repatriated (v. 38).
26. In fact the Targum adds references to the final time of history throughout the
Bible; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version, pp. 222ff. The use of the phrase 'the Kingdom
has been revealed' in Tg. Ezek. 7.7, 10 is noteworthy because it is typical of the
Targum in referring to an eschatological era; cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, p. 132,
n. 12. Likewise, the targumic paraphrase: 'the day that is about to come from before
the Lord' (Tg. Ezek. 30.3) is related to the final period of the history when the
kingdom of Lord shall reveal all its might and splendour; cf. J. Ribera, 'La
escatologia en el targum Jonatan y su relacion con el targum palestinense', in V.
Collado and V. Vilar (eds.), II Simposio Biblico Espanol (Valencia, 1987), p. 489.
27. The targum carefully adds the epithet 'innocent' (see also Tg. Nah. 3.1) in
order to stress the immoral meaning of the action since not all bloodshed is evil,
though murder is one of the unforgivable crimes; cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies,
pp. 5-6, n. 30, 214, n. 541. In fact, the shedding of innocent blood and idolatrous
worship are considered capital sins in rabbinic law.
28. The idea of 'bring near' in a spiritual sense in opposition to 'go away' from
the Lord is frequent in the targumic literature; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor
Prophets, p. 181,n. 24.
29. Related to purification by the ashes of the immolated cow according to
Tg. Ezek. 34.25 (see also Tg. Zech. 13.1); cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets,
p. 220, n. 2.
30. The holy spirit, according to Jewish tradition, is the vehicle by which the
Lord conveys prophetic messages and inspires good deeds; cf. J. Ribera, 'La
exegesis rabmica postbfblica reflejada en la version aramea de los profetas', El Olivo
13 (1981), pp. 71-73; idem, El Targum de Isaias, p. 43, n. 85.
119
In ch. 17 Targum Ezekiel presents a messianic vision of the kingdom

of Israel. The people, who have altered the covenant of the Lord, suffer
the exile to Babylon as a divine vengeance (17.20); nevertheless God will
choose a descendant of David and will establish him as a mighty king on
the holy mountain of the land, from which he will strengthen his
kingdom (vv. 22-23); 'all the righteous shall rely upon him and all the
humble shall dwell in the shade of his kingdom' (v. 23).31
In the symbolic resurrection of Israel (ch. 37), Targum Ezekiel
recounts the reunification of the tribes from North and South (37.16,
19), the gathering of the scattered (v. 21) on the holy mountain under a
single king, like another David (v. 24), with the beneficent presence of
the Shekinah in their midst (v. 27).32
Another vision of the future is found in chs. 38-39, the protagonist of
which is King Gog of Magog, who will fight against Israel, but will
finally be destroyed. Targum Ezekiel identifies Gog with the Roman
Empire (39.16),33 and also notes the moral reasons for the disaster and
restoration in 39.28-29: 'I exiled them because they sinned before Me,
and when they repented, I gathered them into their land...and never
again will I remove my Shekinah from them, for I have poured out my
holy spirit on the house of Israel'.34
31. Cf. also Tg. Ezek. 34.23-24. There is another targumic sentence which
indicates that the eschatological future is near: 'the day that is about to come from
before the Lord' (Tg. Ezek. 30.3). Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, p. 226, n. 614.
32. While the concept of resurrection in Tg. J. is somewhat obscure in this
chapter (Tg. Ezek. 37.13 can be understood in this way, following the interpretation
of b. Tacan. 2a) it is interesting that the interpretation of resurrection of the dead
appears in one fragment of the Palestinian Tg. to the Prophets (Tg. Ezek. 37); cf. A.
Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrection (Granada: Facultad de Teologia, 1978),
pp. 73-93. Similarly the fragment of Pseudo-Ezekiel from Qumran (4Q365) speaks
of individual resurrection as a reward for fidelity to the covenant. Cf. F. Garcia
Martinez, '^Fin del mundo o transformacion de la historia? La apocaliptica
intertestamentaria', Communio 21 (1994), pp. 26-27.
33. On the targumic identification of Gog with Rome, cf. Ribera, El Targum de
Isaias, p. 213, n. 1; Levine, Aramaic Version, p. 203. Tg. Ezek. 39.16 and Tg. Isa.
25.12 may refer to the downfall of Rome. Cf. P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the
Prophets (Yale Oriental Series, 14; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), p. 28.
34. The relationship of King Gog with the messianic era is frequent in Jewish
literature, not only in the Palestinian Targum but also in other rabbinic documents; cf.
Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrection, pp. 127-139; M. Perez Fernandez,
Tradiciones mesidnicas en el Targum Palestinense (Valencia: Institucion S.
Jeronimo para la Investigation Biblica, 1981), pp. 282-86.
120
8. Summary and Conclusions

It is clear that Targum Ezekiel considers both the word 'Israel' and the
syntagma 'congregation of Israel' in a religious way, on occasions
representing Judah and on others Jerusalem. When Israel's past is
described, their forefathers, especially such celebrated ancestors as
Abraham, Sarah and Moses, are idealized. The covenant with Abraham,
the signs of which are the blood of circumcision and of Passover and
also the good deeds of the Patriarchs, their merits, are the main reasons
which induce the Lord to liberate the people from the Egyptian slavery.
The divine election and consecration of Israel culminates with the delivery of the Law to Moses.
When the moral degradation of the people is described, Targum
Ezekiel stresses, on the one hand, how the people reject the divine
memra and the messengers of the Word of the Lord, the prophets; and
on the other, Targum Ezekiel points out the depravity of the people's
deeds, which is shown in a singular manner in the abandonment of the
worship35 and fear of Yahweh and in the practice of idolatrous worship.36
Ignorance of the Law and its trangression complete the spiritual image
of Israel given in Targum Ezekiel. The political and religious leaders of
the people are considered to be mainly responsible for the immoral
behaviour of the people. Nevertheless, Targum Ezekiel insists on personal
responsibility for individual actions and their consequences.
The Lord longs for repentance, for return to his worship and
knowledge of the Law. This calling is not only collective but individual
because the divine sentence is personal. But at the same time God
punishes with justice. Among the punishments which Targum Ezekiel
emphasizes are the removal of the beneficent presence of the Shekinah,
the destruction of the land and the exile of Israel.
35. I do not share the opinion of Levine (Aramaic Version, p. 103, n. 15) that the
targumic addition of the word 'worship' means that the targum tries to mitigate the
Hebrew expression 'you have forgotten Me' (see Tg. Ezek. 22.12; 23.35). I think
that this addition shows rather the targumic trend to specify certain Hebrew sentences
which are considered too generic.
36. Idolatry is one of the most recurrent issues in targumic exegesis. Cf. Smolar
and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 150-56. Precisely in Tg. Ezek. 22.4 'idols you have
made' is replaced by 'your worship of your idols' to mark the moral gravity of
idolatrous worship. Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, pp. 35-36, nn. 207-208.
121
Targum Ezekiel points to a hopeful future, when God shall draw his
people to himself forgiving their sins and infusing a fearful heart and
holy spirit. This people is spiritually renewed and repatriated. Sometimes
this future vision is identified with the eschatological and messianic era.
The Lord shall choose a descendant of David, to establish him in the
centre of his land, the holy mountain, where the sanctuary of the Lord is
found, as a mighty king among the nations, to be served by a righteous
and humble people who will be the select community under the protection of the Shekinah and the holy spirit.
In conclusion, the image which Targum Ezekiel offers of Israel is
identical with that of the other prophetic targums.37 Therefore it is
confirmed, on the one hand, that targumic exegesis is not a spontaneous,
popular, improvised interpretation of the Bible, but a scholarly work well
linked and harmoniously structured throughout; on the other hand, it is
very possible that this exegesis reflects the first period of Jewish
literature, which follows biblical literature, with evident references to
apocalyptic and eschatological ideas; thus it appears to be situated
chronologically between the second century BCE and the second
century CE, that is before what is known as rabbinic literature.38
37. Cf. Ribera, El Targum de Isaias, pp. 43-46; Targum de Jeremias, pp. 45-50;
La imatge d'Israel, pp. 57-64.
38. This period includes an extensive ideological plurimorphism, in which it is
difficult to speak of orthodox and heterodox trends. Hence, within the Judaism of
this time, any group can be considered as a sect, in the sense of following erroneous
doctrine that is not in accord with traditional teaching. Cf. G. Boccaccini, 'Middle
Judaism and its Contemporary Interpreters (1986-1992): Methodological Foundations
for the Study of Judaisms: 300 BCE to 200 CE', Henoch 15 (1993), pp. 207-33.
POST-PENTATEUCHAL FIGURES
IN THE PENTATEUCHAL ARAMAIC TARGUMIM*
Avigdor Shinan
The so-called 'Palestinian' Aramaic targumim to the Pentateuch make

no pretensions of presenting their listeners and readers with an exact
translationinsofar as it is at all possibleof the biblical text to be translated. As a matter of fact, innumerable times these targumim go clearly
beyond the bounds of the verse or the chapter being translated and are
enhanced by diverse aggadic and halakhic traditions, both long and
short, by words of rebuke and words of praise, slightly vulgar popular
motifs as well as delicate matters of belief, explanations of issues arising
from the written text or transparent hints at questions of current import.
This type of aggadic and halakhic material accompanying the translation of the Pentateuch has been examined primarily around different
thematic subjects, such as prayer,1 the angelic world,2 the appearance of
the holy spirit,3 other forms of divine revelation,4 the law of reward and
punishment.5 Such an examination serves as an excellent tool for uncovering the goals of the authors of the targumim and their methods of
work, their potential audience and religio-social status, their sources and
* I wish to thank Mrs Hani Davis for translating this article from the Hebrew.
1. M. Maher, The Meturgemanim and Prayer', JJS 41 (1990), pp. 226-46.
2. A. Shinan, 'The Angelology of the "Palestinian" Targums on the Pentateuch',
Sefarad433 (1983), pp. 181-98.
3. P. Schafer, 'Die Termini "Heiliger Geist" und "Geist der Prophetic" in den
Targumim unddas Verhaltnis der Targumim zueinander', VT20 (1970), pp. 304-14.
4. A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1986).
5. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press,
1972), pp. 120-32.
SHINAN Post-Pentateuchal Figures
123
their conceptual-spiritual world,6 as well as allowing for a comparison to

be made between the world of the Targum and that of other collections
of our early literature, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. This examination
also helps identify unique features characterizing each and every one of
the targumic texts at our disposal.
In the context of these discussions, I shall examine below an issue that,
to the best of my knowledge, has not yet received any serious treatment,
that is, whether post-pentateuchal figures (and even post-biblical ones)
are explicitly mentioned in the pentateuchal targumim. Such a phenomenon would appear to be surprising and largely unexpected, clearly
going beyond the horizons of the Pentateuch, as in the following
example:
Gen. 46.17:
nrnriN men mr-ai -ran men mo- TB "m
Asher's sons: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Beriah, and their sister Serah
Tg.-Ps.J.: ~D rraTtn print* men nirnji *w\ men nsa- "itBin ^m

p "73K "an-1? nrro KTT D-p ôri apirb mam û trnr:k wyp -n
3KT 'ova ^lop p
The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and their sister Serah,
who was taken to the garden (of Eden) while still alive because she had
announced to Jacob that Joseph was alive. It was she who delivered the
inhabitants of Abel from the judgement of death in the days of Joab.7
At this preliminary stage of our discussion it is sufficient to point out the

clear reference to an event which is to take place hundreds of years
later, in the Davidic period: Joab's persecution of Sheba son of Bichri in
the city of Abel and the saving of the city by a 'wise woman' identified
here as Serah, the daughter of Jacob (2 Sam. 20.10-23). This event is
incorporated because of the mention of Serah in the genealogical list of
the people going down to Egypt.
Below I shall clarify the scope of this phenomenon in the targumim,
and I shall identify who these post-pentateuchal figures are; I shall try
and find out in what contexts they appear and what functions they
served. Our discussion will centre around two complete corpora of
pentateuchal Aramaic targumim of Palestine: Targum Neofiti and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. However, when necessary, I will compare
6. See my summary, The Embroidered Targum (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993),
pp. 104-108 (Hebrew).
7. On Serah and her image in rabbinic literatureincluding her entrance into
Paradise alivesee J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development(Jerusalem: Keter,
1974), pp. 56-63 (Hebrew).
124
what is found in these targumim with other targumim as well. I shall also
show that this examinationwhich deals with an unequivocal, easily
identifiable phenomenonwill also help point out the different character
of these two texts regarding the mention of extra-pentateuchal figures
in pentateuchal material.
An examination of the modern concordances to Targum Neofiti and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 8 has shown that there is explicit or
unequivocal mention in them of 26 figures from the post-pentateuchal
period.9 However, we should deduct from this list three names of
parents who are mentioned only as part of their children's names (i.e.,
Joash, who is mentioned in the combined name Gideon son of Joash, or
Manoah, mentioned together with his son, Samson), and so we arrive at
23 figuresone woman10 and 22 men, judges, kings (and their court
subjects) and prophets, Jews, and Gentilesfrom the period of the
judges until the Persian period. A total of 46 references are made to
these figures in the targumim under discussion.
The following is an alphabetical list of these names and where they
appear in the two targumic texts:
1.
2.
3.
Agag
Ahab
Azariah
Num. 24.7Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof.

Deut. 33.11Tg.Ps.-J.
see Hananiah
8. In this article I have used the following texts, translations and concordances:
A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientlficas, 1968-78), with an English translation by M. McNamara
(Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and M. Maher (Exodus and Deuteronomy);
S.A. Kaufman and M. Sokoloff, A Key-Word-In-Context Concordance to Targum
Neofiti i (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993); E.G. Clarke,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken:
Ktav, 1984); M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible,
IB; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992); the translation of this targum on
the rest of the Pentateuch is mine.
9. The list is limited to named post-pentateuchal human figures. It therefore
includes neither anonymous figures (such as the 'clever woman' mentioned above),
names of angels or names of post-pentateuchal nations (such as Babylon) nor
eschatological figures, such as Gog (cf. n. 27). The list does not include names of
figures who are supposed to have lived in the pentateuchal era, although they are not
mentioned in the Pentateuch itself, such as Ishmael's wives (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21.21)
or Pharaoh's magicians (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 1.17; 7.11; see also Num. 22.22).
10. Esther. But cf. n. 25.

4.
5.
Barak11
David
6.
Elijah
7.
8.
Elisha
Eliphaz
(Job's friend)
9. Esther
10. Ezekiel
11. Gideon
(ben Yoash)
12. Hananiah
13. Isaiah
14. Jephthah
15. Joab
16. Job
17. Jonah
18. Mishael
19. Mordecai
20. Samson
(ben Manoah)
21. Saul
22. Sennacherib
23. Yohanan
125
Deut. 34.2Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 29.35Tg.Ps.-J.
Exod. 6.18Tg.Ps.-J.
Exod. 40.10Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 30.4Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 34.3Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 34.3Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 36.12Tg.Ps.-J.
Exod. 17.16Tg.Neof.
Exod. 13.17Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 49.18Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof.
Deut. 33.17Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof.
Deut. 34.2Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 38.25Tg.Ps.-J.,12 Tg.Neof.
Deut. 32.1Tg.Ps.-J., Tg.Neof.
Gen. 31.21Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 34.1Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 46.17Tg.Ps.-J.
Gen. 36.12Tg.Ps.-J.
Exod. 9.20Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 30.13Tg.Neof.
see Hananiah
Exod. 17.16Tg.Neof.
Gen. 30.6Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 34.1Tg.Ps.-J.
Exod. 17.16Tg.Neof.
Num. 24.7Tg.Ps.-J.,13 Tg.Neof.
Num. 24.22Tg.Ps.-J.
Deut. 33.11Tg.Ps.-J.14
11. Pseudo-Jonathan's only manuscript reads here p^3, but from the context it is
clear that the text has to be emended.
12. Pseudo-Jonathan hints at Hananiah and his two friends (Mishael and Azariah
[Dan. 1.6]) without mentioning their names: 'the three holy ones who will sanctify
your name by going down to the furnace'.
13. Pseudo-Jonathan does not mention the name Saul but clearly refers to him.
14. The identification of this figure will be discussed below in section IV.
126
A brief glance at this list reveals that twenty different names (mentioned
altogether 32 times) appear in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and eleven
names (occurring altogether 14 times) in Targum Neofiti. Only eight of
the 23 names are common to both targumim (Agag, Gideon, Isaiah,
Saul, Samson and Daniel's three friends: Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah);
three are unique to Targum Neofiti (Esther, Mordecai and Jonah) and
twelve to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In other words, the number of
figures mentioned in Pseudo-Jonathan is almost twice as great as that in
Neofiti and this holds true regarding their frequency (almost two and a
half times) as well. This quantitative inventory regarding the relative
wealth of Pseudo-Jonathan in the number of post-pentateuchal figures
added to the text conforms with the picture obtained from every
examination of aggadic material deriving from the two targumim at
hand, and this is not surprising. Moreover, it appears that, in addition to
the quantitative difference between Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti there is
also a qualitative differenceyet another dimension among the distinctions being made between these two targumic texts in modern research.
n
What are the verses in which the pentateuchal targumim make explicit
mention of post-pentateuchal figures? It seems that we can speak
generally about a few groups of verses.
The most natural and largest group consists of verses found in the
biblical text itself which speak about the future. In this group we should
include propheciesfor example, the two last speeches of Balaam in
Num. 24, in which Balaam explicitly says to Balak: 'Let me inform you
of what this people will do to your people in days to come' (v. 17). The
same holds true for oaths or promises that deal with the future, such as
the closing verse of the war with Amalek, The Lord will be at war with
Amalek throughout the ages' (Exod. 17.16), which speaks explicitly
about events to occur in future generations. To this we should add also
blessings given by a father to his children before his death, such as the
blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49), who tells his sons, 'I tell you what is to
befall you in days to come' (v. 1), as well as blessings given by a leader
to his people before leaving them, such as the blessing of Moses (Deut.
33), who counts the tribes and also speaks about what lies ahead for
them. To all these we should also add stories concerning the naming of
the newborn, which, according to popular biblical conception, contains
SHIN AN Post-Pentateuchal Figures
127
some sort of prophecy of the newborn's fate or even the determination

of his or her future. Lastly, we must mention in this group prophetic
poetry, such as the song Ha'azinu (Deut. 32), which was written as a
testimony of the future: 'When I bring them into the land...then this
poem shall confront them as a witness' (Deut. 31.20-21). In all of these
cases, and in similar ones, the actual biblical text contains a view deviating from the pentateuchal framework, and therefore it allows or even
obligates the meturgeman to mention extraneous figures and events.
Gen. 49.18 is an example of this group.
Gen. 49.18:
I wait for your deliverance, O Lord.
'n Trip -[nDicr1?
Tg. Ps.-J.:p"pl m]a 13 pBOD m B7KY1"Q ]VJi: IT KOFI "D 3p!T 1Q

pinn rrjpma1? ^ qriprs'?
,p-no KDK ]TOfxn rnp-nsfr t^n -Don
1
]pTis -ppTi=n ,'n npmî rrDO -pp-re ? ]Tf?K ,nin jpTE pnipmsi
ycto
When Jacob saw Gideon son of Joash, and Samson, son of Manoah,
who were arising as redeemers, he said: I have not yearned for the
redemption of Gideon, nor have I waited for the redemption of Samson,
for their redemption is the redemption of an hour. But for your
redemption I yearn and wait, O Lord, because your redemption is an
eternal redemption.15
In the preceding verse (v. 17, 'Dan will be a serpent by the road', etc.),
most of the targumim16 mention the judge Samson, who will kill the
Philistines and their heroes as a 'snake [lurking] in my path'. The words
of our short verse, 'I wait for your deliverance, O Lord', have apparently caused people to wonder why they are separated from the context
in which they are found,17 and therefore they are translatedstressing
the possessive suffix of the word "[fUMET^ ('your deliverance')as
15. The same tradition appears also in Tg. Neof. (and its marginal notes), Frg.
Tg. (M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch [Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1980]) and various Targum Tosefta. For a theological discussion see M.
McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(AnBib, 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 243-44.
16. Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. (and its marginal notes), Frg. Tg. and a hint in Tg. Onq
(A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onqelos
[Leiden: Brill, 1959]).
17. Cf. R. Syren, The Blessings in the Targums. A Study on the Targumic
Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1986),
esp. pp. 113-15.
128
Jacob's confession of the temporary state of redemption that Samson

and Gideon will bring about;18 this is in contrast to the future divine
salvation, which is the only eternal and ultimate salvation.19 It seems to
me that one should consider the possibility that behind the names of
Samson (and Gideon) stand historical figures from the period of the
authors of the targumimand Bar-Kosiba is at the head of the list20
and the words they put in the mouth of Jacob refer, to a large degree, to
the events of their days.
In any event, this large group includes half (23 out of 46) of the
occurrences listed above. However, another fact is also interesting: this
group includes 70 per cent of all occurrences of this phenomenon in
Targum Neofiti (10 out of 14), but only 40 per cent of the occurrences
in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (13 out of 32). Moreover, it appears that
there is a certain misconception in listing the three companions of
Daniel, mentioned in a single breath, as three separate figures, and for
our purposes they should be understood as one collective figure. In this
case 10 out of 12 occurrences in Neofiti, as opposed to 11 out of 30 in
Pseudo-Jonathan, are included in the large group listed above, and these
figures require an explanation. In Targum Neofiti most of the postpentateuchal figures appear in the anticipated contexts of prophecy
(Agag, Saul), oath and promise (Esther, Mordecai and Saul), blessing
(Gideon and Samsontwice each), and prophetic poetry (Isaiah).
Exceptions to this rule are the three companions of Daniel, as well as
Jonah the prophet, as we shall see below.
Deut.30.n-i4:rr?ra2;n ifr rfrir -o TO^ NTT a-ora ^...n^rn mson -D

nnp-i o-n ~ay *TK ifr -mir -a TO^ KTF cfr "am vfr\...ih nnp-i
nznn -p*7K rmp ^...>
11 Surely, this instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too
baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. 12 It is not in the heavens, that
you should say, 'who amongst us can go up to the heavens and get it for
us...' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who among
18. Mentioning Gideon from the tribe of Manasseh in the targumic rendering of
the blessing to the tribe of Dan is peculiar. See Maher's note in his translation of this
verse.
19. For parallels in rabbinic literature and further discussion of this tradition see
M. Perez Fernandez, Tradiciones Mesidnicas en el Targum Palestinense. Estudios
exegeticos (Valencia and Jerusalem: Institution San Jeronimo, 1981), pp. 145-54.
20. See R.G. Marks, 'Dangerous Hero: Rabbinic Attitudes toward Legendary
Warriors', HUCA 54 (1983), pp. 181-97.
129
us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us...' 14 No; the
thing is very close to you...
Tg. Neof.rpTO" "1 N"H] n^QD in p mn TfT> ItfEb wmN 7! K'ara vb
mn 'it> -Brak WTTIK trn ran na^ nnu ]B tf?i...f? nrr ncn wxb
wn Tip DTW...]1? nrr pen rm nan "ipQ^ mrr H traa HIPD in f?
mrf? Kn:nD ]Dnrf7
The law is not in the heavens, that one should say: 'Would that we had
one like Moses the prophet who would go up to heaven and fetch it for
us...' Nor is the law beyond the great sea that one should say: 'Would
that we had one like Jonah the prophet who would descend into the depths
of the great sea and bring up the law for us...' for the word is very near to
you.
An identical tradition to v. 12 (but not to v. 13) appears also in the

Fragment Targum (in both versions) while an identical tradition to v. 13
appears in the marginal notes of Targum Neofiti and probably also in
MS. Vatican of the Fragment Targum.21 This tradition was dealt with
extensively and accurately by Martin McNamara,22 who showed its
relationship to the New Testament (Rom. 10.6-8: 'Do not say in your
heart "who will ascend into heaven?"...or "who will descend into the
deep'") when both the targumim and Paul understand the words
D"n "Ql? bto Tnjr-n ('Who can cross to the other side of the sea') to
mean actually descending to its depths.
The polemical and current nature of the targumic tradition in Targum
Neofiti is apparent. However, it seems that it focuses primarily on v. 12,
which deals in anticipation of the arrival of one like Moses the prophet,
that is, a second Moses. Both the Christians and the Samaritans built
their religions to some extent on this idea, and the author of the targum
wishes to annul this notion completely. Ascension to receive the Torah is
a regular motif in the biblical literature connected with Moses;23
however, the reason for the introduction of the prophet Jonah in this
context is not clear. There is nothing in the description of Jonah in the
Bible to justify presenting him as one who went down into the sea to
obtain the Torah. On the contrary, Jonah flees God and reaches the
depths of the sea as punishment for his behaviour, and the fish's belly is
the place where he is said to have thought about his defective behaviour.
21. The text is n31 [... ] "D] in, but Klein is most probably right in assuming that
it should be read as niPD.
22. McNamara, The New Testament, pp. 70-81.
23. E.g., Exod. 19.2, 20; 34.2; Deut. 9.9
130
Moreover, the targum of the verse is as follows: 'Nor is the law beyond
the great sea that one would say: Would that we had one like Jonah...
who would descend into the depths of the great sea and bring up the
law for us'. The change24 from mi na^ 121? p (= 'beyond the great
sea') to mi rrDH ÎpD^ (= 'into the depth of the great sea') leads me
to believe that the mention of Jonah is a secondary unorganic insertion. I
would interpret it as a mechanical, automatic translation by someone
who wished to make a full comparison between v. 12 (speaking about
Moses' ascension to Heaven) and v. 13 (speaking, according to his
understanding, about descent to the depths of the sea) while incorporating mention of the prophet Jonah (is there another biblical figure who
could be mentioned in this context?) without going into the full significance of the addition.
Be that as it may, barring this passage and the mention of Daniel's
three companions, Targum Neofiti does not add post-pentateuchal
figuresexcept according to the rules mentioned aboveand it seems
that the targumic world reflected in this text adhered to an unwritten
rule to preserve the pentateuchal framework. The situation in PseudoJonathan which contains 19 more occurrences, is different.
The post-pentateuchal figures mentioned only in Pseudo-Jonathan
may be classified by additional subdivisions. One group containing four
names surprisingly appears in genealogical lists: Job and his friend
Eliphaz (Gen. 36.12), Elijah (Exod. 6.18) and Joab.25 For example:
Gen. 36.12:
pbo DK ^xb TTTTI TDS p ^Xb lOfrs nnTT SJ3Tt\
Timna was a concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz; she bore Amalek to
Eliphaz.
Tg.Ps.-J.: Kin pto rr isftvb rrr'n wj -a Tgfrxb wp'ra rmn laom

arm man srtw
Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore Amalek to
Eliphaz, he is Eliphaz the friend of Job.
It is clear that the words DTK! rrnan TS^K Kin ('he is Eliphaz the friend
of Job') were inserted into the text in an unexpected place, not next to
the mention of Eliphaz, but rather after the mention of Amalek. This
24. Cf. McNamara, The New Testament, p. 75. See also B.B. Levy, Targum
Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, II (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987),
pp. 280-81.
25. Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 46.17, as discussed above, mentions in a genealogical list
also the anonymous 'clever woman' from Abel.
131
addition, like the remaining additions in the genealogical lists, refreshes

the otherwise dry list because of the surprising association it makes
between various biblical stories and because it also diversifies the
targumic text.26
A group of names which are unique to Pseudo-Jonathan appear at the
beginning of the last chapter of the Pentateuch:
Deut. 34.1-3: pn ^D fit* 'n inTi...i3] in ^N ZIKIQ m:ni;a rroa 'wi

nupn iD-sn nKi...ntram D-ISR pa nsi ^nsi ^D ni p i!> ufran PK
"UEi i!J D-ionn TS irrr
Moses went up from the steppes of Moab to Mount Nebo...and the Lord
showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of
Ephraim and Manasseh...the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm treesas
far as Zoar.
Tg.Ps.-J.: "13 ]Tootzn pmrn iifra pi nna\..rr...'rn trum n4? "ITOI

|in:i...pi3 DU parmni -^ns] mna p-o *]* rn p cm? pi rroQ
Kni'pn ]Q ibn in^ "TQ^n rmâ rn...rro]Q viv pi low ~a puiai
wzr^ -TD'TI nrr?: n"i YTTI
And the Word of the Lord showed him... Jephthah from Gilead... and the
victories of Samson the son of Manoah from the tribe of Dan and the
thousand officers from the house of Naphtali who join Barak...and the
mighty deeds of Gideon the son of Joash from the tribe of
Manasseh... and the exile of the disciples of the pupils of Elijah that were
exiled from the valley of Jericho and the exile of the disciples of Elisha.
This tradition in the targumic world, according to which Moses saw at

the end of his days not only a geographical region but also, and
primarily, the history of the Jewish people up to KirKTI 0'U17Q~IN miimD
^131 fcQ"lp "HlDl (The calamity of Armalagos27 the wicked and the wars
of Gog), until the advent of the ultimate redeemer, the angel Michael28
26. Maher records Tanhuma (ed. Buber, Wayera 30) as the only parallel of this
tradition, but cf. also Lekah Tov, Exod. 17.8 (ed. Buber, 117).
27. On Armalagos in the targums see S.H. Levey, 'The Date of Targum
Jonathan to the Prophets', VT 21 (1971), pp. 193-95; R. Le Deaut and J. Robert,
Targum du Pentateuque. IV. Deuteronome (SC, 271; Paris: Cerf, 1980), pp. 29899. Cf. E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible. Contents and Context (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 46, 213.
28. On Michael and his roles in the targums, cf. Shinan, The Embroidered
Targum, p. 126.
132
(v. 4), is unique to Pseudo-Jonathan.29 In this group, as we have seen, six

more names appear.
The remaining nine occurrences in Pseudo-Jonathan cannot be
generalized. They are employed to introduce the biblical plot or to clarify
it, and they appear in diverse contexts. For example
Gen. 31.21:
ijfran TT V3S TO ozn iron TO i3jn...ppjr) rrm
And (Jacob) fled...Soon he was across the Euphrates and heading toward
the hill country of Gilead.
Tg. PS.-J.:DTI iifan vmsb pio-o1? Tsa* rv mm rna rr lain ap...î
ivh: pi nrEf -ova in1? wnano Tra1? THU jam emp rrra an
And he went30...arose and crossed the Euphrates and set his face to go
up to the mountain of Gilead for he saw in the Holy Spirit that his
children would experience liberation there in the days of Jephthah who
was from Gilead.
It appears that this is an unparalleled aggadic tradition.31 According to

the pentateuchal story, Laban caught up with Jacob on Mount Gilead
after seven days (v. 23). However, the meturgeman wishes to say that it
was not coincidental, and that Jacob, with the help of God, decided to
flee to this place because of the mountain's uniqueness.
One final example:
Exod. 9.20:
^ TnpaTO!mi?TO0'3H nins "OBD 'n -QlTOTn
Dim
Those among Pharaoh's courtiers who feared the Lord's word brought
their slaves and livestock indoors to safety.
Tg. PS.-J.:
rn TOJ? n' BD ninai Tnwa 'm Karen Vm mm nr

tvra i^ "in-:
Job, who feared the Lord's word, gathered his slaves and livestock into
the house.
The meturgeman avoids the anonymity of this verse32 by making an

analogy between KTn in the verse and NT in Job 1.8. In the next verse
which says exactly the opposite ('But those who paid no regard to the
word of the Lord') Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the subject of the verse as
29. For a partial parallel cf. Sifre Deut. 157. No parallel has been found
concerning the tradition about Elijah and Elisha and their disciples.
30. Pseudo-Jonathan changes 'he fled' to 'he went' in order to preserve Jacob's
honour, a very common trait of the targumic world.
31. Cf. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 109, n. 15.
32. For parallels see y. Sota 5.6 (20c) and elsewhere.
133
Balaam.33 Job's (and Balaam's) connections with Egypt and with the
period of slavery in Egypt are mentioned often in the aggadic literature.34
It becomes clear, then, that Pseudo-Jonathan is distinct from Neofiti
by virtue not only of quantity but also quality: the post-pentateuchal
names appearing in it serve needs other than those of Targum Neofiti
such as advancing and clarifying the biblical plot, diversifying the
genealogical lists, and so on. Such a picture may be obtained from
consideration of many more issues in which Pseudo-Jonathan holds fast
to the common traditions of the other targumim but adds its own unique
forms and thematic features. What I have tried to show in various
areas35 regarding the features characterizing Pseudo-Jonathan within the
Aramaic pentateuchal targumim is corroborated, in my opinion, by our
present examination.
m
The material compiled above raises additional questions about PseudoJonathan one of which is the absence in it of three names which appear
only in Targum Neofiti: Jonah (whom I discussed and interpreted above),
Esther, and Mordecai, who are mentioned in this targum only once and
in the same verse:
Exod. 17.16:
TTT "1T1Q p^Qin 'rf? HQn^Q iT DD ^S 1* 'D TOtTl
He said: Hand upon the throne of the Lord. The Lord will be at war with
Amalek throughout the ages.
Tg.Neof.:36rraip VKhs * pm "p'K "OTO rnnn p nps] nirnc TOW

no- sin izrp p ÎNP -irr Kin p-m woo p op-ob ~rnin robo (ntw)
pirer pm TTTBHD nm pa'aD DIJ pâ îQp'i pâu ira DD mp
pi m1? p'aain KTDTT n- tmzro1? nno-oa IQK 'm nnoi -DTTQ pnrr
And he said: An oath has gone out from beneath the throne of the Glory
of the Lord of all the world: the first king who is to arise from the tribe of
Benjamin shall be Saul the son of Kish. He shall wage war on the house
of Amalek and shall kill kings with rulers and Mordecai and Esther shall
33. Probably an unparalleled tradition.
34. J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic
and Patristic Tradition (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 7-43.
35. See my book, The Embroidered Targum.
36. A similar tradition is found in Frg. Tg, in the marginal notes of Tg. Neof. and
in various Targum Toseftot. See M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch, I (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), pp.
253-55. Tg. Neof. to this verse reads nKQ and I follow Diez Macho in reading nD^Q.
134

blot out what remains of them. And the Lord decreed in his word to blot
out the memory of Amalek for all generations.
Tg. PS.-J.: rrr n-ra-aa im m-p- rroTDa'm mma n-'p mis IQKI
tmm pn Kofan trna tm Ttrf? jinn' -s-en pâu rraia N2"ip
-ranrcafrjrrtrrm Nrroai
And he said: Surely the word of the Lord swore in his seat of glory that
He is his word will fight the house of Amalek and will wipe them out
from three generations, from the generation of this world and from the
generation of the Messiah and from the generation of the world to
come.37
Here Pseudo-Jonathan clearly deviates from the common tradition of the

other targumim which speak about Saul as well as Mordecai and Esther.
He commands the destruction of Amalek by God only and does not rely
upon mortal salvation. In this regard he follows Targum Onqelos in
principle, which translates K^TH Dip ]Q Kl TQK nimen "1DK1
P^QI? rrmn 'n mp taip mm Tnin mp' 'DTD î? rrnrDen
Kft'?:) mo ]inm^^^: 'He said: with an oath this statement is said
before the Fear who dwells on the seat of glory, that there will be a battle
before the Lord against the house of Amalek, to destroy them throughout all generations'. Do we have here an inter-targumicdisagreement38
about revenge on the house of Amalek and who was commissioned to
carry it out? The language of Pseudo-Jonathan, 'He in his word will
fight the house of Amalek and will wipe them out', sounds as if it was
meant to obviate the possibility of revenge by another, a mortal being.
It seems that the choice made by the author of Pseudo-Jonathan to
use this targumic method testifies to his wish to minimizeat least in
this instance of the eternal enemythe status of human heroism and to
put in its place divine salvation, as if the meturgeman wished to say to
the different generations that the annihilation of Amalek should be left to
God himself. And it seems that because of this he did not follow the
targumic method of introducing Esther, Mordecai, and Saul. This
corresponds well with Pseudo-Jonathan's treatment of King Saul in
another, yet similar, context:
37. On the eschatological significance of this tradition, cf. McNamara, Targum
and Testament, p. 133.
38. Cf. J. Elbaum, 'R. Eleazar Hamodai and R. Joshua on the Amalek Pericope',
in I. Ben-Ami and J. Dan (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Jewish Folklore presented
to Dov Noy on his sixtieth Birthday (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), pp. 99-116
(Hebrew).
135
Num. 24.7: VTChfc WBm <OI?Q MW3 DTI D'31 D'D3 linn V^TO D"Q ^r
Their boughs drip with moisture, their roots have abundant water, their
king shall rise above Agag, their kingdom shall be exalted.
Tg. Neof.: p proâ }Tb BSD' 'urn jimo pnprisi prrrn p pmô Dip"
^ on n ÎKE; |o rprr po pita pâr *im prran îa PI-ID
nmoD roâi rrnobo DDI-IP"! pl7Qin prrrfta a
Their king shall rise up from among them and their redeemer shall be
from them. He shall gather their captives from the provinces of their
enemies and their children shall rule over many nations. He shall be
stronger than Saul who had pity on Agag the king of the Amalekites, and
the kingdom of the King Messiah shall be exalted.39
Tg. Ps.-J.: spin "ID rr-inn IT pmi prm pnpnsi prr:>a pro Dip'
pâi; m"n ta"p rrn pn-â ~ft>cn nôp pino ]-QQ^3 iphBr
n^niD^Q rrro 'TCMIT ^ oim j^m IIHD^Q :DN û ^rnrn
Their king shall rise up from among them and their redeemer shall be
from them and with them, and the seed of Jacob's sons will rule over
great nations. The first that will reign over them will fight the house of
Amalek and will rise over Agag their king, but he will have pity on him
and because of that his kingdom will be taken from him.
Targum Neofiti (and Fragment Targum) speak of an ingathering of

exiles and of the messiah who will be stronger than Saul, who took pity
on Agag king of the Amalekites. At the beginning of the verse PseudoJonathan also speaks about the messiah, and at the end of the verse he
comments on 'The first that will reign over them' (referring, of course,
to Saul, but not mentioning him by name) while telling about his sin and
the loss of his kingdom. Targum Neofiti therefore, understands the
words irTD^Q K2?3m ('his [their] kingdom shall be exalted') as praise for
the messiah while Pseudo-Jonathan interprets them as punishment for
Saul. This means that the figure of Saul in this verseaccording to
Pseudo-Jonathanis very negative in comparison to that presented in
Neofiti and he is not even explicitly mentioned by name.
Is there room to claim that the author of Pseudo-Jonathan did not
perceive Saul as a figure worthy of mention and therefore ignored him
in the targum of Exod. 17.16 and, on the other hand, chose to talk
about his sins (without mentioning his name) in the targum of Numbers
24? This question at the present stage of research has yet to be studied,
although an affirmative answer seems most probable.
39. Cf. Frg. Tg. and G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden:
Brill, 2ndedn, 1973), pp. 159-61.
40. The text should probably be DQVYn.
136
IV
It is impossible to treat our subject without also dealing with Ps.-J. Deut.
33.11, a verse that has received much treatment in targumic research.41
Deut.33.11:]TQ1p- ]Q VNJDD1 TOp D'PQ fTO rain TT ^1D1 frn 'n TT3
Bless, O Lord, his substance and favour his undertakings, smite the loins
of his foes and let his enemies rise no more.
Tg. Ps.-J.: TT p-pi totBDD p 10020 pm T? n-ai TOD*: 'n -pa

rrwo 3Kn&n icnn Tan ,ffuna *?apn tfaro lonea aipoi NTO irrî
"an Km KTO pm "iwo1? 'n' tî .rrtaip1? p'-pi top-to "3] nprnsi
npa^
Bless, O Lord, the possessions of the house of Levi, who gives the tenth
of the tithe. Receive with favour the offering from the hands of Elijah the
priest, who is offering on Mount Carmel. Break the loins of Ahab, his
adversary and the neck of the false prophets who stand against him. Let
not the adversaries of Yohanan the High Priest have a foot to stand on.
It was Geiger who proposed viewing the words 'Yohanan the High
Priest' as a reference to the Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus (who
reigned in the years 135-104 BCE), seeing it as one of the earliest
remnants of targumic literature. According to this, a harsh curse is
placed on the king's enemies, although they are not explicitly
identified,42 and this curse was preserved apparently in Pseudo-Jonathan
a long time after the Hasmonean dynasty had waned.
I am not inclined to accept this interpretation of the targum, since
Pseudo-Jonathan does not usually make explicit mention of figures who
are not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and this supposed exception to
the rule is impossible to ignore. When the author of a targum wishes to
discuss a post-pentateuchal figure or condition, he does so through a
biblical figure, at times even by hinting that this figure is a pretext for
another, current matter.43 We should also remember that two more
41. For a systematic and comprehensive summary of this issue see Syren, The
Blessings in the Tar gums, pp. 165-78. The following translation of Pseudo-Jonathan
is his.
42. The Samaritans? Members of the Dead Sea sect? Cf. Syren, The Blessings in
the Targums, p. 175; J.M. Baumgarten, 'Qumran and the Halakha in the Aramaic
Targumim', in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Bible
Studies (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988), p. 49.
43. Very famous is Pseudo-Jonathan's treatment of Islam and Mohammed
through its translation of various verses concerning Ishmael. See Shinan, The
137
biblical figures are also mentioned in the verse itself, Ahab and Elijah (cf.
the story in 2 Kgs 18); the addition of a third post-pentateuchal figure
does not seem probable.44
I have already suggested elsewhere45 that what we have here is
nothing but an orthographical error in the reading of 'Yohanan' for
'Aaron' (the graphic similarity between the two wordspriK and
]]nvin cursive Hebrew-Aramaic writing is most apparent). Aaron, or
any priest, is indeed called tO~l N3rD many times in Pseudo-Jonathan.46
It appears that the combination *7n:i ]i~D pnv in the prayer recited on
Hannukah since the end of the rabbinic period47 is what led a copyist to
read 'Aaron' as 'Yohanan'. And, generally, if the reference is indeed to
the Hasmonean king, then it is hard to understand why they would
continue to curse the enemies of a king who had lost his notoriety a long
time before. This was not the case with Aaron, who is a perpetual
symbol of the priestly house. Moreover, the attitude toward the
Hasmonean dynasty in the traditional Jewish literature is generally
negative48 and thus there is difficulty in assuming that they would
continue to curse the Hasmonean enemies in the Jewish liturgical context
to which some Pharisaic sages belonged. The reference 'Yohanan' in
Ps.-J. Deut. 33.11 therefore appears to me to be a textual mistake and, in
all honesty, should be removed from the above list.
V
We set out to examine the post-pentateuchal figures mentioned in

Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and we found ourselves
learning not only about the methods by which these figures were
incorporated into the pentateuchal targumim, but also about another
difference between the two major targumic texts. Of course, the study of
the Aramaic targumim will, over time, reveal additional distinctive
Embroidered Targum, pp. 156-64. Cf. above, the discussion of Gen. 49.17-18.
44. On Elijah as a priest from the house of Levy see Syren, The Blessings in the
Tar gums, pp. 171-73. Cf. also Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 6.18, and A. Zeron, 'The
Martyrdom of Phineas-Elijah', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 99-100.
45. The Embroidered Targum, p. 195.
46. See, for example, Lev. 4.3; Num. 25.13; and Deut. 30.4.
47. Sof. 20.6 (ed. Higger, 346).
48. But cf. G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second
Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, I (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967),
pp. 15-25 (Hebrew).
138
features of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti and this will allow us to

understand them as unique and special entities which, when combined,
create the rich world of the Aramaic Targum. The study of this exciting
world has gained momentum and growth in our generation; the
contribution of Martin McNamara to this studyespecially in regard to
the relationship of the targumim to early Christian literatureis
mentioned here with much gratitude and appreciation.
Part II
ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC STUDIES
THE CURSES IN OLD ARAMAIC INSCRIPTIONS

Kevin J. Cathcart
Inspired by D.R. Millers's investigation of 'the relation between the

curses attached to treaties and the prophetic literature',11 have suggested
further possible parallels to ancient Near Eastern curses, including treatycurses, in the biblical book of Nahum.2 The 'parallels' in the prophetic
books of the Old Testament are often in the form of doom oracles and
threats. Killers quite rightly points out that the Aramaic inscriptions of
Sefire provide many interesting and close parallels to Old Testament
literature.3 As I observed in my earlier studies, this is particularly interesting in the case of Nahum, because the city and king combination is an
object of curse in both Sefire and Nahum.4 Killers also stresses the
greater importance of those treaties which come from the ninth to the
seventh centuries BCE.5
Since the publication of Killers's study, another important Old
Aramaic inscription has been discovered, namely the Assyrian-Aramaic
1. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr, 16; Rome:

Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), p. 2. Killers refers to the earlier study by F.C.
Fensham, 'Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties, and KudurmInscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75 (1963),
pp. 155-75.
2. K.J. Cathcart, Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum', CBQ 35 (1973),
pp. 179-87; Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr, 26; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1973), pp. 67, 131, 138, 140, 149, 150. In many instances, 'treatycurse' is probably an unfortunate term. In any case, I have not confined myself to
any particular kind of curse. S. Gevirtz, 'West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of
the Origins of Hebrew Law', VT 11 (1961), pp. 137-58, concentrates on
'inscriptional' curses or curses protecting the inscription.
3. Treaty-Curses, p. 77.
4. Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum', p. 179.
CATHCART The Curses in Old Aramaic Inscriptions
141
bilingual from Tell Fakhariyah.6 This late ninth-century inscription has a

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

inscribed on the occasion of the renewal of the statue of Had-Yitci,
Governor of Gozan, and its rededication to the Hadad temple of
Sikanu'.8 The lines cited above contain a threat to anyone who might
erase the name of Had-Yitci. The verb yld, 'removes' is from a root
Iwd or /yd,9 and occurs elsewhere in the inscription (line 9, Imld; line 16,
yld). It appears in a similar context in the Sefire inscriptions: I.C.I8;
II.C.2, 6, 9.10 In these inscriptions, specific curses are invoked against
6. The editio princeps is A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A.R. Millard, La
statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameenne (Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982). Numerous articles on the inscription
have been published and many are conveniently listed in W.E. Aufrecht and G.J.
Hamilton, 'The Tell Fakhariyah Bilingual Inscription: A Bibliography', Newsletter
for Targumic & Cognate Studies (Sup 4; 1988).
7. Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye, pp. 75-79, have already
commented on them. Cf. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse
Formulae of the Tell Fekherye Inscription', RB 92 (1985), pp. 47-59.1 have not yet
seen the article by F.M. Fales, 'Massimo sforzo, minima resa: maledizioni divine da
Tell Fekheriye all' Antico Testamento', Annali di Ca'Foscari 21 (1982), pp. 1-12.
8. S.A. Kaufman, 'Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell
Fakhariyeh', Maarav 3 (1982), p. 158.
9. Cf. D.M. Gropp and T.J. Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic
Text of the Hadd-Yithci Bilingual', BASOR 259 (1985), pp. 49-50.
10. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr, 19; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967).
142
those who order the inscriptions (spry*) or its words (mlwK) to be effaced
or removed. In the tenth-century Phoenician Ahiram sarcophagus
inscription, the removal of an inscription is actually invoked as a curse
against leaders who uncover the coffin: why ymh sprh, 'and as for him,
may his inscription be effaced!'11 In the Phoenician Kilamuwa I
inscription (line 15), the verb sht is used of the smashing of an
inscription, and in the Karatepe inscription (line 15), mhy is used with
reference to the removal of a name, and $t for placing a name (lines 1618). Note Sefire II.C.4-5,3bd for 'destruction' of inscriptions. Another
verb, yhgc, 'effaces', is used in the Aramaic Hamath-Zakir inscription,
lines B.I5-18: [wkl] mn yhgc >yt 3[sr ydy] zkr mlk hm[t wl]c$ mn nsb3
znh, 'Now, whoever effaces the story [of the achievements] of Zakir,
king of Hamath and Lucath, from this stele...'12
Hdd gbr, 'Hadad the Warrior', compares with yl gbr in Isa. 9.5; 10.21;
Jer. 32.18. Cf. also Deut. 10.17; Ps. 24.8; Zeph. 3.17.
mn yld Smy mn nv'ny3 zy bt hdd mr'y mr>y hdd Ihmh wmwh 3l ylqh mn ydh
wsl mr'ty Ihmh wmwh 3l tlqh mn ydh
Whoever removes my name from the vessels of the temple of Hadad my
lord, may Hadad my lord not accept his food and water from his hand;
may Sala my lady not accept his food and water from his hand.
With Greenfield and Schaffer, I read wsl for swl, which seems to be a
scribe's error.13 This emendation is followed by Gropp and Lewis: 'The
syntax (Old Aramaic, not Akkadian) cries out for the conjunction'.14
Kaufman compares the curse here with Lev. 26.31, wP yryhbryh
nyhhkm, 'and I will not savour your pleasing odours'.15 Perhaps more
interesting is Amos 5.21-22: 'I hate, I reject your feasts and I will not
11. J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. III. Phoenician
Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). Cf. also, Gevirtz, 'West-Semitic
Curses', pp. 140-58.
12. J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. II. Aramaic
Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 10-11, 16.
13. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual
Statue from Tell Fekherye', Iraq 45 (1983), p. 115. Cf. also, E. Puech, Review of
Abou-Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, RE 90 (1983), p. 596.
14. 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 52.
15. 'Reflections', p. 168.
143
take delight (I3 3ryh) in your assemblies. Even if you offer me burnt
offerings and your gift offerings, I will not accept them (I3 3rsh); and I
will not look upon (I3 3byt) your offerings of fatted cattle.' Hebrew rsh
has a cognate in Aramaic rqy, which occurs with the same meaning in
Hadad (Zenjirli) 22, ...zbhh \v3lyrqy bh, '...his sacrifice, and may he not
look favourably upon it'.16
wl zr* w*l yhsd w'lp Fryn Izr^ wprys Phz mnh
And may he sow but not harvest; may he sow one thousand measures,
but take only a parts from it.
As several scholars have observed, the most striking parallel is in Mic.

6.15,3th tzr* wl3 tqswr, 'you will sow but not reap'.17 But note also Isa.
5.10, ky csrt smdy krm ycsw bt 3ht wzr* hmr yfsh 3yph,'For ten acres off
vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield a mere
ephah'; and Hag. 1.6, zr'tm hrbh whb3 mct, 'you have sown much, and
harvested little'. See also the discussion of Sefire I.A.27-29 below.
Greenfield and Schaffer have pointed out that Pryn = Heb. $ecartm,
'measures' (Gen. 26.12) and not secorim, 'barley'.18
3
wm h s wn Ihynqn mr w^l yrwy wnfh swr Ihynqn cgl w3l yrwy wm'h nSwn
Ihynqn clym w*l yrwy
And may one hundred ewes suckle a lamb, but let it not be satisfied; and
may one hundred cows give suck to a calf, but let it not be satisified; and
may one hundred women suckle a child, but let him not be satisfied.
Sefire I.A.21-24
[ ] JPf w'l thry w$bf [mhyjnqn ym$h[n Sdyhn wjyhynqn clym w'l
ySbc wSbe ssyh yhynqn cl w3l y$[bcw$bc] Swrh yhynqn fgl w'l ySbf wSbc S3n
yhynqn 3mr w[3l yS]bc
16. Gibson, Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 68-69.
17. J.W. Wesselius, Review of Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye,
BO 40 (1983), col. 182; Greenfield and Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse Formulae',
pp. 53-54; V. Sasson, 'The Aramaic Text of the Tell Fakhariyah Assyro-Aramaic
Bilingual Inscription', Z4W97 (1985), p. 100.
18. 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue', pp. I l l , 115; 'Notes on
the Curse Formulae', p. 53.
144

[] a ewe, may she not conceive; and should seven [nurjses
anoint their breasts and] nurse a young boy, may he not have his fill; and
should seven mares suckle a colt, may it not be satis[fied; and should
seven] cows give suck to a calf, may it not have its fill; and should seven
ewes suckle a lamb, [may it not be satisjfied.
The editors of the Tell Fakhariyah inscription noticed immediately the

very similar series of curses in the Sefire inscriptions.19 They pointed out
also the interesting text in the Annals of Ashurbanipal: 'Even when the
young camels, donkey foals, calves and lambs sucked seven times at the
mothers who nursed them, yet they could not satiate their stomachs
with milk'.20
There has been much discussion about sywn, 'ewes', in the Tell
Fakhariyah text. The word has the samek spelling for t and the cognates
are Ugaritic tat, pi. tut, and Egyptian Aramaic ft3.21 In the Sefir
inscriptions the word appears as Ft (I.A.21) and pi. S'n (I.A.23; II.A.2). It
may also appear in Panammu 6, 9 as Pt. Fitzmyer, following DupontSommer, relates these words to Hebrew seh, but this may not be right.22
Tell Fakhariyah 22
wm'h n$wn I3pn btnwr Ihm w3l ymPnh
And let one hundred women bake bread in an oven, but not fill it.
There is a striking parallel to this curse in Lev. 26.26, bSbry Ikm mth Ihm
w'pw fsr nfym Ihmkm btnwr 3hd whfybw Ihmkm bmSql w*kltm wP tsbcw,
'When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in
one oven and dole out your bread by weight; though you eat, you shall
not be satisfied'.23
19. Abou-Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, p. 77 (though note that the
Aramaic text of the last curse is missing).
20. Streck, Assurbanipal 76.ix.65. Cf. ANET (3rd edn), p. 300. The text is cited
also by Greenfield and Schaffer, 'Notes on the Curse Formulae', p. 55; Gropp and
Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 58. It had already been noted by Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 41.
21. The evidence (with previous bibliography) is laid out in Gropp and Lewis,
'Notes on Some Problems', p. 53.
22. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 41.
23. Cf. Abou-Assaf et al., La statue de Tell Fekherye, p. 78 (though beware of

the transliteration); Kaufman, 'Reflections', p. 170.
145
n$wn is an unusual plural form, for the normal form is nSyn. Compare
s'wn in line 20. Kaufman (apud Rosenthal) notes Arabic niswan.24
Wesselius, however, prefers to regard it as an ending -fin (versus - In).25
Tell Fakhariyah 22
wmn qlqlf llqtw ^nSwh &rn Pklw
And may his people scavenge barley grains to eat from the rubbish
dumps.
qlqlf (probably the plural qilqilate) and its equivalent tupkinnate in the
Akkadian text have been discussed extensively by Greenfield and
Schaffer.26 They point out that the usual forms in Aramaic are qiqla
(absolute form) and qiqilta (determined form). But a most interesting
form is kiqillutu, apparently an Aramaic loan-word in Neo-Assyrian.27
In a footnote to their discussion of qlqlf,Greenfield and Schaffer
make the following comment: 'The relationship of qlqlf/qlqla a and
Biblical Hebrew qiqdlon "shame, infamy" is worth further consideration'.28 Now many years ago, I discussed in some detail the meaning of
ki qalldta in Nah. 1.14.29 The last colon of that verse reads 3atfm
qibrekd ki qalldta, which the NRSV renders, 'I will make your grave,
for you are worthless', and the JPSV, 'I will make your grave accord
with your worthlessness'. In my earlier study I followed some critics in
repointing MT >dsim to âSSim (hiph. imperf. of $mm), 'I will devastate'. I
translated ki qalldta literally: 'because you are worthless'. G.R. Driver,
on the other hand, proposed long ago the existence of a noun qlyt, which
he described as an 'abstract with semi-concrete meaning'.30 He rendered
the whole line as follows: 'I will make thy grave as (a thing of) shame'.
Other commentators have suggested a reading qdlon, 'dishonour,
shameful thing', omitting ki as due to dittography,31 or qiqdlon with
24. 'Reflections', p. 169.
25. Review of Assaf et al, La statue de Tell Fekherye, col. 182.
26. J.C. Greenfield and A. Schaffer, 'Qlqlf, Tubkinnu, Refuse Tips and Treasure
Trove', Anatolian Studies 33 (1983), pp. 123-29.
27. 'Qlqlf, Tubkinnu', pp. 124-25; 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual
Statue', p. 116.
28. 'Qlqlt3, Tubkinnu', p. 124, n. 7. Biblical Hebrew qiqalon is found only in
Hab. 2.16.
29. Nahum, p. 67.
30. 'Linguistic and Textual Problems. Minor Prophets. IF, JTS 39 (1938), p. 270.
31. J.M.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books ofMicah,
146
similar meaning.32 But the most attractive reading is that found in the
apparatus of BHS: qiqalot, 'dung-heap', a proposal going back to G.
Bickell33 at the end of the last century, and adopted by H. Gunkel.34
Thus in Nah. 1.14 it seems better to read >asim qibreka qiqalot, 'I will
make your grave a refuse dump'.35 In the treaty of Ashurnerari V with
Mati'ilu of Arpad, rev. IV. 16, we find the following curse: ina tubkinni
lu mayalSunu, 'may their sleeping place be in a dung-heap' (so S.
Parpola36) or 'may their sleeping place be on a refuse dump' (Greenfield
and Schaffer37). Of course, it would be pressing the evidence too far to
propose a reading kiqallot on the basis of the Aramaic loan kiqillutu in
Neo-Assyrian, mentioned above.
The mention of Sinfka, 'your name', and qibreka, 'your grave', in
Nah. 1.14 supports the restoration of Sefire II.A.4-5, proposed by
Dupont-Sommer and followed by Fitzmyer: [...w^mh y]tn$y wyhwh
qb[rh...], '[...and may his name be for]gotten, and may [his gravje
be...'38
The meaning of Aramaic Iqt, 'scavenge', in this Tell Fakhariyah curse
is similar to that of Hebrew Iqt in Judg. 1.17, where it is used of picking
up scraps of fallen food.
Zephaniah, and Nahum (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 328, following
Wellhausen and others.
32. Cf. BHS; K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwolf kleinen Propheten (ATD, 25;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th edn, 1967), II, p. 8; A. van Hoonacker,
Les douze petits prophetes (Paris: Gabalda, 1908), p. 430.
33. Beitrage zur semitische Metrik I. Das alphabetische Lied in Nahum 1,2-2,3
(Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 5; Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894).
34. H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), p. 103.
35. K.J. Cathcart, 'Nahum, Book of, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible
Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), IV, p. 998.
36. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria, 2;
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), p. 11.
37. 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual', p. 116.
38. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 80-81, 85-86; Cathcart,
Treaty-Curses', pp. 180-81.
147
Tell Fakhariyah 23
wmwtn Sbt zy nyrgl 3l ygtzr mn mth
And may pestilence, plague of Nergal, not be cut off from his land.
The Aramaic text does not correspond to the Akkadian (lines 37-38):
di}u $ibtu di<li>pte ina mdtiSu Id ipparrasu, 'May malaria, plague and
sleeplessness not be removed from his land'. Aramaic mwtn is not a
translation of di>u, for Akkadian mutanu is usually associated with dPu,
Sibtu and diliptu in curses.39 Nergal is the god of pestilence. In
Esarhaddon's succession treaty, lines 455-56, Nergal sends pestilence
(mutanu) and in Esarhaddon's accession treaty, rev. 26-27', Nergal
destroys through plague and pestilence (ina $ibti u mutant).40
Sefire I.A.26-27
wysk cl 3rpd [}bny b]rd
and may he (Hadad) shower upon Arpad hail [stones].
In Josh. 10.11 it is reported that the Amorites were routed when 'the
Lord hurled huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and
they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones ( (frbny
hbrd) than the Israelites killed with the sword' (cf. Isa. 30.30). It is on the
basis of these texts that the words [>bny b]rd have been restored by
Dupont-Sommer, followed by Fitzmyer41 and Gibson.42
Sefire I.A.27
wSbf Snn y>kl >rbh wSbf Snn fkl twlch
For seven years may the locust devour (Arpad) and for seven years may
the worm eat.
Very similar curses are found in Esarhaddon's succession treaty: line

443, 'May the locust who diminishes the land devour your harvest';
lines 599-600, 'May they (the gods) cause locusts...lice, caterpillars and
other field pests to devour your towns, your land and your district'.43 In
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Cf. Gropp and Lewis, 'Notes on Some Problems', p. 54.

Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 23, 48.
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 14-15, 46.
Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 30-31, 39.
Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 46, 55.
148
Exod. 10.4-5 and Ps. 105.32-34, there is the same sequence of hail and
locusts,44 and in the curses of Deut. 28.38-39 there is a sequence of
locust and worm. Sefire Aramaic twlch and Biblical Hebrew twlft(the
form found in Deut. 28.39 and Jon. 4.7) /twlfhhave a cognate in
Akkadian tiiltu, which occurs in Esarhaddon's succession treaty: line
570, ki...tultu takuluni, 'as a worm eats'.45
Sefire IA.29
w>l yt$mc ql knr b3rpd wbcmh
May the sound of the lyre not be heard in Arpad and among its people.46
This curse is classified by Killers as an example of the 'Removal of

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

Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 53.
Contra Fitzmyer, b3rpd and wbfmh are linked together, as in line 30.
Treaty-Curses, pp. 57-58. Cf. Fensham, 'Common Trends', pp. 171-72.
Cathcart, Nahum, p. 110; Treaty-Curses', p. 183.
'Linguistic and Textual Problems', p. 271.
Parts of these lines are difficult, but I have followed Fitzmyer whose text and
149
The curse of devouring animals is dealt with extensively by Hillers.51 For

general biblical parallels, cf. Lev. 26.22; Deut. 32.24. In his comment on
hwh, 'snake', Fitzmyer notes the pertinent text in Jer. 8.17.521 have
recently discussed the serpent as an 'agent of the Lord' in Amos 9.14_53
There are particularly interesting biblical parallels which mention the

various animals referred to in the Sefire text. Note especially Isa. 51.8;
Jer. 5.6; Hos. 5.12; 13.7-8. The sequence >ryh...nmr, 'lion...panther', in
Jer. 5.6 matches that in the fragmentary Sefire II.A.9, [wy3kl] pm 3ryh
wpm [...]. wpm nmrfh]..., '[...and may] the mouth of a lion [eat] and
the mouth of [a...] and the mouth of a panther'.54
The curse of a place becoming a desolation and a dwelling place for
animals is examined at length by Hillers.55 He lists the following biblical
texts: Mic. 3.12 (cf. Jer. 26.18) (Jerusalem); Isa. 13.19-22 (Babylon);
34.11-17 (Edom-Bozrah); Jer. 50.39-40 (Babylon); Zeph. 2.13-15
(Assyria-Nineveh).
Sefire I.A. 35-36
>yk zy tqd Pwf z3 b>$ kn tqd 3rpd w[bnth r]bt
Just as this wax is burned by fire, so may Arpad be burned and [her
gr]eat [daughter-cities]!
Fitzmyer56 points out the partial parallel in Ps. 68.3, khms dwng mpny yS
y3bdw r$cym mpny 3lhym, 'as wax melts before the fire, so may the
wicked perish before God'. For the burning of an 'image of wax'
(salmu i$kuri), see Esarhaddon's succession treaty, line 60S.57 Biblical
parallels to the burning of cities in a 'curse' context include Hos. 8.14;
Amos 1.4, 7 etc.; Nah. 3.13, 15.
translation are given here. Cf. Gibson, Textbook...Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 40-41,
for criticism of some of Fitzmyer's proposals.
51. Treaty-Curses, pp. 54-56.
53. K.J. Cathcart, 'rotf, 'poison', in Amos ix, I', VT44 (1994), pp. 393-96.
54. Cf. Hillers, Treaty-Curses, p. 55.
55. Treaty-Curses, pp. 44-54.
57. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 55.
150
Sefire I.A.36
wzr* bhn hdd mlh wShlyn w>l y3mr
May Hadad sow in them salt and cress, and may it not be mentioned
again.
The sowing or spreading of salt as a curse has been examined by

Fensham, 58 and is discussed further by Fitzmyer.59 They note the
following biblical references: Deut. 29.22; Judg. 9.45; Jer. 17.6; Zeph.
2.9; Job 39.6. The combination of salt and cress is found in a passage in
the Annals of Ashurbanipal: 'I laid waste the districts of Elam, I scattered
salt and cress over them'.60 In Zeph. 2.9, Moab and Ammon are to be
'possessed by wild vetchling (hrwl) and salt pits (mkrh mlh) and be a
waste forever'.61 At Hos. 9.6, we read 'Precious is their silver; nettles
shall possess them [i.e. Israel], thorns their tents'. Now the targum of
this verse is rather interesting: 'In their houses of precious silver nettles
shall lodge, wild vetchling in their castles'.62 In targumic manuscripts,
this verse has the word htwlyn, 'cats', which is a rather strange translation of MT hwh, 'thorns, thorny shrubs'. Jastrow suggests emendation to
hnvlyn, which he renders 'thorns',63 but 'wild vetchling' might be a
better translation.
Sefire I.A.38-39
vfyk zy tSbr q$t3 whsy* }ln kn ySbr >nrt whdd [qStmf}l] wqSt rbwh
Just as (this) bow and these arrows are broken, so may Inurta and Hadad
break [the bow of MatT'el] and the bow of his nobles.
Compare Hos. 1.5, wSbrty >t q$t ysrt, 'I will break the bow of Israel';
Jer. 49.35, hnny $br 3t q$t fylm,'I am going to break the bow of Elam'.
In Esarhaddon's treaty with Baal, king of Tyre, rev.iv.18, there is a
58. F.C. Fensham, 'Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near
East', BA 25 (1962), pp. 48-50.
59. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire,p. 53.
60. Streck, Assurbanipal, 56.vi.79. Cf. CAD (S), p. 64.
61. Hebrew hrwl is probably a cognate of Akkadian halluru, 'chick-peas'.
62. Cf. K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The
Aramaic Bible, 14; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), p. 48.
63. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 512.
151
curse which reads 'May Astarte break your bow in the thick of battle',64
and there is reference to bow and arrows being struck by God in Ezek.
39.3. Killers describes this type of curse as that of 'breaking weapons'.65
Sefire I.A.39-40
c
[w'yk zy] ygzr gP znh kn ygzr mf^l wygzrn rbwh

[Just as] this calf is cut in two, so may Mali' el be cut in two, and may his
nobles be cut in two!
The ritual cutting up of an animal in a treaty or covenant-making setting

is well known from Gen. 15.9-18 and Jer. 34.18. Fitzmyer also draws
attention to the dismemberment of a spring lamb in the treaty of
Ashurnerari V with Mati'-ilu, king of Arpad, I,10-29.66 The significance
of these rites is discussed by Dennis J. McCarthy.67
Sefire I.A.40-41
c
[w>yk zy frr z]n[yh] kn y rrn nSy m// wnSy cqrh wn$y r[bwh
[And just as a pros]ti[tute is stripped naked], so may the wives of Mati'el
be stripped naked, and the wives of his offspring and the wives of [his]
no[bles!]
This text has been restored by Hillers, who cites Jer. 13.26-27; Ezek.
16.37-38; 23.10, 29; Hos. 2.5, 12; Nah. 3.5 as parallels to a curse
concerned with the punishment of a prostitute by stripping. Nah. 3.5 is a
particularly good parallel: wglyty Swlyk cl pnyk whr>yty gwym mcrk
wmmlkwt qlwnk, 'And I am going to lift up your skirts over your face,
and I will show the nations your nakedness, and the kingdoms your
shame'.68 Gibson prefers to read znh for znyh and translates as follows:
'this thing [is stripped naked]'.69
64. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 27.

66. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, pp. 8-9.
67. Treaty and Covenant (AnBib, 21A; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978),
pp. 91-95.
68. Cathcart, Nahum, pp. 117, 130-31; 'Treaty-Curses', pp. 183-84.
69. Textbook.. .Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 33, 42.
152
Sefire I.C.21-25
yhpkw 3lhn 3s[3 h]3 wbyth wkl zy [b]h wySmw thtyth [lc]lyth w3! yrtSfy l]h
m
May the gods overturn th[at m]an and his house and all that (is) in it; and
may they make its lower part its upper part! May he inherit no name!
This curse is invoked against anyone who would not observe the
obligations set out in the inscription on the stele or would dare to efface
its words or upset the treaty. At the end of the passage, the words 'May
he inherit no name' are based on F. Rosenthal's reading yrtSfy l]h, a Gt
form of yrL10 Fitzmyer has w3l yrt SrfSJhh 3$m, 'May his scio[n] inherit
no name!'71
The verb hpk, 'overturn', is found in a curse in the Phoenician Ahiram
inscription, line 2: thtpk ks3 mlkh, 'May his royal throne be overturned'.
Fitzmyer points out that in Sefire I.C.19, hpk is used metaphorically of
upsetting good relations, and in Deut. 23.6 the same verb is used of
changing a curse into a blessing.72
Hadad (Zenjirli) 24
wSnh lmnf mnh blyl3
May he (Hadad) withhold sleep from him in the night.
Denial of sleep is found in a curse in Esarhaddon's succession treaty,

lines 637-40: 'Just as the noise of (these) doves is persistent, so may you,
your women, your sons and your daughters have no rest or sleep and
may your bones never come together!73 'Sleeplessness' is mentioned in
lines 418 and 487 of the same treaty.
It is a pleasure to dedicate this survey of the curses in Old Aramaic
Inscriptions, which I hope will give a fair impression of their importance,
to Martin McNamara, a friend for many years.
70.
71.
72.
73.
ANET(3rdedn), p. 600. Cf. Kaufman, 'Reflections', p. 173.

The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, pp. 21, 77.
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire,p. 76.
Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, p. 57.
OUR TRANSLATED TOBIT*

Edward M. Cook
The title above will, I hope, recall for many C.C. Torrey's Our
Translated Gospels (1936).l Torrey believed that the gospels were
translations of early Aramaic originals. But when he wrote, there were
few if any examples of Aramaic texts that had been translated into
Greek and so he had to rely on his own Aramaic back-translations for
his conclusionsa procedure with obvious risks. His method presupposed that certain difficulties must have attended the transition from
Aramaic to Greek, and that often these difficulties produced a garbled
Greek text that only made sense when the original was reconstructed.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls gave New Testament scholars
a fairly large corpus of original Hebrew and Aramaic texts from the first
centuries BCE and CE by which one could test some of Torrey's
hypotheses. Most notably, they gave Torrey a belated victory over his
antagonist Edgar Goodspeed, who had claimed that 'in the days of Jesus
the Jews of Palestine were not engaged in writing books'.2 Some of
Torrey's other assumptions were proved wrong. He believed that
scriptio continua, writing words without a space, was responsible for
some translation errors in the Greek gospels.3 The Qumran texts show
that scriptio continua was not customary in Hebrew or Aramaic at the
turn of the era.
More seriously, the scrolls suggest that Hebrew was at least as
* This essay is offered with gratitude to Martin McNamara, who has done so
much to place Aramaic studies on the agenda of New Testament scholarship.
1. C.C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1936).
2. E.J. Goodspeed, 'The Original Language of the Gospels', in T.S. Kepler
(ed.), Contemporary Thinking about Jesus: An Anthology
y (New York: AbingdonCokesbury, 1944), p. 59.
3. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 2, 139, 162, etc.
154
important as Aramaic as a literary language, perhaps more so. Although

Torrey was perfectly justified in positing original Aramaic gospels in
view of the evidence available to him, the new evidence requires us to
consider the possibility of original Hebrew gospels as well. Some of
Torrey's retrojections better fit a Hebrew original in any case. For
example, he thought that Lk. 8.14 Ttope-oojievoi croiircviyovTCu (RSV:
'as they go on their way they are choked') concealed the Aramaic
original "ppTin^! j^TN, 'they are gradually choked'.4 Although this
modal use of ^R is known from Syriac and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
of a later period, it is as yet unattested in Qumran Aramaic. The modal
use of "[^n, however, would have been familiar from Biblical Hebrew
and is attested in free composition at Qumran (e.g., 4Q306, fr. 1.13
[np"im HD'pin rrnnn).5
Torrey devoted most of his attention to finding mistranslations of an
Aramaic original gospel. He believed that the Greek translators could err
by choosing a wrong (though possible) equivalent of an Aramaic word,
dividing sentences wrongly, taking a question for a declaration, incorrectly vocalizing the text, confusing Kin with Kin, and, rarely, relying on
an already corrupted Aramaic text.6 R.M. Grant pointed out that this
procedure depended on the translation being ungrammatical or, if grammatical, nonsensical; otherwise the mistranslation could not be detected.
Furthermore he observed that Aramaists 'have a tendency to disagree
as to what the original was'.7 For this reason many since Torrey have
concentrated on identifying Semitic interference in New Testament
Greek instead of hunting for mistranslations.
That is where the Qumran text of Tobit comes in. The five witnesses
to the Tobit text from Cave 4 (four Aramaic, one Hebrew), though
fragmentary, allow us to check the accuracy of translation from Aramaic
(or Hebrew) to Greek. The availability of the original (or close to it) helps
to overcome one of the difficulties Grant noted. Comparing Aramaic
Tobit to Greek Tobit may provide a useful case study in identifying both
4. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, p. 27.
5. C.F.D. Moule also suggested that Lk. 8.14 is a Hebraism: An Idiom Book of
New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1963),
p. 209.
6. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 3 (wrong equivalent), 5 (wrong
division), 84 (question), 91 (vocalizing), 115 (confusion), 125 (corruption).
7. R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Touchstone
edition; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), p. 41.
COOK Our Translated Tobit
155
possible mistranslations and Semitic interference in Biblical Greek.

Greek Tobit exists in three recensions. The short recension (I) is
represented in Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and many uncials.
The long recension (II) is found in Codex Sinaiticus. The 'third
recension', mediating between the first two, is found in two uncials and
part of the Peshitta.8 Qumran Tobit in general (but not exclusively)
agrees with the long recension.
Qumran Tobit exists in four principal manuscripts: 4Q196-198
(Aramaic, herein A-C; 199 is too fragmentary to be used) and 4Q200
(Hebrew). Only a small portion of the total text is covered and the placement of some fragments is still uncertain. Part of 4Q196 has recently
been published by J.A. Fitzmyer and by Robert Eisenman and Michael
Wise. A complete transliteration has been published by Klaus Beyer.9
I assume for heuristic purposes that Aramaic Tobit as we have it from
Cave 4 is essentially the same as the source text of the Greek versions.
This assumption needs some defense, since Beyer claims that Aramaic
Tobit was translated from Hebrew Tobit, and that Greek Tobit was
translated directly from Hebrew Tobit.10
His argument rests on two foundations: the presence of Hebrew
words in the Aramaic text and Greek mistranslations of an apparent
Hebrew source text. As for the first point, Qumran Aramaic liberally
borrowed Hebrew words and used them in free composition;11
furthermore, Hebrew Tobit contains Aramaic words, as Beyer notes
(e.g., HDD, pn, -ss, nnt?, nmntfn).
His second argument is no more convincing. Beyer suggests that the
8. R. Hanhart discusses the witnesses to Greek Tobit in Tobit (Septuaginta:
Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientarum Gottingensis
editum VIII, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 7-36.
9. J.A. Fitzmyer, 'Preliminary Publication of pap4QToba ar, Fragment 2', Bib
75 (1994), pp. 220-24; R. Eisenman and M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered
(Shaftesbury: Element, 1992), pp. 97-99; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom
Toten Meer: Ergdnzungsband (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), pp.
134-47.
10. Ergdnzungsband, pp. 134-35.
11. See S. Fassberg, 'Hebraisms in the Aramaic Documents from Qumran', in
T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-Nahrain, Sup 3; Louvain:
Peeters, 1992), pp. 48-69. Of the five Hebraisms Beyer identifies^'^ 'idol'
(14.6), -n-lK 'cursed' (13.4), ]'^nn 'psalms' (13.10), top 'call' (5.9), and nnDKJQ
'family' (1.22)N~)p is a normal Aramaic word, while nriDtDQ is used in free
composition in the Aramaic Testament ofLevi (Bodleian MS, B 16).
156
translator misunderstood Hebrew 'P'QOI 'and (she) bore (you in the

womb)' (4Q200, 4.4) as JTD01', producing the Greek ecopocicev, 'she
saw'. But the Greek is not a good translation of ^DO1"; an aorist is a poor
choice to translate an imperfect, and the root ^DD in the Hiphil does not
mean 'to see'. Beyer has failed to understand the nuances of the root
*730. The Greek text reads Kiv8\>voi)<; noAAaix; ecbpaicev enl aoi ev
TTI KoiX(a ainfjq, 'many risks she beheld [= experienced] for you in
her womb' and the Hebrew iTtfQQ riDDIR ^"QOI, 'and (she) bore you in
her womb'. The root ^30, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, can mean not
only 'to bear, carry' but also 'to suffer, endure'. An original Aramaic
text such as rPDQD ~p n^3D could be understood either as 'she bore you
in her womb' (as the Hebrew translates) or 'she suffere^ for you in her
womb' (as the Greek has it, more paraphrastically). There is no need to
postulate a Hebrew original.
His other clue is also weak: Hebrew ""Ull 'rejoice' (13.13, restored)
misread as "nm, 'run' (Gk. 7topet>0r|Ti [II]). pi, of course, is a good
Aramaic word; if the translator read *p~l in its place, it only means he
'saw' a Hebrew word where he expected an Aramaic one. However,
7iopei>ou.(xi is not a very apt translation for j"n. It is more likely that
here we have a different source text: TIQ& "O^ if Hebrew, HFI TIN if
Aramaic, producing rcopeuOrjti KOC! ccyaAAiocaou (II).12 In short, it is
still not proven that Hebrew Tobit was the source text of the Greek.13
It should also be borne in mind that Aramaic Tobit has a history both
before and after Cave 4, so that when the Greek offers a different text it
may be using an earlier or later version of the Aramaic. The Greek texts
also have histories, and may have inner-Greek changes that move the
text away from its Aramaic source. Still, as noted before, Aramaic Tobit
is, by and large, very close to the source text of the second recension
(although the other two Greek recensions also preserve what can now
12. Another possibility is that Aramaic "^m "in, which is actually attested (B
13.13), was understood as "Wai "in, which the translator paraphrased as best he
could.
13. Wise has also suggested that Hebrew Tobit was original, noting the
'tendency to use the infinitive absolute in place of finite verbal forms. Such usage is
surprising if this text is translation Hebrew, not least because one rarely encounters
the infinitive absolute at all in Qumran Hebrew' ('A Note on 4Q196 [papTob Ar3]
and Tobit I 22', VT 43 [1993], p. 569 n.4). But if the liberal use of the infinitive
absolute is otherwise absent in free Hebrew composition at Qumran, then its use in
Tobit indicates that it is not freely composed Hebrew, but a translationperhaps an
effort to duplicate the nuance of the narrative participle in Aramaic.
157
be recognized as original readings). Hence it can be used for the

exploratory purposes of this initial inquiry.
Only a few topics can be handled here, for reasons of space. A
thorough treatment would deal with all of the grammatical phenomena
of the Greek and Aramaic texts, including how the Greek deals with the
Aramaic tenses, word order, and other syntactic features, as well as
presenting thorough collations of all the relevant witnesses to the Greek
text. The questions taken up here, however, may shed some light on
Aramaic approaches to the gospels.
1. Translation of the Particle "H
Greek Tobit shows few signs of misunderstanding the Aramaic particle
H. It is used in Qumran Tobit as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Genitive marker: mr] "1 T2J, 'the wall of Nineveh' (A, 1.17),
Gk. xeixovq Niveuri (I, II); ]S H "D1, 'a ram of the flock' (B,
7.9), Gk. Kpiov 7cpo(3dTcov (I), Kpiov eK 7cpo(3aTcov (II).
Relative pronoun: [n]]HT H |in n^ 1[3 vb] (A, 3.15), 'he
has no other child to inherit him', Gk. o\)% -urcdpxei amcp
eiepov TEKVOV ivoc KA/npovouriar| a\)iov (II); ^flD]<> n] D
mrD ptf "1 (A, 7.3), 'from the children of Naphtali that are
in captivity in Nineveh', Gk. EK TCOV vicov Neq>0aA,ei|j. r|Uiq
(I om.), icbv aix|ia?icotio0VTCov ev Nwe\)T) (II).
Conjunction: [pn1? n~l]3p H3 '[!]..."inn (A, 1.19), 'he
told...that I buried them', Gk. on eycb GaTixco a\)TO\)<; (II); ~|3Q
n^DD1? ^1^1 ÎD" ^ H n] UTl (B, 6.13), 'I know that
Reuel will not be able to withhold her from you', Gk.
eTiiaiafiai oti o\) \nr\ 8-uvT|0Ti 'PayoDTiX Kco?ix>aat a\)TTiv
(XTco oov (II); etc.
Introducing direct discourse: rft ]0] ]^T "1 H^ pOKI (B,
7.4), 'they said to her, We know him', Gk. mi ei?iav a\)ifi
rivcboKoêv fmeiq avtov (II); 1H ^3 n n-D[1CD] "ID[1] (B,
7.5), 'and Tobias said, He is my father', Gk. mi eircev
Tco(3{a<; '0 Tiaxrip jio-u eaxw (II; I om. 6).
There is one example where the translator might have misunderstood

the Aramaic H: [...KrON "p DDQ^] fipa H ~[in m[pD HIDI *7n] (A,
6.16). The Greek reads o\) iieiivrjoai Tat; evioXac; TOV Tiaipoq ao\),
on eveteiXato aoi Xotpeiv 7\)vaiKa...(II), 'do you not remember the
commands of your father, that he commanded you to take a wife...'
158
That is one possible way of understanding the Aramaic; it is more

natural, however, to understand it to mean 'the commandments of your
father which he commanded you, viz., to take a wife...', that is, "H here
is a relative pronoun, with 'commands' as antecedent. The I text translates accordingly: icov A,6ycov, (bv evexeiAmo aoi 6 rcairip aoi).
To judge from these examples the Greek translators of Tobit had no
unusual difficulty in translating Aramaic H.
2. Translation of 1
Torrey theorized that certain uses of Aramaic 'and' might have
confused the Greek translators.14 The uses of Aramaic (and Semitic) 1
are indeed manifold, but they also overlap considerably with the uses of
Greek ml.
Aramaic 1 is used in Qumran Tobit as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Simple conjunction: "-Q milCD! TTTUK npn] (A 1.20), 'Hannah

my wife and Tobias my son', Gk. (TC^TJV) "Avva<; ifjq
yovaiKO<; ux)t> mi Tcopia TO\) inou HOD (I, II); ''OKI "QN (A
6.15), 'my father and my mother', Gk. TOU mipoc; uou mi
ir\q ur|Tp6<; urn) (I, II); 'Um "Hn (A 13.13), 'rejoice and be
glad', Gk. xdpr|0i Koci dyaAAiaaai (I); etc.
Consecutive: nm^ ]13K ^sm (B 7.1), 'then he brought them
into his house', Gk. Kai ifyayev autoix; ei<; TOV OIKOV
a\)io\) (II); npltfl n^m (A 1.19), 'I was afraid and fled', Gk.
e(po|3T|0r|v Kai djreSpaoa (II); cpopriOeiq dvexcopriaa (I);
^[Dt<?2]^ nr^m (A 2.1), 'then I reclined to eat', Gk. Kai
averceaa io\) apicTfjaai (II; I cpayeiv); etc.
Alternative: [np rip H^ ilKI...^ 1[3 tib] (A 3.15), 'he has
no son. ..or near kinsman', Gk. oi>x \)7tdpxei avtw
TeKvov...o\)8e aSeXtpoi; a\)T^> eyyix; (II).
Epexegetical: n*7 "in^l mps (C 14.3), 'he commanded him and
said to him', Gk. eveieiXaio a\)ica Xeycov (II); ]13 D^KEi
Jin1? n*lQ1 K]1^ (B 7.3), 'Edna asked them and said to them',
Gk. fipcoiriaev avioix; "E8va Kai eiTcev a\)ioi<; (II).
Purpose: [nn]]*^ ~p nnom n3Q'p]...^Q3 (B 6.13), 'we will
speak... we will raise her up(?) so that you may take her to
yourself as wife'. The Greek (II) differs from the Aramaic. The
Aramaic phrase occurs twice, once at the beginning, once at
14. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 64-73.
159
the end, of Azariah's instructions to Tobias in 6.13. The first

time the Greek has A,ccXr|oa>...iva Ari|j,\|/a6u0(x ooi amfiv
v6|i<pT|v, 'I will speak...in order that we may take her for
you as a wife'; the second time, XaA,f|aop,ev ...KOU
uvTiate'DooiieGa ooi a\)iT|v, 'we will speak...and betroth her
to you'. The Greek translator obviously had difficulty with
what is in fact a difficult text. It is not clear what the meaning
of the Haphel of Dip is in the sentence; but the translator had
no particular problem with the nuance of 1.
Related to the translation of 1 is the translation of its absence, that is,
asyndeton. Asyndeton is relatively more frequent in Aramaic than in
Greek, although it is not uncommon in Hellenistic Greek.15 In Greek
Tobit, two originally asyndetic constructions are resolved by insertion of
ml: ~Q1 ^TK (A, B 2.2), 'go and bring', Gk. pd8iaov mi ayccye (I),
pd8iCe...mi ayaye (II); np] ^Klin "112? (B 7.6), 'Reuel leapt up and
kissed him', Gk. dve7ir|8T|aev 'PayoirnA, mi mteqnAriaev a\)iov
an).
As we found with H, the Greek translators of Tobit seem to have had
no particular problems with the nuances of 1, sometimes translating literally, sometimes using more idiomatic Greek.
3. The Interrogative Particle
Torrey believed that since there was no Aramaic interrogative particle
for the original gospel writers to use, questions were occasionally liable
to be taken as declarations.16 Although he recognized that the proclitic
-H was used in Daniel and the targums, he considered it an artificial
borrowing from Hebrew; the 'authentic' Aramaic of the Palestinian
Talmud and midrashim never use it.17
Torrey was probably wrong, first, in preferring the later Palestinian
Aramaic of the Talmud and midrashim, which in any case tended to use
"ICJETK to introduce questions, and second, in assuming that -il was a
Hebraism: it is already found in the Ashur letter of the sixth century BCE
(n tf?a 'nn^n, 'are you angry with me?' KAI 233.19). In any case, it is
15. B.C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS, 51; Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 80.
16. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, pp. 54-63.
17. Our Translated Gospels, p. 54.
160
used in free Aramaic composition at Qumran,18 including Tobit: D^n

Kin (B 7.4), 'Is he well?', Gk. uyuxvvei (I, II).
4. The Translation of Aramaic Idioms
Torrey did not focus on the translation of Aramaic idioms, but many
since have turned up numerous examples of 'Semitisms' in the gospels.
In Tobit, the Greek translators sometimes translated idiomatic Aramaic
literally, producing a 'Semitism'. Sometimes they translated it into more
idiomatic Greek. Some examples of both follow.
13.19 mr] ^3 (A 1.19), 'Ninevites', Gk. icov eic TTK Nive\)fi
(II); ^HD] "B (B 7.3), 'Naphtalites', Gk. to>v WCDV NecpGaXein
(I, II); [KBtilp -]]3 (A 13.13), 'sons of truth', Gk. \noix; TWV
SiKodcov (II), mole, TCOV 8iKa(cov (I).
^m. ^mn *? (B. 5.21), 'fear not', Gk. \u\ koyov e/e (I, II);
^mn ^ (B 6.18), Gk. uiitaSyove%e (II); ^mn^ (B 8.21),
Gk. Gdpoei (II).
n. n] n (B 6.11), Gk. i6o\) eyco (II). Moule considers the
Greek phrase (foundin Acts 9.10) to be 'septuagintal for 'DDH'. 20
Aramaic Tobit, if the phrase is not itself a translation from
Hebrew,21 suggests that the expression had become natural in
Aramaic.
*]0in.22 KTl^vb ^rnti? spin (C 14.2), 'he continued to fear
God', Gk. TcpoaeOeto (po|3eia9cu idjpiov tov 6eov (I),
jcpooeGexo e\)Xoyeiv TOV Oeov (II).
DT. ]liniD 'QV3 (A 2.1), 'in the days of Esarhaddon', Gk. enl
Iap%e66vo<; (II).
D^2J. HQ^ I'PKEJ (B 7.1), 'they asked his peace' (= greeted
him), Gk. EâipeTiaav a\)iov (II); D^^3 l^^l jirrriK DÊJ1?
(B 7.1), 'for peace you have come, so enter in peace', Gk.
Xoupeie rcoAAcx, d8eX,(po(, Kai KaXc5<; iiXOaTe \)yia(vovteq,
'very welcome are you, brethren, and fitly enter in good
health'.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
18. See K. Beyer, Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), p. 558 (s.v. n) and Erganzungsband, p. 336
(s.v. n).
19.
20.
21.
22.
Cf. Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 174-75.

Moule, Idiom Book, p. 183.
As Beyer believes (Erganzungsband, p. 134).
Moule, Idiom Book, p. 177.
161
5. Mistranslations
Some mistranslations do occur in Greek Tobit, confirming that they are
possible in the translation from Aramaic to Greek:
1.
2.
3.
H^ pn pirnOK ncftete (A 1.22) 'Esarhaddon made him rule as

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

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

understood his text quite well.
Aramaic words with a variety of nuances, such as "H and 1, gave
the translator no trouble.
Aramaic had a method for distinguishing questions from declarations, and Aramaic Tobit uses it.
When translating from Aramaic to Greek, sometimes the
23. Cf. Wise, 'A Note on 4Q196', p. 569; and Fitzmyer, 'Preliminary
Publication', pp. 223-24.
24. The Old Latin adds 'to the house of.
25. This understanding of the Aramaic was suggested to me by S.A. Kaufman.
162

translator chose to be literal and produced Semitisms, sometimes he rendered his source in idiomatic Greek.
The implications for the study of the gospels, if the limitations

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

Robert P. Gordon
My interest in the Peshitta version of the books of Samuel developed in

the course of preparing a biblical commentary on those books. The
existence of the edition of the Peshitta of Samuel prepared by P. A.H. de
Boer in collaboration with the Peshitta Institute, Leiden,1 ensured that
interest was sustained amidst the many more obvious concerns that
occupy a commentator on a biblical book. In fact, very few observations
on the Syriac were included in the commentary, for the true worth of
the Peshittawhatever and wherever its originslies more in its
function within Syriac Christianity and in its contribution to the history
of biblical interpretation. In this short chapter I propose to say something
about the work that has already been done on the Peshitta of Samuel in
the past hundred years or so, and then to look at some texts which are
of special interest for what they reveal about the translational character
of the Peshitta and even, if we could be sure, about the early history of
this great monument of early Syriac literature. If the discussion seems
highly selective as to what it nominates for comment this is because of
the limitations of space and also because there have already been serious
attempts at monograph level to set out and explain the main translational
features of the Peshitta in 1 and 2 Samuel. Indeed, there is need now for
some synthesizing of the results of the studies that have been carried
out, but this cannot be undertaken here.
The Peshitta of Samuel has enjoyed the attention of a number of
scholars during the past hundred years. As well as making use of it in his
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Samuel,2 S.R. Driver devoted
* I am most grateful to Dr M.P. Weitzman for suggesting a number of very
helpful points in connection with this study.
1. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, II, 2 (Leiden:
Brill, 1978).
2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 1, xxii-1, xxvii; 2nd edn: Notes on the
164
several pages of the book's introduction to the Peshitta. Driver highlights

some of the main features of the translation (additions, omissions, paraphrases, internal corruptions), and provides generous illustration of each.
He begins, however, by citing a list of passages whose phrasing is
strongly suggestive of Jewish exegetical, and specifically targumic,
influence upon the Peshitta. This applies to other books in the Peshitta
and may indicate that the translators were Jewish or, as he suggests
elsewhere in his introduction, 'more probably, Jewish Christians' (p. Hi).
In 1896 Emanuel Schwartz published a monograph on the Peshitta of
1 Samuel, in the form of a verse-by-verse commentary on the Peshitta
in relation to the MT, LXX and Targum.3 Schwartz resorts regularly
enough to the 'variant Vorlage' explanation of Peshitta readings that do
not correspond to the MT, but his repertoire is not restricted to this
heavy-handed approach, and in any case he regarded the Syriac as basically a translation of the MT, even if its Vorlage diverged from the
standard text from time to time (p. 93). Schwartz reports the then
common view that the Peshitta originated in Edessa (p. vii), but observes
that unanimity on the question of authorship had proved much harder to
achieve. He himself finds in the varying relationship between the several
parts of the Peshitta and ancient Jewish interpretative tradition a clear
indication that this version is not to be treated as a unity (pp. viii-ix), and
he concludes that only by study of the individual books of the Peshitta
will the contributions of their translators become distinguishable from
the imported elements from other versions and the origins of the Peshitta
be clarified (p. ix). In his chapter summarizing the findings of his
commentary, however, Schwartz restricts himself to textual and translational realia, upon which others are, presumably, supposed to build (pp.
93-104).
The Peshitta of 1 Samuel also benefited from three studies, in 1938,4
19425 and 19496 respectively, by P.A.H. de Boer, the eventual editor of
1-2 Samuel in the Leiden Peshitta project, in each of which the MT is
Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913), pp. 1, xxi-1, xxvi.
3. Die syrische Uebersetzung des ersten Buches Samuelis und ihr Verhaltniss
zu MT., LXX und Trg. (Berlin, 1896).
4. Research into the Text of 1 Samuel i-xvi (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1938).
5. '1 Samuel XVII. Notes on the Text and the Ancient Versions', OTS 1
(1942), pp. 79-103.
6. 'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', OTS 6 (1949), pp. 1-100.
GORDON Translational Features of the Peshitta in 1 Samuel 165

discussed in association with the three major ancient versions, namely,
Targum, Peshitta and LXX. De Boer is not as impressed as some others
have been by evidence for a special relationship between the Peshitta
and the Targum, emphasizing instead the extent of the Peshitta's independence of the latter and its frequent agreement with the LXX, especially
in its rendering of more obscure passages.7
The specific issue of the origin of the Peshitta of 1 Samuel was
addressed by C. Peters in an article published in 1941.8Peters was interested to know whether, on the analogy of the Peshitta of the Pentateuch,
it could be established that the Peshitta of 1 Samuel had developed from
a targumic original. In demonstration of this he gives two lists of correspondences between the two versions, one of them involving direct
verbal equivalence and the other something less than literal word-forword equivalence (though occasionally even more striking than the first
group). Apparently concerned that his lists could be judged not to add
up to a sufficient case, Peters claims that it is the quality, rather than the
quantity, of his examples that supports his argument (p. 31). Moreover,
the correspondence between the Peshitta and the Targum is regarded by
Peters as originally having been stronger than is now apparent, on the
supposition that the Targum has undergone a process of revision towards
the MT, which has thus reduced the number of parallels remaining
visible. Occasionally the Peshitta may retain an old targumic reading
which the Targum itself no longer preserves, as at 1 Sam. 29.3 when
compared with 27.7 (p. 32). At the same time, Peters nuances his
position to the extent that the Peshitta and the extant Targum may
derive from separate branches of the oldest Jewish-Aramaic Targum (p.
33). Early in his article Peters comments on a potential weakness of the
commentary approach to the Peshitta, in that it can become very
difficult to obtain an overview of the situation amidst the mass of detail
being reported. His own study shows how even a short article may
make a good case if it matches worthwhile observations with some
regard for good method.
In his monograph on the Peshitta of 2 Samuel, published in 1949,
D.M.C. Englert observed, with numerous examples, a range of textual
and translational features of the Syriac, including what he claimed to be
7.
8.
34.
'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', p. 4.

'Zur Herkunft der Peitta des ersten Samuel-Buches', Bib 22 (1941), pp. 25-
166
evidence of dependence upon other translations.9 The Peshitta of

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

Peshitta has neither misunderstood the MT nor superimposed its own
interpretation upon the Hebrew text, but that the MT itself is deficient in
both cases. While Joosten has highlighted two interesting features of the
Peshitta in this chapter, there is room for disagreement as to their
explanation. It could be argued that the kind of text represented by the
Peshitta rests less comfortably in its context than the equivalent clauses
in the MT. Again, in the light of certain lines of argument that will be
developed later in this study it might even be possible to construct a case
for regarding the Peshitta in v. 6 as having been 'Christianized', since
the statement 'The Lord's Messiah is like him himself would suit very
well the Christology of the New Testament, as of most of Christian
tradition. However, the point will not be pursued further here.
Other recent studies that have touched upon the Peshitta of Samuel
include my article on 2 Sam. 20.18-19 in the MT and the major ancient
versions, where an instance of 'narrative analogy' on the part of the
Peshitta is claimed.13 It appears very likely that when the Peshitta talks
about Joab seeking to kill 'the child and his mother' (v. 19), for which
the MT has 'a city and a mother', it is cross-referring to 2 Sam. 14.16,
which also features in a story about a wise woman and also has to do
with the threatened destruction of a woman and her son. More
important observations of a different sort have been made by M.P.
Weitzman, briefly in an article published in 1989,14 and more fully in a
newly published study.15 Weitzman suggests that the Peshitta of Samuel
is the work of two translators and that the break-point comes in
2 Samuel 6. Three main factors, viz. the translation of the Hebrew
words fba3dt, wayehi and ^ron, point to the involvement of a second
translator with a less literal and more idiomatic approach. For example,
seba}dt is transliterated in all its seven occurrences in Samuel up to and
including 2 Sam. 6.2, while from 2 Sam. 6.18 onwards it is translated by
hayeltana.
In what follows I shall concentrate on a number of texts in the Peshitta
13. R.P. Gordon, The Variable Wisdom of Abel: The MT and Versions at
2 Samuel XX 18-19', VT 43 (1993), pp. 221-24.
14. JTS NS 40 (1989), p. 164, in a review of A. Gelston, The Peshitta of the
Twelve Prophets (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
15. 'Lexical Clues to the Composition of the Old Testament Peshitta', in M.J.
Geller, J.C. Greenfield and M.P. Weitzman (eds.), Studia Aramaica (JSSSup, 4;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 217-46. I am most grateful to Dr
Weitzman for providing me with a summary of his views in a letter dated 24
November, 1994.
168
of 1 Samuel whose full significance seems not to have been explored in

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

female animal as a communion offering (see Lev. 3.1). The Peshitta's
attempted explanation of what went wrong for Saul at Gilgal is daring
enough, but, as far as the question of origin is concerned, it can hardly
be said to betray a specifically Jewish or Christian interest; and if the
Peshitta translator is judged to have observed a ritual nicety at this point,
this contrasts with other places where the Syriac blurs the distinction
between one kind of offering and another.
The Influence of Parallel Texts
The translation theory reflected in the Peshitta allows that from time to
time a passage may be translated in the light of another, even when
there is no special difficulty attending the translation. This is also a feature
of targumic translation practice, but since it is not restricted to these two
among the ancient versions nothing much can be made of the comparison. Discussion here is restricted to one text, the Peshitta of 1 Sam.
28.6, where some elucidation is required.
In this verse the MT says that when Saul, prior to his last battle with
the Philistines, inquired of God about his prospects the Lord did not
answer him by dreams, or by the oracular Urim, or by prophets. The
Peshitta follows the MT fairly closely, except that for 'Urim' it has nwr3,
which de Boer explains from the Syriac nwr} meaning 'mirror', 17 but
without showing how this contributes to the overall sense of the Peshitta.
However, it seems much more likely that the Syriac word is the commoner homonym meaning 'fire' and that MT 'Urim' has been
associated by the Peshitta translator with the Hebrew ^wrAvr/z ('fire').
There is no other reference to the oracular Urim in Samuel, but at Exod.
28.30 the Peshitta renders by nhyf> ('light' [adj.]) and at Deut. 33.8 by
nwhr3 ('light'). What appears to have happened in 1 Sam. 28.6 is that
the statement 'the Lord did not answer him (by)' was drawn into the
orbit of other biblical references to God's answering by fire, notably
1 Kgs 18.24 and 1 Chron. 21.26. Perhaps this happened at the stage of
the original translation of the verse into Syriac, or it is possible that the
Peshitta originally had nwhr3 as in Deut. 33.8 and that this was later
changed to nwr3 under the influence of the references in Kings and
Chronicles. The presumption would then be that Saul had offered
sacrifice to God, but his sacrifice had not been accepted. Such an idea is
particularly suited by the Peshitta's location of Saul at Gilgal at the time
17. 'Research into the Text of 1 Samuel xviii-xxxi', p. 81.
170
of his unsuccessful attempts to inquire of the Lord. According to MT

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

prophet said, God would raise up to take the place of the failed Elide
priesthood. A secure priestly house is promised, and the new priest
would 'walk before' God's 'anointed' forever, whereas Eli's descendants would be reduced to seeking minor priestly office in order to
sustain themselves. The Peshitta has significant deviations from the MT
which seem to reflect an interested line of interpretation in the two
verses. In the first place, the priest is described as being faithful
'according to my heart' (3yk Iby), this last expression being an addition
in the Peshitta. Schwartz19 explains the extra words as a doublet on MT
fcSr blbby ('according to what is in my heart') immediately following,
but this is not so likely, if only because Schwartz has failed to observe
the presence in the Peshitta of the dalath, as also the use of the absolute
form in mhymn. The effect of this construction in the Peshitta is to make
>yk Iby integral to the opening sentence of the verse. The expression
itself is strongly evocative of the description of David as a man
'according to his [= God's] heart' in 1 Sam. 13.14. If we were to allow
that the additional phrase is intended to call David to mind, there would
be in the Peshitta a strong suggestion of the fusing of priestly and kingly
(Davidic) roles. And if the Peshitta has a priest with royal associations in
mind, should we be thinking of a Jewish-Christian or Christian translator
(or, at the least, reviser) of this section of the Peshitta? The extent to
which the phrase 'a man according to [God's] heart' became attached
to David in early Christian thinking may be seen in Acts 13.22 where T
have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will fulfil
all my wishes' identifies David even more explicitly than does 1 Sam.
13.14.
The idea of a royal priest may be represented further in the text. The
MT envisages two individuals, the priest who is specially the concern of
the anonymous prophet, and an 'anointed' king; thus v. 35 can say,
'and he shall walk before my anointed forever', where 'my anointed'
without doubt refers to a Davidic monarch, and perhaps to David
himself. The Peshitta, on the other hand, renders by 'and my anointed
shall walk before me forever'. An unvocalized Hebrew text could
tolerate this rendering, with lipene read as lepdnay, but the possibility
that the Peshitta's vocalization was demanded by the translator's
preferred interpretation of the verse has to be taken seriously. For
though it would still be possible to interpret the Peshitta ('and my
anointed shall walk before me') so that the 'anointed' remained distinct
19. Die syrische Uebersetzung, pp. 10-11.
172
from the already-mentioned priest, the point of the Peshitta's vocalizing

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

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

kingdom', not because the equivalence is wrong in targumic terms (see
1 Sam. 25.28; 1 Kgs 11.38), but because the expression is used in connection with the faithful priest. At the same time, the Targum clearly
preserves the distinction between priest and 'anointed', with the former
'serving before' (MT 'will walk before') the latter, and therefore in some
sense inferior to him. By translating MT 'walk before' by 'serve before'
the Targum has emphasized the idea of submission more than it needed
to: the same Hebrew verb is represented straightforwardly by its
Aramaic cognate in 1 Sam. 12.2 where Samuel's 'walk' is in question.
B.D. Chilton translates the targumic mlkw qym' by 'enduring reign',20
which, in the light of the already-quoted references at 1 Sam. 25.28 and
1 Kgs 11.38, might appear, by its use of the more abstract 'reign', to
adjust a royal term slightly to fit a priestly context. However, 'reign' is a
perfectly acceptable translation of mlkw, while, in point of fact, the real
difficulty arises from the idea of a priest having either a reign or a
kingdom. The fact remains, however, that the Targum makes a clear
distinction between the 'anointed' and the priest, and in a way that
parallels Zech. 6.13 (in the case of the Targum note especially Codex
Reuchlinianus, 'a priest serving'). In the end, the Targum appears not to
have gone as far at 1 Sam. 2.35-36 as it does at Isa. 22.20-24 where the
prophecies relating to the priestly (implied in vv. 21, 22, 24 in the
20. The Glory of Israel. The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum
(JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 24.
174
Targum) Eliakim come closer to a fusing of priestly and royal roles.21

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

of the hand of God being 'with' the hearers, as in the variant reading, it
is difficult to see this as having been intended in other than a positive
light, though it is also true that examples of this type of expression are
not so numerous as the other. The precise expression 'the hand of the
Lord was with' apparently does not occur in the Old Testament, with
Isa. 66.14 probably providing the closest approximation: 'and the hand
of the Lord will be known with (}f) his servants'. There is an occurrence
of the expression with a human subject in Jer. 26.24: 'However the hand
of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah so as not to give him
into the hand of the people to kill him'. The variant Peshitta reading is,
therefore, intended to represent the negative statement of the MT by a
more hopeful assertion about both the hearers and their ancestors.
That there was some interest within the Peshitta tradition in lightening
the heavy, denunciatory tone of Samuel's speech in 1 Samuel 12 is also
suggested by the occurrence in v. 16 of cmkwn ('with you') for clykwn
('against you') in two of the oldest manuscripts of the Peshitta of
Samuel, viz. N.S. MS 2 of the Leningrad State Public Library and Add.
14.442 of the British Library (Leiden sigla 6hl and 7k3 respectively):
'And now prepare yourselves and see this great thing that the Lord is
doing against ('with', 6hl, 7k3) you' (MT 'before your eyes'). The
expression 'do/act with' occurs in various combinations, frequently with
a positive sense as in v. 7 of this same chapter (cf. v. 24), while in Deut.
1.30 we have a combination of the variant Peshitta reading and the MT
of our present text: 'The Lord your God who goes before you will fight
for you according to all that he did with you in Egypt before your eyes'.
Thus, although the difference is small in relation to the gravamen of
Samuel's denunciation in these verses, it may again have seemed
desirable to reduce, even in this small way, the condemnatory element in
Samuel's speech.
Once more the possibility of a Christian 'hand' in the translation, or at
least the revision, of the Peshitta seems worth raising. For if it is difficult
to find a straight Old Testament parallel to the expression 'the hand of
the Lord was with', it is also the case that it is found twice in the New
Testament, perhaps most conspicuously in connection with John the
Baptist according to Lk. 1.66 ('the Lord's hand was with him'; see also
Acts 11.21). This is hardly sufficient to prove that the variant reading of
MS 9al comes from a Christian hand, and, even if the case were
stronger, there would need to be further questions asked about the
reading's status as original or secondary within the wider Peshitta
176
tradition. In this regard we should have to keep in mind not only that
Ms 9al is relatively old and its readings deserving of high regard as far
as the earliest Peshitta text is concerned, but also that there is a similarly
motivated (as it seems) variant in the very old MSS 6hl and 7k3 in v. 16.
The basic assumption of occasional 'Christianizing' within the Peshitta
tradition is itself very reasonable, and it scarcely needs defending here.
One of the clearest instances is at 1 Chron. 5.2 where the majority
reading 'from Judah shall king Messiah come forth' appears in the past
tense in the already-mentioned MS 9al: 'from Judah king Messiah has
come forth'. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the variant reflects
a Christian point of view about the identity of the messiah. The Christian
leaning of the couple of passages from the Peshitta of 1 Samuel discussed
in this section may not be so easily demonstrated, nevertheless there is a
case for recognizing the same 'Christianizing' tendency.
It gives me great pleasure to dedicate the preceding paragraphs to
Martin McNamara, whose seminal study on the Palestinian Targum and
the New Testament,24 published in 1966, made an immediate impact on
the scholarly community and helped promote so much of the subsequent
research into the targums in particular.
24. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib,
27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966).
'MAY HE BE REMEMBERED FOR GOOD'

AN ARAMAIC FORMULA
John F. Healey
I have known Martin McNamara personally for a relatively short part of

his scholarly career. For much longer I have been aware of the importance of his contribution to Semitic studies both internationally and
within Ireland. I offer the paper which follows, on a minor matter in
Aramaic epigraphy, as a mark of my respect for Martin's scholarship,
knowing that he will 'be remembered for good.'
There is a common Aramaic expression which first became well
known in Nabataean graffiti, 'May he be remembered for good'
(Nabataean dkyr btb).1 It appears dozens of times in a number of slightly
variant forms and we owe to M. Lidzbarski an admirable survey of the
material, principally Nabataean, known down to his time.2 This formulaic
1. btb might mean 'favourably'. G.A. Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic
Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 260, translates it as 'in welfare'. It
may be noted that E. Littmann, 'Nabatean Inscriptions from Egypt', BSOAS 15
(1953), pp. 1-28; 16 (1954), pp. 211-46, preferred to translate it as an exclamation,
'Good luck!' (cf. J. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew
Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues[Jerusalem: Carta, 1978], p. 8 n. 27). In
favour of this is the evidently Arabic bhyr in a similar role in CIS II 1499 (cf. 1631),
but it will be evident from what follows that this interpretation is difficult, if not
impossible, in many of the examples I cite.
2. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik (Weimar: E. Felber, 1898), I,
pp. 165-69. His examples are mostly taken from CIS II and J. Euting, Sinaitische
Inschriften (Berlin: Reimer, 1891). C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des
inscriptions semitiques de I'ouest (Leiden: Brill, 1965), pp. 76-77, under ~DT],
provides a useful listing including material published later. There is a discussion of
the formula in the context of synagogue inscriptions in Naveh, On Stone and
Mosaic, pp. 7-9. See also Y. Yahalom, 'htpylh Irbym bktwbwt bty-hknst', Cathedra
19 (1981), pp. 44-46. Note also discussions in J. Naveh, 'Graffiti and Dedications',
BASOR 235 (1979), pp. 27-30 and Y. Ustinova and J. Naveh, 'A Greek-Palmyrene
Aramaic Dedicatory Inscription from the Negev', Atiqot 22 (1993), pp. 91-96.
178
expression is now well known from several other types of Aramaic and
some of these other sources throw light on the meaning and function of
the phrase.
Nabataean
It should be noted, first of all, that many further Nabataean examples
could now be cited as a result of later publications such as those of A.
Negev.3 Variations on the Nabataean formula include: dkyr PN/PN dkyr,
'Remembered be PN' (e.g. CIS II 376, 393bis, 1373, 1378, 1379); dkyr
PN btb (wbryk), 'Remembered be PN for good (and blessed)' (408,
493, 494); dkyr btb PN, 'Remembered for good be PN' (1174, 3229);
dkyr PN b$lm, 'Remembered be PN for peace' (750); dkyr PN btb
w$lm, 'Remembered be PN for good and peace' (785, 1375); dkyr PN
btb lclm, 'Remembered be PN for good forever' (Jaussen and Savignac,
II no. 281 [see n. 9 for full reference], CIS II 3200); dkyr PN bkl tb,
'Remembered be PN for all good' (1570). The basic formula is deceptively simple-sounding, though in fact it is not at all obvious what the
meaning is. Conversations with colleagues have tended to elicit the
response that they had never thought about it before.
A common-sense approach might suggest that the implication is
simply that the inscriber of the graffito wished to memorialize his own
name and ask future passers-by (and in the longer term later generations)
to think kindly of him.4 In such a case the intention would be that the
named individual should be 'favourably remembered (with affection and
fondness)'.
A number of specific points in the Nabataean evidence suggest that
the situation may be more complex than this:
1. bryk, 'blessed', is used as well as dkyr, 'remembered', in formulae
similar to those cited. Whether the person involved is to be remembered
or blessed, the question arises of who is to do the remembering or
blessing. Could it be a divinity rather than later generations or simply
passers-by?
2. In a smaller number of cases a deity is in fact mentioned
3. Cf. The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai (Qedem, 6; Jerusalem: The

Israel Exploration Society, 1977). See also M.E. Stone (ed.), Rock Inscriptions and
Graffiti Project 1-3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992-94).
4. Lidzbarski, Handbuch, pp. 165-66.
HEALEY 'May He be Remembered for Good'
179
sometimes we find Sim ('peace') rather than dkyr.5 dkyr PN qdm DN,
'Remembered be PN before DN';6 dkyr PN btb mn qdm DN,
'Remembered be PN for good7 before DN' (CIS II 443); dkyr PN mn
qdm DN btb, 'Remembered be PN before DN for good' ;8 PN Sim mn
qdm DNN, 'PN, peace before DNN' (320); Sim PN qdm DN, 'Peace,
PN, before DN' (1479); dkrwn PN mn qdm DN, 'Remembrance of PN
before DN' (338).
3. There is an important but rarer type of expression in Nabataean in
which it is explicitly stated that it is the deity who does the blessing: bl
dkrt DN, 'Indeed may DN remember';9 dkrt DN PNN btb, 'May DN
remember PNN for good';10 dkrt DN PN bSlm, 'May DN remember
PNN for peace'.11 In these cases, according to the editors, dkrt is an
optative or precative perfect and the divine name is the subject. The
deity is female: hence the -t ending on the verb.12 It appears that the
dkyr expressions convey the same idea but more impersonally.
4) There are plenty of examples associated with Nabataean graffiti
from Sinai of the Greek equivalent of dkyr PN, jivrioGri PN
('Remembered be PN'), though I have not found any exact case of
analogy with the Nabataean dkyr PN qdm DN. There are, however, clear
Greek cases where the inscription is a prayer to the Lord to bless or
remember the named person(s), especially in Christian inscriptions.13
It is difficult to understand clearly the distinction between those
5. There are also a few br(y)k examples from earlier Achaemenid Aramaic: CIS
II, 128, 130, 134.
6. R. Savignac, 'Le Sanctuaire d'Allat a Iran', RB 41 (1932), p. 593, no. 3.
(Despite the reading dkr given there, dkyris clear in the copy and plate: fig. 5 and pi.
xviii.)
7. As noted above, Littmann translates btb as an exclamation, 'Good luck!' This
would be difficult in cases where qdm DN is involved.
8. R. Savignac, 'Le Sanctuaire d'Allat a Iran', RB 42 (1933), p. 415: no. 5.
9. A.J. Jaussen and R. Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arabic, II (Paris:
Geuthner, 1914), no. 213
10. These are inscriptions from the temple at Ramm: Savignac, RB 42 (1933),
pp. 412ff., nos. 3, 7-11, etc.
11. Jaussen and Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arabie, II, no. 212.
12. This use of the perfect is very clear in the formula Pn dwSr^ (see, e.g., J.F.
Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada'in Salih [JSSSup, 1; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993], p. 73, in relation to no. H 1 = CIS II 199:4).
13. Negev, Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, nos. 25, 89 & 98. Note K. SchmittKorte on Christian Nabataeans in Sinai: 'An Early Christian Record of the
Nabataeans: the Maslam Inscription (ca. 350 AD)', Aram 2 (1990), pp. 123-42.
180
formulae which mention a deity and those which do not. The simple
explanation might be to assume that those without reference to a deity
are secular. There is a theoretical possibility that the inscriptions which
do not mention a deity might be commemorations of the dead, but it
should be noted that in no case where these Nabataean formulae are
used is there any evidence that they are connected with burials and there
is no reference to the possibility that the named person may be dead.
Rather, commentators, including Lidzbarski,14 have tended to assume,
surely correctly, that the named persons are normally the authors of the
graffiti. This finds confirmation from the fact that there are cases where
the same person has twice written one of these graffiti: wanting to be
remembered in more than one place.15 Although this does not exclude
the possibility that the named person hoped the graffito would survive
him, we can be sure that the named person is usually invoking blessing
upon himself and that commemoration of the dead has nothing directly
to do with these graffiti.
This point is worth emphasizing because it constitutes a fairly strong
point of contrast with a later Jewish usage which seems at first sight to
be analogous and which was examined in some detail by L. Zunz.16 The
Jewish tradition (in Hebrew and Aramaic) uses various typical formulae
as honorific invocations connected with holy persons of the past. The
one which provides the closest analogy is DIO*? "TOT, 'May he be remembered for good' (see Nabataean dkyr btb). M. Jastrow translates as 'of
happy memory'.17 This, however, seems to be a very special case and it
is used only of Elijah as an outstanding man of God.18
All of the phrases of this kind in the Jewish tradition examined by
Zunz are essentially applied to the dead and Prov. 10.7, zeker saddlq
liberakd, 'The memory of the righteous is a blessing', may have had a
decisive role.19 This clearly implies post-mortal memory of a good man
14. Handbuch, pp. 165-66.
15. E.g. Negev, Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, no. 212 and CIS II 636. See
discussion of the family involved, Negev, pp. 55-6.
16. Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin: Veit, 1845), pp. 321-32.
17. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1903), p. 400.
18. G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner, 1916), p. 2; m. Sot. 9.15 (end).
19. Tg. Prov. 10.7 has simply dwkrn* dSdyqy brkf. See J.F. Healey, The Tar gum
of Proverbs (The Aramaic Bible, 15; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991),
p. 28.
HE ALE Y 'May He be Remembered for Good'
181
producing blessings for the living and most commentaries on the

Hebrew understand it this way.20
Although there is quite a big difference between the Nabataean and
later Jewish traditions on this point, there are, as we shall see, Jewish
inscriptions of an earlier period which are much closer to the Nabataean
and other Aramaic usages. Even in the later Jewish expressions,
however, it is arguable that it is God who is doing the remembering and
(more obviously) the blessing, as in some of the Nabataean cases above.
Returning to the earlier period, apart from the Nabataean examples,
similar fairly enigmatic formulae are found in Jewish Aramaic, Syriac,
Palmyrene and Hatran.
Jewish Aramaic
In earlier Jewish Aramaic inscriptions we have a number of examples of
the formulae under discussion from early synagogues (third century CE
onwards):21 dkyr Itb PN, 'Remembered for good be PN' (Naveh, nos.
30, 32-33, 58-60, 62-63, 65-66, 70, etc.); dkyryn Itb wlbrkth PAW,
'Remembered for good and for blessing be PNN' (Naveh, no. 24);22
dkyryn Itb kl bny hbwrth qdySth, 'Remembered for good be all the
members of the Holy Society (who endeavour in the repair of the holy
20. Cf. W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (London: SCM Press, 1970),
pp. 422-23. On the other hand C.H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), pp. 202-203, seems to
exclude the idea of blessings flowing to the surviving community. Cf. Neh. 5.19;
13.31. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, p. 7, draws attention to targumic renderings of
Hebrew zkr in Num. 10.9 and Ps. 38.1; 111.4 and 115.12 using the phrase dkyr
(l)tb(3).Notable in the present context is Tg. Onq. Num. 10.9:dwkrnkwnlib3qdm
ywy. For the formula in later Jewish epitaphs see D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of
Western Europe, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), nos. 118, 120,
122, 131, 137, 183 (Italy and Spain). Cf. J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum
Judaicarum, I (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936), nos. 625,
629, 635.
21. Cf. K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), p. 554, etc.; and M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), pp. 14950. Further examples can be found throughout Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic. Cf.
also J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, III (Rome: Pontifico Istituto di
Archeologia Cristiana, 1952).
22. Note here the addition of brkth as in the later Jewish expressions. Note also
Hebrew: Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, no. 76 (and cf. 75 and 105).
182
place)'23 (Naveh, no. 46, cf. 64). In this last example and in most cases in
these synagogue inscriptions it is absolutely clear that the persons named
were alive at the time of the creation of the inscription, often being
benefactors of the community.
An important example is an inscription from outside the Dura Europos
synagogue which contains the formula: PN dkyr Itb qdm mry $my3, 'PN,
be remembered for good before the Lord of Heaven'.24 There are other
examples of the dkyr formula from Dura.25
Jewish inscriptions in Greek have similar formulae. Note for example
from Beth Shean: uvriaOfi ei<; ocyocGov KOU ei<; e\)Xoyiav PN.26 It may
be noted that there are analogous Christian inscriptions both from Sinai
(as we have seen) and from Dura Europos.27
Syriac
In the pagan Syriac inscriptions we find:28 dkyr PN, dkyr PN qdm 3lh3,29
dkyr PN dkyr qdm mrlh*,30 PN dkyr qdm 3lh3.31 The context is mostly
23. Translation from Israel Museum catalogue Inscriptions Reveal (Jerusalem:

Israel Museum, 1973), p. 84.
24. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, no. 104. R. du Mesnil du Buisson, 'Sur
quelques inscriptions juives de Doura-Europos (Syrie)', Bib 18 (1937), pp. 170-73,
read qdm 3lh smy3.
25. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, nos. 102 and 103; and cf. R. du Mesnil du
Buisson, Inventaire des inscriptions palmy reniennes de Doura-Europos (Paris:
Geuthner, 2nd edn, 1939).
26. F. Hiittenmeister and G. Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel (Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1977), I, p. 64 (and cf. 171, 21). It may be noted that P.W
van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: Kok, 1991), p. 45, associates
Jewish Aramaic dkyr btb with epitaphs. It is part of my argument here that in earlier
Jewish and also in pagan Aramaic tradition it is not normally to be interpreted in that
way.
27. du Mesnil du-Buisson, Bib 18 (1937), pp. 170-73.
28. See H.J.W. Drijvers Old Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill,
1972), index. As Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, p. 8, notes, we do not find Itb in the
Syriac formulary.
29. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 13.
30. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 18. mrlh3 is a title of the moon-god.
31. This inscription on a votive stele comes from the temple of Hadad and
Atargatis in Dura Europos: Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 63.6-8. C.C. Torrey, 'A
Semitic Stele', in P.V.C. Baur et al. (eds.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos,
Preliminary Report of Third Season of Work (New Haven: Yale University Press,
183
votive (i.e. with a sanctuary context, especially that at Sumatar Harabesi)

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

before the deity and a similar blessed memory is to come to anyone who
visits the shrine and says that the named person is to be remembered.
Here we have expressed explicitly an element which might have been
suggested by the Nabataean, Jewish Aramaic and Syriac evidence: it is
specifically the mentioning of the name (in a favourable way) which is
important, that is, the praising or blessing of the named individual.
Otherwise in Palmyrene35 we may note examples of: dkyr PN,
'Remembered be PN';36 (bl) dkyr PN btb wm'yd*, 'Indeed remembered
be PN for good, and the one who passes by (and remembers)' (CIS II
4207, 4208);37 dkyrn PNN btb qdm DN btb, 'Remembered for good be
1932), pp. 68-71, thought the inscription to be Christian, though this is most
unlikely.
32. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 29 might be funerary, being located near a cave
entrance. In Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 36.7 the phrase in question may also be
funerary, though the dkyr formula is not part of the main inscription and the
remembered person is the father of the tomb-owner.
33. See discussion also in J. Teixidor, The Nabataean Presence at Palmyra',
JANES 5 (1973) (Gaster Festschrift), pp. 405-409.
34. The translation basically follows Cooke, A Text-book of North-Semitic
Inscriptions.
35. There is discussion of the dkyr formula in du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire,
pp. 45-48.
36. D. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest suivi des inscriptions
semitiques de cette region par H. Ingholt et J. Starcky (Paris: Geuthner, 1951), nos.
63ter, 64, 75. The inscriptions in this work are from outside the city of Palmyra.
37. Cf. J.T. Milik, Dedicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) (Paris:
184
PNN before DN, for good';38 dkyr PN qdm DN (btb), 'Remembered be

PN before DN (for good)'.39 There are also two rather interesting
Palmyrene examples from Dura Europos which throw some light on the
formula. One of these, on a fresco in a house,40 has:
Remembered and blessed be the men who are depicted here before Bel
and Yarhibol and cAglibol and Arsu; and remembered be PNN who
painted this picture...
Here the blessing involved is not upon named individuals, but individuals
whose pictures appear on the wall. Those being drawn to the attention
of the gods are not dead at the time of depiction. The other example
contains a number of difficulties but it too refers to a painting as the
means by which commemoration is effected.41
Hatran
Similarly Hatran Aramaic offers a variety of formulations including:42
dkyr PN, dkyr Itb PN, dkyr (PN) Itb (wlSnpyr43),dkyr PN qdm DN,
dkyr PN qdm DN Itb (wlSnpyr), dkyr PN Itb (wlSnpyr) qdm DN, dkyr
(wbryk) (PN) qdm DN Itb wlSnpyr, qdm DNN dkyr PN Itb wlSnpyr.
Hatra offers a further explicit insight into the actual meaning and
function of the phrase dkyr Itb. Hatra text 10144 has:
Geuthner, 1972), p. 183. It may be noted that the context of these particular inscriptions is funerary.
38. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest, no.78. The exact provenance
is unknown. Cf. also no. 52, in which the formula is unclear.
39. Schlumberger, La Palmyrene du Nord-Ouest, nos. 17 and 2ter, both from
the temple of Abgal at Kheurbet Semrine. No. 17 comes from an altar.
40. Cf. du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire, no. 25. Readings and interpretation are
far from certain.
41. du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire, no. 15.
42. References are not included here, since the examples can easily be located
through the index of F. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra (Naples: Istituto Orientale,
1981). See also B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatreennes (Paris: Geuthner,
1991).
43. snpyr has virtually the same meaning as tb (cf. Syriac sappT).
44. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 101.
185
Remembered be PN and PN before DN for good... and the curse45 of

DN on anyone who reads this inscription and does not say 'Remembered
be'.
There are several Hatran inscriptions of this type46 and they make it
clear through the curse-formula that what was expected of the passer-by
(or in the Hatran case the frequenter of the particular temple-building)
was that he or she should mention the named individual.
Another Hatran feature, which is, however, less clear because of
disputed readings is the occurrence of a negative version of dkyr Itb in
the form of dkyr lby$, 'Remembered be PN for evil/unfavourably'.47
This would itself be the equivalent of a curse.48
Conclusion
The Palmyrene and Hatran texts I have quoted show very clearly what
is going on here. The invocation implied in dkyr (bryk) ) is to the passerby or visitor to a sanctuary who sees the inscription and is required to
say something, viz. 'Remembered be PN', a formula which perpetuates
(in a positive way) the memory of the person concerned (whether he is
dead or alive) and, in the case of those inscriptions placed in temples,
45. On Hatran bgn fl,'curse upon', see below in relation to Vattioni, Le
hcrizione di Hatra, no. 24 and also R. Degen, 'Zur Bedeutung von bgn in den Hatra
Inschriften', in W.W. Miiller and W. Rollig (eds.), Neue Ephemeris fiir Semitische
Epigraphik(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974), II, pp. 99-104.
46. Cf. Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 23, and the Sacadiya inscription
(Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 106). Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 24 is
probably in the same category, but see discussion below. On the cursing formula see
F.A. Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', Folia Orientalia 16 (1975), pp.
63-64. Cf. also Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, nos. 30, 74.
47. The texts in question are nos. 100 and 24. With regard to the former there is a
difference of reading between Vattioni (Ibys or Ps) and Aggoula (Itb). Vattioni's Ibys
is the better reading, but he leaves it untranslated. For text 24 we depend on the
reinterpretation of the text by Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', pp. 57-63,
who takes lines 2 and 3b in the published numeration as a postscriptum containing
the phrase dkyr IbyS, a reading which is materially plausible (though I am not
completely convinced by the whole of Pennacchietti's argument about the antithetic
structure of the postscriptum). I am grateful to Professor Beyer, who alludes to dkyr
lby$ in Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, p. 554, for helping me to locate the
examples and for directing my attention in this context to Pennacchietti's article.
48. Pennacchietti, 'Benedizione o Maledizione?', p. 63, notes the equivalence
with bgn DN3l PN (see above Vattioni, Le hcrizione di Hatra, no. 101).
186
ensures his nominal presence in the sanctuary 'before the god'.

It is interesting to note that the same qdm formula is applied to
different deities in different traditions:
Nabataean: Dushara, Allat or another local deity49
Syriac: probably Sin/maraldhe50
Jewish Aramaic: the Lord of the Heavens
Palmyrene: Abgal, Bel, Yarhibol, cAglibol, Arsu, theywns, etc.51
Hatran: Marn, Martn, Bar-Maren,52 Allat, Baalshamin, Sams',53 et al.
It is difficult to account for all of this evidence through a single

explanation. 1) Clearly in some of the Nabataean cases it is the deity
who is to do the remembering. 2) In other cases the idea is that the
named individuals should have their names mentioned before the deity
by passers-by (the qdm types found in all five sources above)with the
result that the deity will have them in mind. 3) Finally there are the
many cases where the situation is less clear because of the absence of
reference to any deity. If the later Jewish tradition is any guide (zkwr
lib), reference to the deity may be implied. Were the Nabataean travellers
who wrote the numerous graffiti (some of them possibly Christians)
invoking the protection of their own personal deity? Is there an implied
curse, as in the Hatran inscriptions, on anyone so lacking in piety as to
ignore the duty to mention the name or so wicked as to utter the
negative dkyr IbySl Or is the purpose purely magical, analogous to a
chain-letter which must be passed on in order to avoid misfortune?
49. Dushara does not really have a dominant position in Nabataean religiosity,
especially outside the Petra region and northern Arabia.
50. Drijvers, Old Syriac, no. 18.2-3.
51. See du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire (references cited above).
52. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 125.2.
53. E.g. Vattioni, Le Iscrizione di Hatra, no. 74.4. Cf. Milik, Dedicaces faites
par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr), pp. 401ff. Note may now also be made of J.
Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions
(Leiden: Brill, 1995) under zkr{, pp. 321-29.
ALLUSIONS AND ILLUSIONS:

ST EPHREM'S VERBAL MAGIC IN THE DIATESSARON
COMMENTARY*
Carmel McCarthy
It is only in recent decades, and with good reason, that Ephrem of

Nisibis has been re-established as one of the great theologian-poets in the
Christian tradition.1 The belatedness of this recognition is due in part to
the inaccessibility of his works which were written in Syriac, and which,
until recently, were poorly served by modern editions and translations.
But it is perhaps due even more to the fact that, for too long, Church historians have tended to look at the Church through Western eyes, focusing
only on its Graeco-Roman origins. While it is true that most of the outstanding figures and literature of early Christian history are associated in
some way with the area surrounding the Mediterranean seaboardthe
great centres of Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria and Antiochit is nonetheless important to remember that another great Christian tradition
existed alongside that of the Mediterranean, rooted in those ancient lands
dominated by the mighty rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates.
Syriac ChristianityIts Distinctive Flavour
To assume that the early Christian tradition was limited to its Greek and
Latin expression would be to distort historical reality, and to weaken
*
This article has also been published in T. Finan and V. Twomey (eds.),
Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit (Dublin: Four Courts
Press, 1995), pp. 143-62.
1. Brock characterizes Ephrem as 'the finest poet in any language of the patristic
period' in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo:
Cistercian Publications, 1987), p. xv, while R. Murray evaluates him as 'the greatest
poet of the patristic age, and perhaps, the only theologian-poet to rank beside Dante',
in Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1975), p. 31.
188
greatly our understanding of the roots of Christian theology and spirituality. In the third and fourth centuries, and possibly even earlier,2 there
existed in the regions of Mesopotamia and Syria a distinctive, independent branch of Christianity, ascetic in outlook and strongly influenced
by Jewish ways of thought. The language of this community was Syriac,
a form of Aramaic not far removed from that spoken in first-century
Palestine, and their concern was with the meditative, poetic and ascetical
dimensions of the Christian experience rather than with its intellectual
formulation. Its thought patterns and modes of expression were
distinctively Semitic and in close continuity with the spiritual and cultural
context from which the gospel emerged. The two major authors of the
fourth century, Aphrahat and Ephrem, attest this Semitic form of
Christianity, to be distinguished in many respects from the Christianity
of the Greek and Latin-speaking world of the Mediterranean seaboard.
Perhaps the simplest way of distinguishing this form of Christianity
might be to characterize its approach as being primarily symbolic and
synthetic, whereas the Greek approach is more philosophical and
analytical in character. It would have been only from the fifth century
onwards, in the aftermath of the Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian
controversies, that the Syriac-speaking churches would have been rapidly
exposed to hellenization, with the result that no subsequent authors
would have escaped from Greek influence of one kind or another.
Yet one must not imagine too sharp a divide between the Semitic
approach and that of Ephrem's contemporaries who wrote in Greek and
Latin. When it is remembered that, by the fourth century CE, Hellenistic
cultures would have been present in the Middle East for over half a
millennium, and that in the third and fourth centuries Syriac was the
third international language of the Church, one could expect that no
Syriac writer of Ephrem's time would have been totally unhellenized,
nor would any Greek Christian writer of that time be totally unsemitized. As Sebastian Brock puts it, 'it was simply a matter of degree'.3
2. Cf. L.W. Barnard, 'The Origins and Emergence of the Church in Edessa
during the First Two Centuries AD', VC 22 (1968), pp. 161-75, who argues that the
history of the church in Edessa can be pushed back into the first century, and that it
was strongly influenced by an early Jewish-Christian gospel tradition. Murray argues
that the Christianity of Aphrahat and Ephrem had as its main base a breakaway
movement from the Jewish community in Adiabene (cf. Symbols, pp. 7-8).
3. The Luminous Eye. The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Kalamazoo:
Cistercian Studies Series, 2nd edn, 1992), p. 143.
MCCARTHY Allusions and Illusions
189
It is therefore important to reserve the term Syriac Orient for

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

5. In a paper presented to the International Conference on Patristic Studies in
Oxford 1987, 'From Ephrem to Romanes', Studia Patristica 20 (Leuven: Peeters,
1989), pp. 139-51, Brock has examined this interaction in the area of poetry, by
taking Ephrem and Romanes as representatives of Syria's two great literary traditions, Syriac and Greek, and, within the framework of the fourth century to the first
half of the sixth century, has focused on 'the possibility (I would say probability) of
the transmission of literary motifs in the other direction, from Syriac to Greek'
(p. 144). Cf. also W.L. Petersen, 'The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon
the Syriac Ephrem', Studia Patristica 18.4 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press/Leuven:
Peeters, 1990), pp. 274-81, who argues in favour of a Syriac original for Romanos's
compositions.
190
than by direct quote, thereby demonstrating the particularly Semitic

nature of his thought patterns and language.
At one level it can be argued that Ephrem has a very coherent
theological vision, with certain key concepts and themes recurring again
and again. Yet, from another point of view, because his approach is not
expressed in any systematic or logical (Western) form, it is essentially
dynamic and fluid.6 Hence the title of this study!
There are two concepts in particular, however, which are fundamental
to Ephrem's theological framework, and which intertwine in both
predictable and unpredictable ways. These are his uses of symbolism and
typology. Through the centrality of these concepts Ephrem's theology is
profoundly sacramental in character. Everything in the created world
has the potential to act as a witness and pointer to the Creator. Everything is imbued with a hidden power or meaning (hayla kasyd), and it
requires the eye of faith to penetrate into the inner spiritual reality. It is
worth noting in passing that by developing this positive linkage between
the outer material world and inner spiritual reality, Ephrem is very far
from those Christian writers who, under Neoplatonic influence, tended
to devalue the material world.
God's Self-Disclosure
Another way of understanding the coherence of Ephrem's use of symbol
and typology would be to note how, for him, the fundamental distance
between God the Creator and his creation is in fact impassable as far as
any creature is concerned, and that any statement about God would be
impossible had not God himself taken the initiative and bridged the
chasm.7 From Ephrem's perspective God's mode of revelation is
essentially threefold. He has revealed himself in the first instance by
means of types and symbols which are operative in both nature and
scripture. An excerpt from his fifth poem on Paradise sums up succinctly
what Ephrem has to say about these two main vehicles for communication through symbols. Scripture (ktabd)) and nature (kyana)) indeed
constitute God's witnesses:
6. Cf. Brock, The Luminous Eye, p. 21.

7. Cf. S.P. Brock, Hymns on Paradise: St Ephrem the Syrian (New York:
St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1990), p. 41.
191
In his book Moses described

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

and scripture bear witness to the Creator and become symbols of the
hidden power within will be discussed later. God has revealed himself, in
the second instance, by allowing himself, the indescribable, to be
described in scripture in human terms and language, or, to use Ephrem's
terms, by his 'putting on names'.9 Finally, the climax of God's selfrevelation takes place in God's 'putting on the flesh', or 'putting on the
body' in the supreme mystery of the Incarnation. In this threefold
process of revelation the use of symbol and type is both crucial and
extremely rich and varied.
Two extracts from Ephrem's poetry confirm how central this
approach is to his theological vision, and can also serve as a point of
entry into his use of symbolism and typology in the Diatessaron
commentary:
In every place, if you look, his symbol is there,
and when you read, you will find his types.
For by him were created all creatures,
and he engraved his symbols upon his possessions.
When he created the world,
he gazed at it and adorned it with his images.
Streams of his symbols opened, flowed and poured forth
his symbols on his members.10
8. Cf. Hymns on Paradise, no. 5 (translation: Brock, p. 102).
9. This 'incarnation' of God into human language is most fully described by
Ephrem in Hymn 31 in the collection On Faith, which begins with the lines: 'Let us
give thanks to God, who clothed himself in the names of the body's various parts:
Scripture refers to his ears, to teach us that he listens to us...' (translation of Brock,
Hymns on Paradise, p. 41).
10. On Virginity 20, 12, translated by K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns
192
In fact Ephrem at times felt almost overwhelmed with the superabundance of symbols. In musing on the episode in Judges where Samson
finds that a swarm of bees has taken up residence in the carcass of the
lion he had killed, Ephrem wrote:
Was that a symbol?
This Jesus has made so many symbols for us!
I am sinking amid the waves of his symbols!
He has pictured for us the raising of the dead
by every kind of symbol and type.11
Symbolism and Typology in Ephrem

It comes as no surprise therefore to find that the most distinctive and
pervasive characteristic of Ephrem's literary style in the commentary is
this frequent use of symbolism and typology. He uses a variety of
different terms in this regard, often interchangeably, but the central one
is raza which can be translated as either 'mystery' or 'symbol'. The
word raza is of Persian origin, and is first attested in biblical literature in
Dan. 2.18, where its meaning in that context is 'secret'. It occurs also in
the Qumran writings, and is probably the Semitic word underlying
Paul's use of mysterionin Rom. 16.25 and elsewhere. By Ephrem's
time raza had taken on a wider variety of meanings, and when he uses it
in the plural it refers to the liturgical 'mysteries' or 'sacraments'. As a
typological term raza in the sense of 'symbol' draws attention to the
link or connection between two different modes of reality. It is crucial to
remember that for the early Syriac Fathers, and Ephrem in particular,
their use of symbol was stronger and more dynamic than modern
usage.12 For them a symbol actually participated in some mysterious
way with the spiritual reality it was pointing towards. This is worth
keeping in mind when Ephrem is using symbols from the material
world, given the view of certain early Christian writers influenced by
Neoplatonism.
Side by side with raza are two other Syriac words that frequently
occur in Ephrem in an almost interchangeable sense: tupsa and yuqna,
both instantly recognizable as Greek loan-words for tupos and eikon.13
(New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989), pp. 348-49.
11. Carmina Nisibena 39, 17. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 292.
12. Cf. Brock, Hymns on Paradise, p. 42.
193
Generally speaking, types for Ephrem are to be found in scripture, while

symbols and images are in nature, but he is by no means consistent in
this usage.14 His developed theory of typology, with its levels of
mystery/symbol and inner truth (shrara) fits well with that of the early
Fathers in general. His use of shrara corresponds fairly closely to that of
aletheia in the fourth Gospel,15 while his third level, that of eschatological
fulfilment, is also quite traditional. It was common enough practice in
both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic circles to picture the eschatological
Paradise in the imagery of the first.
Types and symbols therefore are a means of expressing relationships
and links, of disclosing, in so far as that is possible, what is mysterious
and hidden. Operating in several different ways, they bring out hidden
connections full of meaning between the Old Testament and the New,
between this world and the heavenly, between the New Testament and
the sacraments, between the sacraments and the eschaton.16 In each case
they 'reveal' something of what is otherwise 'hidden', they uncover
some aspect of the inner truth or shrara which is present in creation and
scripture.
Although the Diatessaron commentary is essentially a prose work,
Ephrem's poetic genius expresses itself in many forms of rhythmic
balancing between personalities, institutions and events in salvation
history.17 Since examples of his symbolic imagery occur on practically
every page it is necessary to be selective, and focus more especially on
two frequently recurring typologies in the commentary, that of the First
Adam/Second Adam typology which played a very prominent role, not
only in Ephrem,18 but in early Syriac Christianity as a whole, and
secondly, the theme of the election of the Gentiles in place of the former
Israel, 'the Nation and the Nations'.19
13. Cf. T.B. Mansour, 'Etude de la terminologie symbolique chez Saint
Ephrem', Parole de I'Orient 14 (1987), pp. 221-62.
14. Cf. McVey, Hymns, p. 349, n. 279.
15. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 292, who mentions the works of Melito and Origen
as sources for this approach also.
16. Cf. Brock, Hymns on Paradise, p. 42.
17. Cf. L. Leloir, Ephrem de Nisibe. Commentaire de I'evangile concordant ou
Diatessaron (SC, 121; Paris: Cerf, 1966), p. 31.
18. Cf. L. Leloir, Doctrines et methodes de S. Ephrem d'apres son commentaire
de I'evangile concordant(CSCO, 220; Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1961),
pp. 42-44.
194
Incarnational Typology: First Adam/Second Adam

Ephrem's favourite term for the Incarnation is that God in Christ 'put
on a body', a phrase already deeply rooted in the early Syriac tradition
as a whole. It is to be found in the Acts of Judas Thomas and in
Aphrahat, and occurs in the Diatessaron commentary with regular
frequency, especially in the first chapter which begins with theological
reflections on the prologue of the fourth Gospel:
Why did our Lord clothe himself with our flesh? So that this flesh might
experience victory, and that [humanity] might know and understand the
gifts [of God]. For, if God had been victorious without the flesh, what
praise could one render him?...Thus, the Word came and clothed itself
with flesh, so that what cannot be grasped might be grasped through that
which can be grasped, and that, through that which cannot be grasped, the
flesh would raise itself up against those who grasp it.20
By means of the clothing imagery, that of the putting on and taking off
of clothing, Ephrem develops for his readers a cohesive image of
salvation history, in which the Second Eve and the Second Adam
reverse the effects of the Fall which had been brought about by the selfwill of the First Eve and the First Adam. The eschatological Paradise is
far more glorious than the original Paradise. At baptism, understood as
the re-entry to Paradise, the Christian puts on 'the robe of glory' with
which Adam and Eve had been clothed in Paradise before they were
stripped naked as a result of their self-will. Hymn 23,13 from the
Nativity cycle illustrates the clothing imagery very effectively:
All these changes did the Merciful One effect,
stripping off his glory and putting on a body;
for he had devised a way to reclothe Adam
in that glory which Adam had stripped off.
He was wrapped in swaddling clothes,
corresponding to Adam's leaves,
he put on clothes instead of Adam's skins;
He was baptized for Adam's sin,
19. Cf. Murray, Symbols, pp. 41-68, for the origins of this theme in early
Judaeo-Christian circles.
20. I, 1. For the translation here and elsewhere from the commentary, cf.
C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English
Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (JSSSup;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
195
He was embalmed for Adam's death,

He rose and raised up Adam in his glory.
Blessed is he who descended,
put on Adam, and ascended.
Ephrem makes use of this First Adam-Eve/Second Adam-Eve typology

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

Adam and Christ is done through the Semitic imagery of 'corporate
personalities'. This is prefaced by an extended review of Christ's life
showing how at each stage of his life he overcame Satan personified in
the form of Death:
Take note therefore how the Living One sought to refute death in every
kind of way. He was an embryo, and while in the womb [death] was not
able to destroy him. [He was] an infant and while growing up, it was not
able to disfigure him. [He was] a child and during his education it was not
able to confuse him. [He was] a young man, and with its lustful desires it
was not able to lead him into error. [He was] instructed, and with its
wiles, it was not able to overpower him. [He was] a teacher, and because
of his intelligence, it was not able to refute him. [He was] vigilant, and
with its commands, it was not able to turn him aside [from his purpose].
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Gen. 4.1 records the birth of Cain, who later murdered Abel.
This is one of the words Syriac typically uses for saviour.
Cf. Gen. 4.10-14.
Col. 2.14.
That is, the earth.
196

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

own incarnate body, wins victory for the Church, which in a mysterious
corporate sense is his body. Christ thereby reverses the lot of humanity,
condemned to death through the First Adam:
If the Church therefore is his body, as Paul his witness has said,26 then
believe that his Church has journeyed through all this without corruption.
Just as, by the condemnation of the one body of Adam, all bodies died
and continue to die,27 so too, through the victory of this one body of the
Messiah his entire Church lived and continues to live. So, just as [it was]
because these bodies themselves have sinned and are themselves dying,
ô
that the earth, their mother, was also accursed, so too, because of this
body, which is the Church without corruption,29 its earth is blessed from
the beginning. The earth is the body of Mary, the temple in whom it was
sown.30
The earth, which is now blessed because of Christ's victory for his
Church, is in fact Mary's body, Christ's temple, and she is called blessed
precisely in contrast to the earth which was cursed. Although not
explicit, there is a hint at the end of the passage that Mary, the new Eve,
is the mother of all the redeemed and sinless, by virtue of Christ's
sinlessness.31
Apart from other brief references in the main body of the commentary
it is in the context of the Passion that the First Adam/Second Adam
typology is most developed. In reflecting on the agony in the garden,
26. Cf. Eph. 1.23.

27. Cf. Rom. 5.12-21.
28. Cf. Gen. 3.17-19.
29. Cf. Eph. 5.25-27.
30. Cf. IV, 14-15.
31. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 84. After commenting on the greetings of Gabriel
and Elizabeth, Ephrem ends the passage with a traditional contrast between Eve and
Mary: 'because the'first mother was cursed, this second mother was therefore
addressed with blessed names' (IV, 15).
197
Ephrem contrasts the 'members' of Adam and of Christ (understood as

'corporate personalities') as follows:
Every human person carrying the visible sign of the First Adam in his
body became food for death, but everyone who carried the sign of the
Second Adam in himself became lord and destroyer of death. The one, in
tasting [the fruit], loosened his will and submitted it to his body. He
weakened it so that it became food for death. But the other, through the
energy of his will, hardened his body so that it would resist the mouth of
death.32
Jesus' surrender to the Father's will contrasts with Adam 'who resisted
the will of the Creator and followed the will of his enemy'.33 Our Lord,
he tells us, 'sweated to heal Adam who was sick' and 'remained in
prayer in this garden, to bring [Adam] back into his own garden
again.'34
A focal text for Ephrem's symbolic theology is Jn 19.34, the piercing
of Christ's side, for through it he illustrates a host of interrelated
typologies.35 The lance and the side of Christ bring to mind the cherub's
sword,36 and the First Adam's side/rib which gave birth to Eve in a
mysterious way. The side of Christ also points forward to the sacraments
of baptism and eucharist, as well as to the mysterious birth of the
Church. In a marvellously crafted lyrical outburst which interweaves all
these themes in typical allusive fashion Ephrem proclaims:
I have run towards all your members, I have received all [possible] gifts
from them, and, through the side pierced by a lance, I have entered into
Paradise enclosed by a lance.37 Let us enter through the pierced side, since
it was through the rib that was extracted [from Adam] that we were
robbed of the promise.38 Because of the fire that burned in Adamit
burned in him because of his ribit was because of this that the side of
32. Cf. XX, 8.

33. XX, 9.
34. Cf. XX, 11.
35. Cf. R. Murray, 'The Lance which Re-opened Paradise: A Mysterious
Reading in the Early Syriac Fathers', Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973), pp.
224-34.
36. Although Gen. 3.24 speaks of a sword, and Jn 9.34 of a lance, Syriac writers
frequently use the same word for both to bring out the typology more effectively.
37. Cf. Gen. 3.24.
38. Cf. Gen. 2.21-22.
198

the Second Adam was pierced, and there issued forth from it a stream of
water to extinguish the fire of the First Adam.39
Then, on a more sober note he continues his commentary, first on the

significance of the blood that flowed forth, and then on the water, after
which he sums up Jn. 19.34 as follows:
There came forth blood and water, which is his Church, and it is built on
him, just as [in the case of] Adam, whose wife was taken from his side.
Adam's rib is his wife, and the blood of our Lord is his Church. From
Adam's rib there was death, but from our Lord's rib, life. 40
One final passage from the Diatessaron commentary illustrates yet again
how skilfully Ephrem grafts a number of allusions into one central
typology. Since Christ's body is compared with the fruit of the tree in
this passage it is possible to see the Church as an antitype of the garden,
even if only implicitly:
Just as it was said to Adam, The day on which you eat of it you will
die,41he did not die however on the day when he ate it, but [instead]
received a pledge of his death through his being stripped of his glory,
chased from Paradise and haunted daily by [the prospect of] death,so
too, in like manner, with regard to life in Christ, we eat his body instead
of the fruit of the tree, and we have his altar in place of the garden of
Eden. The curse is washed away by his innocent blood, and in the hope of
the resurrection we await the life that is to come.42 Already we walk in a
new life, for these [the body of Christ and his altar] are the pledges of it
for us.43
The Nation and the Nations

This contrast between the two Adams which Ephrem loves to develop is
matched in frequency by another key typology in his writings, that of
'the Nation and the Nations'.44 The replacement of God's chosen people
by a new people, the Gentiles, is a theme which has an understandably
high profile in early Judaeo-Christian circles. In Robert Murray's view,
39. XXI, 10.
40. XXI, 11.
41. Gen. 2.17.
42. Cf. Rom. 8.23-25.
43. Cf. XXI, 25.
44. Syriac uses the same word 'arnma in the singular for God's chosen people,
and camme (plural) for the Gentiles.
199
the calling of the Gentiles constitutes (together with the person of Christ
and his death on the cross) one of the three main themes of typological
exegesis of the fourth-century Syriac Fathers.45
Two traditional techniques or literary forms in particular feature in the
development of this theme: typological parallels, of which there are no
shortage in Ephrem, and lists of testimonia. The fact that Ephrem
occasionally uses testimonia or chains of proof texts illustrates how he,
along with other fourth-century Syriac Fathers, and some Greek and
Latin Fathers, are all heirs to a tradition already attested in both the New
Testament and Qumran.
The Diatessaron commentary on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem contains
a special kind of typological comparison reflecting a tradition of oral
teaching not unlike the Good Friday Improperia.46 Elements from Ezek.
16.9-13 are contrasted with details in the Passion in short rhythmic
phrases. The passage is lengthy but worthy of being quoted in full:
Untie the donkey and bring it to me.41 He began with a manger and
finished with a donkey, in Bethlehem with a manger, in Jerusalem with a
donkey. This is like, Rejoice Daughter of Zion, for behold your king is
coming to you, just and lowly, and seated on a donkey.4^8 But [the
daughter of Zion] saw him and was troubled. She looked at him and
became sad. He, the Merciful One, and the Son of the Merciful One, had
spread his benevolence over her like a father, but she conducted herself as
perversely towards him as she had done towards the One who had sent
him. Not being able to abuse the Father, she displayed her hatred against
his Only-Begotten.
[The daughter of Zion] repaid him with evil for the immensity of his
grace. The Father had washed her from her blood, but she defiled his Son
with her spitting.49 The Father had clothed her with fine linen and purple,
but she clothed him with garments of mockery.5 0 He had placed a crown
of glory on her head, but she plaited a crown of thorns for him.51 He had
nourished her with choicest food and honey, but she gave him gall.52 He
had given her pure wine, but she offered him vinegar [soaked] in a
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 41.

Cf. XVIII, 1.
Mk 11.2; Mt. 21.2.
Zech. 9.9.
Cf. Ezek. 16.9; Mt. 26.67.
Cf. Ezek. 16.10, 13; Mt. 27.28.
Cf. Ezek. 16.12; Mt. 27.29.
Cf. Ezek. 16.13; Mt. 27.34.
200

sponge.53 The One who had introduced her into cities, she drove out into
the desert. The One who had put shoes on her feet, she made hasten
barefoot towards Golgotha.54 The One who had girded her loins with
sapphire, she pierced in the side with a lance.55 When she had outraged
the servants [of God] and killed the prophets, she was led into captivity to
Babylon, and when the time of her punishment was completed, her return
[from captivity] took place.
But, now that she has stretched forth her hands against the Son and
crucified the Son of the living [God], her house has been uprooted and her
altar overturned, just as the prophet had said, The holy city shall be
destroyed?** together with the king who is to come. And she will lie there
in ruins until the completion of judgements.
Thus, for Ephrem the coming of Christ revealed God's hidden plan for
the salvation of the nations, but it also brought a tragic catastrophe for
the 'former nation'. This theme of catastrophe, and of the Jewish
people's replacement by a new people, the Gentiles, runs like a connecting thread through the entire gospel commentary. It is often
embedded in rather bitter anti-Jewish invective. Indeed it is no secret
that Ephrem was very anti-Jewish in his writings, and seldom lost an
opportunity to express this bias.57 His comments on Jesus' parable about
the unclean spirit in Mt. 12.43-45 illustrate these various points with
great ingenuity. After explaining the text's primary meaning as a
warning not to let faith die after initial conversion (XI, 5), Ephrem then
expands in allegorical fashion as follows:
When the unclean spirit goes out of a person.5^ [The Lord] was
comparing Israel to a madman possessed by a spirit, and himself to the
likeness of a physican...Because he poured out his grace among them,
idolatry fled before him, and their paganism took off into the Gentiles.
And it was as if they, when the time was fulfilled, were healed of the
53. Cf.Jn 19.29.

54. Cf. Ezek. 16.10; Mt. 27.33.
55. Cf. Ezek. 16.10-11; Jn 19.34.
56. Cf. Dan. 8.11-12:9.26-27; 11.31-39.
57. Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 68: 'It must be confessed with sorrow that Ephrem
hated the Jews. It is sad that the man who could write the magisterial Commentary
on Genesis, with the command it shows of the tradition which still to a great extent
united Christians and Jews, could sink to writing Carmina Nisibena 67.'
58. Mt. 12.43.
201
illness of error. Their idolatry betook itself far from the rays of the LifeGiver, and through the constraint of his miracles the people's paganism
deserted them.59
However, this unclean spirit of idolatry could find no rest among the
Gentiles, because these had heard God's voice. For this Ephrem gives a
short testimony series of passages from Isaiah, followed by the
conclusion of the allegory: the evil spirit returned to the Jews, and God
gave them over to their enemies:
For the Gentiles also heard the voice of him who said, All who are thirsty,
come to the waters',and also,The Gentiles will hope in him,and, 7
have given you as a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles.
Because the desert of the Gentiles had become pools of water,63 the [evil
spirit] did not find rest among the Gentiles. Wherefore, 7 will go back to
my former housed this [spirit] and its seven companions, and so it
entered and took up residence among this people, according to the number
of days of the week, and did away with all its religious observance...
[The evil spirit] rejected them again in the days of our Lord, for it
found them full of envy toward their Saviour. But this [time] their evil
deed was worse than the former one. They requited the prophets with
slaughter, and hung Christ on the cross. Consequently they were thrown
away like a vessel for which there was no use.65
It is in the commentary on the Passion that the tragedy of the Jews and
their replacement by the Gentiles reaches its climax. Simon of Cyrene is
seen as representing the Gentiles, while the Jews, through placing the
cross on Simon,66 symbolize their voluntary rejection of Christ:
After he had taken the wood of his cross and had set out, they found and
stopped a man of Cyrene, that is, from among the Gentiles, and placed the
wood of the cross on him.67 It was only right that they should have given
the wood of the cross voluntarily to the Gentiles, [since] in their rebellion,
[the Jews] had rejected the coming of him who was bringing all
59. XI, 6.
60. Isa. 55.1.
61. Isa. 11.10.
62. Isa. 42.6; cf. Isa. 49.6.
63. Cf. Ps. 107.35.
64. Mt. 12.44.
65. XI, 7-8.
66. In the gospel narrative it is the soldiers who do this, cf. Mt. 27.32 and
parallels.
67. Cf. Mt. 27.32; Mk 15.21; Lk. 23.26; Jn 19.17.
202

blessings. In rejecting it themselves, in their jealousy, they cast it away to
the Gentiles. They rejected it in their jealousy and the Gentiles received it,
to their [even greater] jealousy. For [the Lord] approved the welcoming
Gentiles, thus provoking jealousy amongst their contemporaries through
[the Gentiles'] acceptance.68
This relentless censure of the Jews reaches a dramatic finale in his

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

There are numerous other examples which show the extent to which
Ephrem's mode of theological discussion is essentially couched in
symbolic and typological dress. For instance, in contrasting the angel's
annunciation to Zechariah with that to Mary in I, 11 of the commentary, Ephrem develops a number of insights. Zechariah goes to the angel
because his child is destined to be inferior to the angel, whereas it is the
angel who comes to Mary, since her child will be the angel's Lord.
Moreover, the angel did not go to Elizabeth, since Zechariah is the true
father of John. Gabriel did not go to Joseph, however, since Mary alone
gave birth to her first-born. In III, 17 Ephrem uses the theme of being
espoused near a well of water to draw together three separate Old
Testament betrothals72 as types of the Lord's betrothal to his Church
through his baptism in the Jordan waters.
In commenting on the Sermon on the Mount in VI it is not surprising
to find Ephrem focusing at length on the Antitheses and related texts73
68. XX, 20.
69. Mk 15.38.
70. Cf. Mt. 21.43.
71. XX, 4.
72. The betrothals of Rebecca (Gen. 24.1-67), Rachel (Gen. 29.1-21) and
Zipporah (Exod. 2.16-21).
73. Cf. Mt. 5.20-48 ('You have heard it said...but I say to you'). Cf. S.P. Brock,
The Harp of the Spirit. Eighteen Poems of Saint Ephrem (San Bernardino, CA:
203
since these already belong to this central Semitic mode of expression

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

in Ephrem, yet his recurrent wrestling with the reasons why the Jews
rejected their Lord reflects how concerned he was also with the
question of freedom and free will. In analysing the text of Mt. 11.11,
'The least of these [latter] who preach the kingdom of heaven is greater
than [John]', in IX, 16-17, Ephrem concludes that John the Baptist's
greatness was conferred on him and was not the result of free will,
whereas, in the case of ordinary human beings, the role of their free
response, their free will, is highlighted.77 The mystery of human freedom
Borgo Press, 2nd enlarged edn, 1984), pp. 10-13 for an examination of Ephrem's
creative use of typological exegesis in his extended meditations on scripture.
74. Cf. C. McCarthy, 'Gospel Exegesis from a Semitic Church: Ephrem's
Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount', in Tradition of the Text: Studies offered
to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (ed. G.J. Norton and
S. Pisano; OBO, 109; Freiburg and Gottingen: Universitatsverlag/Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 103-23, especially pp. 114-17.
75. 4-15.
76. Brock holds that this is one of the many Jewish traditions, found only outside
the Bible in post-biblical literature, not attested in any other Christian source apart from
Ephrem and some other early Christian Syriac writers. Cf. Brock, The Luminous
Eye, p. 20.
77. Cf. VI, 5, 7; X, 2; XI, 12; XIII, 7.
204
and free will is illustrated too in the number of times Ephrem returns to
grapple with why Judas should have betrayed the Lord.78
Ephrem frequently develops more than one interpretation for a given
text, particularly texts that seem contradictory or ambivalent to him. A
good illustration of this occurs in VIII, 14 where he quotes Mt. 10.34:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth', and then
immediately asks how this can be reconciled with Col. 1.20, 'He came to
reconcile those things which are in heaven and those which are on
earth'. His answer is nuanced. He begins by quoting two other passages
from the Pauline letters which state that Christ did bring peace,79 but
then shows how different faith responses to Christ resulted in various
kinds of divisions.80 There are interesting variations offered in XIV, 7 as
to why Peter wanted to build three tents on the occasion of the
Transfiguration. Similarly, in reflecting on Gethsemane, Ephrem suggests
many different reasons as to why Jesus should have been fearful and
sorrowful, to the point of asking that the chalice of suffering be removed
from him (XX, 1-7).
Poetic Imagery and Metaphors
Although the Diatessaron commentary is essentially a prose work, it is
rich in poetic imagery and metaphors. Of Jesus' birth Ephrem writes:
'At his radiant birth therefore a radiant star appeared, and at his dark
death there appeared a dark gloom' (II, 24). His description of the awe
and amazement experienced by the angels in heaven at the sight of Jesus
eating with sinners is eloquent: 'Angels stand and tremble, while tax
collectors recline and enjoy themselves; the watchers tremble at his
greatness, while sinners eat with him' (V, 17b). There are some beautiful
reflections on the richness of God's word in I, 18-19:
78. Cf. IX, 14; X, 5-6; XIV, 12; XVII, 7, 13; XX, 12, 18-19; and
particularly Ephrem's discussion of the text, 'It would have been better for him if he
had never been born' (Mt. 26.24) in XIX, lf.
79. Eph. 2.14 and Gal. 6.16.
80. There is a lengthy discussion in XV, 9-11 on how Jesus could say 'No
one is good except God' to the rich man (Mk 10.18), but elsewhere refer to himself
as 'the good shepherd' (Jn. 10.11). In XVIII, 15, he explores the seeming
contradiction in how Jesus could say in Mt. 24.36, 'Not even the Son knows the day
or the hour', in view of the intimate knowledge between Father and Son expressed in
Mt. 11.27, 'No one knows the Father except the Son'.
205
Who is capable of comprehending the immensity of the possibilities of

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

puns and word-plays testify to a richly fertile, and at times playful, imagination. In commenting on Zechariah's disbelief in I, 13, he notes that
'[God] who can close an open mouth can open a closed womb.' In VII,
18 the woman who was a sinner 'could scoff at the cunning thoughts
of him who had been scoffing at her tears', while at the same time the
Lord 'was judging the secret [thoughts] of one who thought that he
[the Lord] did not even know those that were manifest' (VII, 10). At
the well in Samaria Jesus 'asked for water, that he might give water,
under the pretext of water' (XII, 16). In VII, 7 Ephrem describes the
woman who had a haemorrhage as 'she who had wearied physicians
and she whom the physicians had wearied.' The force of the interplay
between the images of sleeping and waking in VI, 25 in relation to
Jesus' calming of the storm is difficult to capture fully in translation: 'He
that was sleeping was awakened, and cast the sea into a sleep, so that by
the wakefulness of the sea which was [now] sleeping, he might show
forth the wakefulness of his divinity which never sleeps.' After commenting on the Lord's recommendation to cut off one's hand or foot if it
offends,81 Ephrem wryly observes in VI, 7 that 'Herod's right hand
was Herodias, and instead of cutting it off and casting this unclean hand
away, he cut off and cast away a holy head.'82 Pharaoh drowned in the
waters in which he himself had drowned the infants (IV, 12).
Pithy admonitions and observations are plentiful. In VI, 18a he
advises: 'Nourish your soul with the fear of God, and God will nourish
your body.' Elsewhere, in that same paragraph, he notes that 'Anxiety
tortures the soul, and the money that one accumulates injures oneself.'
In XV, 12 there is an economy of words in the statement that 'Not
[all] who are living are alive, nor are [all] those who are buried dead', as
also in XXI, 15: 'He died to our world in his body, that we might live
81. Mt. 18.8.
82. The beheading of John the Baptist, cf. Mt. 14.3-11.
206
to his world in his body.' Indeed there is a touch of humour in XIX,

13: 'Our Lord's words, As I have loved you, can be explained, Let us
die for each other; but we do not even want to live for one another!'
Occasionally he includes extended reflections which are more spiritual
in nature, such as those contained in VII, 3-12. In this section he has
been commenting on the woman who had a haemorrhage and who
touched Jesus' cloak from behind.83 He then develops a keenly argued
reflection on various kinds of touching and their spiritual benefits. Other
extended reflections occur in VIII, 3-4 in the context of the peace
greeting84 and in X, 8 in relation to the sinful woman.85
Reading through Ephrem's commentary one comes across a number
of interesting and sometimes unusual observations. In his pen-portrait of
Simon Peter in IV, 20 we learn that Peter was timid, because he was
frightened at the voice of a young servant girl, and poor, because he was
not able to pay his own tax, and stupid, because he did not know how to
take flight after denying the Lord. In VI, 24a, the motive Ephrem
attributes to the rich man in his aspirations to follow Jesus is that 'one
who performs such deeds must possess much money'! In commenting
on the phrase, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?', he observes in
a practical vein that things sold in bulk like vegetables are of lesser value.
In the early Christian centuries Edessa was a centre with a certain
reputation for healing and medicinal skills.86 Disease and illness were a
source of constant anxiety and preoccupation in the ancient Near East,
and the search for cures and healers is a theme recurring in the literature
from these times.87 Syrian Christians it seems devoted much of their
energies to medicine, and in later centuries they were to become
renowned for their role as the transmitters of Greek medical science to
the East, and for their status as physicians at the Persian court.88
Edessa's many springs and their healing properties were well known. It
is interesting therefore to note how the theme of healing is a frequent one
for Ephrem, in which he often contrasts the divine healing powers of the
83. Mk 5.24-34.
84. Lk. 10.5.
85. Lk. 7.36-50.
86. Cf. J.B. Segal, Edessa, The Blessed City (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970),
pp. 71-72.
87. The Abgar-Addai legend has the search for healing at its centre.
88. Cf. M.W. Dols, 'Syriac into Arabic: The Transmission of Greek Medicine',
Aram 1 (1989), pp. 45-52.
207
Lord with the rather weak ones of human physicians.89

Another characteristic trait of Ephrem is his keen eye for nature and
his readiness to see therein the reflection of the Creator.90 In commenting on the miracle at Cana in V, 11-12, he points out that the Lord, in
creating the wine, did not go outside of creation, but instead transformed
the original creation 'to make it known that he was its Lord'. The
imagery he uses in describing nature testifies to his alert powers of
observation, particularly in relation to birds,91 and natural phenomena
such as lightning and wind.92 Linked with Ephrem's approach to nature
is his insistence on trusting in divine providence. The Lord, he says,
wanted his disciples 'not to be dragged down by the anxiety of the
world, but rather to rely on the heavenly bread, and to reflect on what
is above rather than on what is on earth' (VI, 18a).
In conclusion therefore, just as one will have difficulty in finding a
fully systematized theology in Ephrem, so too one will look in vain for a
fully developed set of hermeneutical principles.93 To illustrate the richness
of his approach, and the fact that for him the scriptures are like an everflowing fountain whose wellsprings of meaning can never be exhausted,
one could do no better to conclude than by letting him speak for himself:
If there were [only] one meaning for the words [of Scripture], the first
interpreter would find it, and all other listeners would have neither the toil
of seeking nor the pleasure of finding. But every word of our Lord has its
own image, and each image has many members, and each member
possesses its own species and form. Each person hears in accordance
with his capacity, and it is interpreted in accordance with what has been
given him.94
89. Cf. V, 23; VI, 14; VII, 2, 7, 12, 16-17, 19, 21; X, 7a; XIII, 2-3.
90. For a fuller treatment of the relation between the Bible and nature in
Ephrem's exegesis, see for example, P. Yousif, 'Symbolisme christologique dans la
Bible et dans la Nature chez saint Ephrem de Nisibe (De Virginitate VIII-XI et les
textes paralleles)', Parole de I'Orient 8 (1977-78), pp. 5-66.
91. Cf. IV, 8c; VI, 17a, 18a; VIII, 6, 12; XI, 13; and XII, 16.
92. Cf. I, 32 and X, 13.
93. In his article, 'Exegetical Principles of St Ephraem of Nisibis', Studio.
Patristica 18.4 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press/Leuven: Peelers, 1990), pp. 296-302,
P. Yousif has set about presenting 'the general shape of Ephraem's exegetical
principles in a short, comprehensive and logical way' (p. 301), using the
Diatessaron commentary as the most important source, but making reference also to
the other extant biblical commentaries of Ephrem (cf. p. 296).
94. VII, 22.
LA PRIERE DE NABONIDE (4Q242)
Emile Puech, CNRS
Depuis la publication des quatre fragments du manuscrit 4Q242

assembles et presentes par J.T. Milik,1 un nombre imposant d'etudes leur
a ete consacre.2 Par chance, le fg. 1 a conserve le debut du manuscrit
1. J.T. Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide et autres ecrits d'un cycle de Daniel.
Fragments arameens de Qumran 4', RB 63 (1956), pp. 407-11 et 415, addendum ou
1'editeur signale un petit fragment au joint direct avec le fg. 2.
2. E. Vogt, 'Precatio regis Nabonid in pia narratione iudaica (4Q)', Bib 37
(1956), pp. 632-34; D.N. Freedman, The Prayer of Nabonidus', BASOR 145
(1957), pp. 31s; H.M.I. Gevarjahu, 'The Prayer of Nabonidus of the Manuscripts of
the Desert of Judah', (civrit) dans J. Liver (ed.), Studies on the Manuscripts of the
Desert of Judah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957), pp. 12-23; J.D. Amusin, 'Das
Qumran-Fragment des "Gebetes" des babylonischen Konigs Nabonid', Vestnik
drevnehistorii66(\958),pp. 104-17; A. Dupont-Sommer, 'Remarques linguistiques
sur un fragment arameen de QoumrSn (Priere de Nabonide)', Comptes rendus du
groupe linguistique d'Etudes chamito-semitiques 8 (1958-60), pp. 48-56; idem, Les
ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1959), pp. 36-41;
idem, 'Exorcismes et guerisons dans les ecrits de Qoumran', dans J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Oxford Congress Volume (VTSup, 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 246-61, spec,
pp. 253ss; R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid. Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften
wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzahlung (Sitzungsberichte der sachsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, phil.- hist. Klasse, 107/3; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1962); J. Carmignac, 'Priere de Nabonide', dans J. Carmignac, E. Cothenet et H.
Lignee, Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotes, II (Paris: Letouzey, 1963), pp.
289-94; G. Fohrer, '4QOrNab, HQtgJob und die Hioblegende', ZAW 15 (1963),
pp. 93-97; W. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel (Mainz: Griinwald,
1964), pp. 68-76; S. Segert, 'Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu einigen aramaischen
Texten von Qumran', Archiv Orientalni 33 (1965), pp. 190-206; M. Delcor, 'Le
Testament de Job, la Priere de Nabonide et les traditions targumiques', dans S.
Wagner (ed.), Bibel und Qumran: Festschrift Hans Bardtke zum 22.9.1966
(Leipzig: Evangelische Haupt-Bibel Gesellschaft, 1968), pp. 57-74; M. McNamara,
'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel', ITQ 37 (1970), pp. 131-49; D.S. Attema, 'Het
Gebet van Nabonidus', dans Schrift en Uitleg. Studies...aangeboden aan Prof. Dr.
PUECH La Priere de Nabonide (4Q242)
209
portant le litre de la composition: 'Paroles de la priere qu'a price

Nabonide', titre auquel on peut comparer celui de la priere d'Esdras:
'Commencement des paroles de la priere d'Esdras avant qu'il soit
enleve, et il dit' (4 Esd. 8.20).3 Mais la lecture et 1'interpretation des huit
premieres lignes de la premiere colonne partiellement conservees et
constituant 1'essentiel des restes du manuscrit, sont loin de faire
1'unanimite des auteurs, tant s'en faut. II en est de meme de 1'histoire de
la composition et de ses rapports avec la litterature danielique a laquelle
McNamara a consacre une etude penetrante.4 Dans ces lignes en
hommage au savant aramai'sant, nous nous proposons de faire le point
du dechiffrement et de tenter une reconstitution des lignes conservees
afin de permettre des conclusions aussi assurees que possible.
L'ecriture de type semi-cursif appartient au groupe d'ecriture
hasmoneenne tardive qu'on date au mieux vers 50 av. J.C. ou meme
dans le deuxieme quart du premier siecle, elle est quelque peu plus
evoluee que celle de 4QDnc.5 Excepte les premiers mots ou les parties
W.H. Gispen (Kampen: Kok, 1970), pp. 7-20; A. Mertens, Das Buck Daniel im
LichtederTexte vom Toten Meer (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1971), pp. 34-42; B. Jongeling,
C.J. Labuschagne et A.S. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, with
Translations and Annotations (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 121-31; W. Kirchschlager,
'Exorzismus in Qumran', Kairos 18 (1976), pp. 135-53, spec. pp. 144-48; A.S. van
der Woude, 'Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonid', dans M. Delcor (ed.),
Qumran. Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu (BETL, 46; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1978), pp. 121-29; P. Grelot, 'La Priere de Nabonide (4QOrNab). Nouvel
essai de restauration', RevQ 9 (1978), pp. 483-95; J.A. Fitzmyer et D.J. Harrington,
A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (BibOr, 34; Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1978), pp. 2-5 et 191-93; F. Garcia Martinez, '4QOrNab. Nueva sintesis',
Sefarad 40 (1980), pp. 5-25 (revue et corrigee en 'The Prayer of Nabonidus. A New
Synthesis', dans Qumran and Apocalyptic [Leiden: Brill, 1992], pp. 116-36); P.M.
Cross, 'Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus', IEJ 34 (1984), pp. 260-64; K.
Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,
1984), pp. 223-24, et II (1994), p. 104; J.J. Collins, 'Nabonidus (Prayer of)', dans
The Anchor Bible Dictionary IV (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 976-77.
3. Titre atteste dans les versions latine, syriaque et ethiopienne. Voir encore
2 Chron. 33.18-19 qui fait allusion a la priere du roi Manasse et a son exaucement, a
ses peches et son impiete,..., consignes dans les dires des/de ses voyants (avec les
LXX et un manuscrit hebreu ou hwzyw, preferable a 'Hozai' du TM que traduit la
Bible de Jerusalem).
4. 'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel'.
5. Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide', p. 407, la qualifiait deja d'ecriture de transition
hasmoneenne-herodienne, dans la seconde moitie du premier siecle avant J.C., mais
Jongeling et al, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, p. 123, datent le manuscrit du debut
210
du cuir retreci du fg. 4,1'ecriture du scribe est plus reguliere qu'on ne le

soupc,onne parfois. Elle devrait done permettre, malgre les nombreuses
cassures, d'apprecier au mieux les dimensions des lacunes et, partant, de
tenter une reconstruction des lignes qui respecte au mieux la main du
scribe. Par ailleurs, cette reconstitution devrait autoriser quelque
appreciation des hypotheses formulees par 1'acceptation ou le rejet des
propositions deja avancees6 et aura pour elle, a defaut de certitude
absolue, au moins un argument de vraisemblance. De fait, un
paleographe de metier a propose une solution7 qui n'a cependant pas
re9U I'assentiment escompte.8 Le present essai trouvera-t-il meilleur
accueil?
Figure 1. 4QPrNab, fgg. 1-3

de notre ere, ce qui nous paratt beaucoup trop tard. Cross qui, depuis, a propose un
classement des ecritures d'apres I'etude de 1'evolution graphique du trace des lettres
ou ductus, date ce manuscrit vers 75-50, dans le deuxieme quart du ler s. av. J.C.
('Fragments of the Prayers of Nabonidus', p. 260).
6. La necessite d'un tel projet de maquette a ete soulignee par Grelot qui ajoutait
aussitot: 'Mais cette ecriture, tres personnelle, est passablement irreguliere, tant par la
largeur des lettres que pour leur espacement. En consequence, la maquette donnerait
une simple idee des possibilites existantes, mais elle ne permettrait pas de resoudre a
coup sur toutes les questions pendantes' ('La Priere de Nabonide', p. 485), remarque
reprise par Garcia Martinez ('The Prayer of Nabonidus', p. 118). Mais la
reconstruction proposee par Grelot montre que cet auteur a dessine un projet de
maquette, ce qui ne semble pas le cas de Garcia Martinez.
7. Cross, 'Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus'.
8. Voir Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of Nabonidus', spec. pp. 118 ss.
211
Figure 2.4QprNab, fg. 4

Texte (voir figure 1)
fgg. 1-3:
[mn DTD Rin "D ton ]^Q ^[3 ']i [<]D>{I}^Q -a; '^ "i KT.MX -'
[RD'to R;riD3 ';3; n:Ri ]]QTG K[n^]s a;ns3 KO'to K;nD3
['^3 KH'PR uno Km1? n;]s 'ID[ -n ]pi IQD ^LD rnn >TO
2
3
[-IQKI 'Qip b^ n^3 -;3 ]]Q mn' Kim 112 rft pnc; 'Rom
[n; nnro n;iD(i) s'aa/K'^y Kn^]^ CD^ i[n]~n ip- Tiyzb aroi -inn
[n;i KÛ KH^K cansn JiQ'nnt KD'K]3 s;nc?3 rnn DTD
[N^TIS NDn; ]ami KSOD -n^t cip n]'in ^Q WDD ]-;D
[nn jin^D/'^p^ H iio]n J-H^R -i ~i[30 n-in ] -i |Q son ;3K y
[lirrojip C^D nm[b ]mn i^]3i
5
6
7
8
9a
]imQip ]a ]|imQ[ni ]n-[u3 pnc
fg. 4 (voir figure 2)

nobns ]ion IDUQ[
Tn]"pD C'PD i[^]ns n;riQ[D3i Knib: ';3 ]Q 'mm in IT:]

] rftrr R"? 'on~i i^"iy/i[
](?)nL? nn; m RQD[
2
3
4
Traduction:
fgg- 1-3:
1 Paroles de la pr[i]ere qu'a price Nabunay, l[<e>] roi d[e Bajbylone,
le [grand] roi [lor[lorsqu'ilfutfrappe]
2 de 1'ulcere malin, sur 1'ordre de D[ie]u a Teyman. [Moi, Nabunay, de
I'ulcere malin]
3 j'ai ete frappe sept annees durant. Et com[me] j[e] devins semblable
[a une bete, Dieu ecouta ma voix (?) ]
4 et mon peche II le pardonna. Un devinet c'etait un juif d'ent[re les
membres de la deportationvint chez moi et dit:]
5 'Fais savoir par ecrit de rendre gloire et gra[ndeu]r au nom du D[ieu
Tres-Haut (Ides deux).' (Et?) Ainsij'ecrivis: 'Moi-meme,
6 j'avais ete frappe d'un ulcere m[alin] a Teyman, [sur 1'ordre du Dieu
212
Tres-Haut, et moi,]
1 sept annees durant, je priais [devant] les dieux d'argent et d'or, [de
bronze, defer,]
8 de bois, de pierre, d'argile, parce que [je penjsais qu'ils etai(ent] des
dieux [qui, ma priere(l},]
9 entend(r)aient.J ] J'[ai implore] leur [miseri]corde[ devant eux.
9a <Fu[rent] ame[nes des taureaux en] sacrifice de salut dev[ant eux>,
[et...
fg.4:
1... pour] les servir, j'ai consulte (comme interprete des songes)
2[un devin, unjuifd'entre les membres de la deportation, et en comme]
cadeau il apporta la paix [de ma] tranquifllite...
3 ... ]et arriverent soudain mes amis, je n'ai pas pu [...
4 ... ] comme toi, tu lui/leur (?) ressembles! [
Commentaire
Fragmentss 1-3, 1.1: Le nom du roi, Nabonideakkadien Nabuna'id
(Nabu est exalte)est orthographie nbny, Nabunay, forme
hypocoristique de type gentilice, bien connue en arameen.9
Apres le kaf final a large tete le scribe semble avoir ecrit dalet de la
particule dy a une distance comparable a celle de 1'exemple precedent:
est encore discernable la haste verticale de la lettre et la tete a sa gauche
formant un angle bien visible. Le module est en tout comparable a celui
de la 1. 5. II ne peut en aucun cas s'agir du ductus d'un alef,10 ni de bet
ou kaf medial.11 II s'ensuit que ne sont recevables ni la lecture 3[twr
wbjbl, ni 3[r dy bjbl, ni bbl d'une part, ni davantage 1'interpretation du
trace comme une simple tache, d'autre part. Peut-on rendre compte des
9. Voir G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramdisch...
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 2eme edn, 1905), pp. 178-80, mais la forme ne peut resulter
'd'une banale confusion entre dalet etyod (NBND devenant NBNY)', comme le
propose Carmignac, Les textes de Qumran, p. 293, n. 2, qu'accepterait aussi Garcia
Martinez, 'The Prayer of Nabonidus' (p. 121).
10. Lecture pointee de 1'editeur Milik, 'Priere de Nabonide', p. 408, mlk 3[twr
wbjbl, suivi par Vogt, Meyer, Kirchschlager par ex., ou differemment completee Y^
dy bjbl, par Dupont-Sommer (1958-60), p. 48, suivi par Jongeling et al., Grelot,
Fitzmyer-Harrington, van der Woude (p. 122), Garcia Martinez (1992).
11. Lecture proposee par Cross (p. 262): The blot.. .has a head which could be
the beginning of a bet, medial kaf, or possibly dalet.' Beyer (p. 223), lit bet: mlk bbl
sans plus!
213
restes visibles? II semble que la tache ovoi'de a droite de la haste du dalet

soit une trainee involontaire d'encre non sechee, de preference a une
correction maladroite de la lettre en alef}22 Reste la lecture qui seule
semble s'imposer, dalet de la particule genitivale, d[y. Sur le fg. 2 est
encore visible la tete du deuxieme bet de b]bl,13 ce qui permet une
restauration plus precise de 1'espace dans la lacune. Si on accepte le
placement des fragments 2 et 3 a une distance assez rapprochee a
gauche comme le suggere la restauration des 11. 6-8, on obtient alor
1'espace attendu pour la lettre yod de d[y b]bl. En consequence, il n'est
ni necessaire, ni recommande de lire un barbouillage dans la lettre qui
suit mlk. La lecture mlk d[y b]bl qui a 1'evidence semble s'imposer,
suppose une correction supralineaire du alefde 1'etat emphatique.14 II
est probable que le scribe a quelque peu retouche le kaf final en medial
en ajoutant une base horizontale qui semble couper la trainee en
question. On obtient alors la lecture nbny mlk[<:>>] d[y b]bl, 'Nabunay,
l[<e>] roi de Babylone', formule connue deja en Esd. 5.13, comparee a
mlk bbl, qui etait la premiere intention du scribe attestee en Esd. 5.12 et
Dan 7.1, pour traduire le babylonien llNa-bi-um-na-a-id $ar babilikl^5
mais inconnu comme 'roi d'Assur et de Babylone'. La restauration
mlk3[ rb3 est assuree, equivalent de Sarru rabu. Pour la longueur des
lignes nous suivrions la proposition de Cross avec probablement le
pronom: kdy hwy kty$ hwh.l(>
-1. 2: 1'expression Shn3 fryS3 correspond precisement a 1'hebreu Shyn
rc de Deut. 28.35 et Job 2.7, maladie de la peau qu'on traduit
12. D'une part, les contours de cette tache ovoi'de manquent de definition et,
d'autre part, la correction en alefpar une haste oblique aurait oblitere la partie
inferieure de la tete du dalet a gauche de la haste, ce qui n'est manifestement pas le
cas d'apres les reproductions. Seule 1'observation de 1'original, fragment absent du
Musee Rockfeller a Jerusalem, pourrait confirmer ou infirmer cette remarque.
13. Contrairement au dessin de Cross qui comble ainsi indument la lacune &
droite en espa?ant le trace des deux bet.
14. II est tout de meme surprenant de remarquer que la trainee d'encre
involontaire affectant la droite de la haste du dalet s'inscrit dans I'axe de la haste
oblique du alef supralineaire. Cette trainee semble provenir de la correction faite sitot
apres la faute, un doigt ayant frotte 1'encre encore fraiche, elle confirmerait la
correction.
15. Voir S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Koniginschriften (Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1912), pp. 218, 224, 226, 230, 234, 250, 252, 262, 294, 296.
16. La restauration de Beyer est nettement insuffisante.
214
argumicndCognate Studies
generalement par 'inflammation, ulcere'.17 L'ecriture bptgm 3[ avec un

mem medial releve d'une habitude de certains scribes qumraniens dans
ces cas construits (non observe a la 1. 5) ou avec des prepositions. Etant
donne 1'espacement requis par la ligne precedente, I'alefduu fg. 2,2 doit
etre 1'emphatique du nomen rectum 3[lh]3, lu par 1'editeur mais sans
possibilite de qualificatif cly]3.Dans ce cas, la reponse est donnee a la
question de savoir si le roi a ete frappe a Teyman ou s'il est alle y resider
en raison de sa maladie.19 Le toponyme, connu par des inscriptions
arameennes, de 1'epoque perse sous la forme tym3, mais aussi en hebreu
Isa. 21.14; Jer. 25.23; 1 Chron. 1.30; Gen. 25.15, ou tm\ Job 6.19,
reprend la forme te-ma-3a/-a ou te-e-me des inscriptions cuneiformes.
La forme tymn du manuscrit avec la terminaison -an du locatif est bien
connue de 1'hebreu et des LXX, ocificcv, dont derive la forme gentilice
tymny(3)) et te-ma-na-a-a (des 1'epoque d'Adadnirari II).20 De
preference a mdynt3 bShn3 b3y$3], nous suivrions Grelot pour la fin de la
ligne et lirions pour 1'espace et le sens, 3nh nbny b$hn3 b3y$3], d'apres
Dan. 4.1 comme introduction au recit autobiographique.21
-1. 3: tandis que les Annales babyloniennes precisent que Nabonide
s'absenta de Babylone pendant au moins dix ans (de 553-43), le
manuscrit qumranien reduit a sept ans la presence de Nabonide a
Teyman. II ne faut pas y voir une precision historique en estimant que
pendant les trois annees de difference, il sejourna ailleurs, a Dedan,...ou
Harran, mais seulement une duree symbolique sur le chiffre sept
exprimant une unite complete. Dan. 4.13, 20, 22, 29 connait aussi une
17. Dans le Larousse medical, on lit: Tulcere de la peau siege sur un fond
inflammatoire. Le derme et I'hypoderme sont enflammes entramant un etat
infectieux.. .Les ulceres phagedeniques creusent profondement la peau...'
18. Comme le proposent la grande majorite des auteurs d'apres Dan. 3.26, 32;
5.18, 21, a 1'exception de Grelot, W wSr]3, Cross 3[1h]3, Beyer, ou Amusin, >[lh
SmyJ3, Gevarjahu, Jongeling et al., 3[lh 3lhy]3.
19. Voir Grelot, p. 486.
20. II parait douteux cependant qu'on puisse en deduire que tymn est la forme la
plus ancienne du toponyme, comme le pense Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of
Nabonidus' (p. 122), a la suite de J. Levy, 'The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the
Moon and its Culmination at the time of Nabonidus', HUCA 19 (1945-46), pp. 40589, spec. 443-45. Voir encore a ce propos les formes tym3 sur les steles de Teima
(CIS II 113 [5e s.] etc. et tymn sur un bassin (2e s., anthroponyme?), A.J. Jaussen et
R. Savignac, Mission archeologique en Arable (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), II, p. 222,
n 336.
21. Grelot (p. 486), suivi par Cross (p. 263) et Garcia Martinez (1992), p. 122.
215
tradition de 'sept temps/periodes (cdnyny comme duree du retrait de la

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

(1958), pp. 35-92, H2 A I 26, II11, III 4-5 (pp. 58-63 et 88).
23. Une lecture wkn est totalement exclue, malgre Jongeling et al, p. 127: le kaf
medial a toujours une tete tres reduite et ne peut done etre pris en consideration. La
lecture wbq[r (Gevarjahu, Amusin) est elle aussi inacceptable: bet autant que qofsont
impossibles, de meme wpn[! (pour 'npyl),let[mon] vi[sage (?)', Dupont-Sommer
(1959), p. 337 (pe exclu et nun final).
24. Milik, Vogt, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez.
25. Meyer.
26. Jongeling et al.
27. Grelot.
28. Cross et Beyer, mais ce dernier comprend uman [di ], au lieu de umin [ di ],
et complete ensuite *[gry], 'Aber derjenige [welcher] bestimmt hat [meinen Lohn]',
restauration trop courte et non sans difficultes, ainsi que 1'hypothese de van der
Woude, wmn [hd hwyn ]$wy >[nh, 'und irgendeinem Tier glich ich', p. 124.
29. Voir Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid, pp. 22s.
30. Avec Cross, p. 263, nous restaurons ensuite Ihyw3, Ihywt3 ou cm hyw3,
comparer Dan. 4.21 (ketib) Sewi, (qere) Sawwi. Grelot a retenu le parfait pacel a cause
de la restauration >l[h3 comme sujet du verbe en lisant lamed la trace a lire
certainement nun final de tymn (p. 486, n. 6). Vu la cassure, la haste du lamed aurait
du etre entierement visible, ainsi que le pied de la lettre, alors que le nun convient
parfaitement.
216
semblable a une bete'.31 II ne s'ensuit pas que le roi a ete transforme en

une bete, la metaphore souligne simplement la condition du roi qui a fui
au desert comme une bete dans son repaire (comparer Dan. 4.22-33).32
La restauration de la fin de la ligne doit s'accorder avec 1'interpretation
delal.4.
-1. 4: les auteurs ont diversement compris 1'expression whfy $bq mais
le sens obvie ne peut etre que 'et mon(/es) peche(s) (II) a pardonne',
ainsi qu'il a deja ete souligne, comparer 1 IQtgJob col. 38.2 (= Job. 42.9)
w$bq Ihwn hfyhwn bdylh, 'et II leur pardonna leurs fautes a cause de lui
(Job)'.33 Une question annexe se pose: faut-il relier Ih, ou Ih gzr au
verbe precedent? Plusieurs auteurs ont opte pour cette solution en
faisant de Ih un datif ethique et de gzr le sujet du verbe. Mais quoi qu'on
en ait dit, il en resulte alors une conception theologique nouvelle,
inconnue de la Bible et du judai'sme ancien: un homme (devin, ou
exorciste pour certains) pardonnerait les peches,34 ce que des auteurs
31. On ne peut retenir le sens de 'etre relegue' (Milik), ni de 'to be banished'
(Garcia Martinez [1992], p. 124), qui pense trouver un excellent parallele a Beth
Shearim, catacombe 13,2, mais Swy n'y a pas le sens de 'to be set' propose par
1'editeur avec hesitation. II s'agit d'un participe passif, non d'une forme intensive.
32. Voir P. Grelot, 'Nabuchodonosor change en bete', VT44 (1994), pp. 10-17.
S'agit-il ici d'une exclusion volontaire ou forcee de la societe des hommes? La
mention de Shn3 fryS3 ne laisserait-elle pas comprendre que cette souillure
permanente ecarte de la presence des dieux et de la vie sociale et politique? Cela
pourrait servir d'argument dans la version arameenne de 4QPrNab, bien que le roi
continue a prier les dieux et qu'il ait des contacts sociaux a Teyman. La version
babylonienne ne donne pas d'explication par la maladie mais penche pour un retrait
volontaire de la part du roi ou 1'aspect religieux prime sur le politique et le militaire.
33. Le sens 'accorder' attribue a ce verbe par 1'editeur qui relie \vhfya un mot
precedent et corrige Ih en ly, a ete a bon droit refute, voir Dupont-Sommer (GLECS,
p. 49 et VTSup, pp. 258ss.), et celui de 'pardonner, remettre une faute' a ete
generalement accepte par la suite.
34. Dupont-Sommer, suivi par Carmignac (pp. 293-94), Fitzmyer-Harrington et
Garcia Martinez (1992), p. 125-26. L'appel fait a un parallele en CD xiii 10 n'est pas
convaincant, car il s'agit tout autant d'une citation d' Isa. 58.6 d'une part et, d'autre
part, 1'intendant peut 'delier les chaines', en ce sens qu'il peut assouplir ou supprimer
les regies que la congregation s'est elle-meme fixee. En Dan. 4.24, Daniel exhorte le
roi a se convertir en rompant avec sa vie de peche par la pratique de la justice, whtyk
bsdqh prq, mais il n'est pas 1'instrument du pardon des peches. Dans le passage de
1'Epitre de Jacques 5.14, 16 auquel certains font appel, c'est le Seigneur qui
pardonne les peches, non un homme. 'La priere de la foi sauvera le malade, et le
Seigneur le relevera. S'il a commis des peches, ils lui seront pardonnes.'
217
refusent a bon droit dans ce passage.35 En effet, il ne suffit pas de dire

que la guerison suppose le pardon des peches, cause de la maladie, car
c'est toujours Dieu qui pardonne d'une part et, d'autre part, il est
difficile de trouver un parallele en Me 2.5-7; Mt. 9.2 et Luc 5.20,
puisque, dans les Evangiles, Jesus pardonne les peches en sa qualite de
MessieFils de Dieu, a 1'egal du Pere, non en tant que simple exorciste
juif. Le contexte demande que 3lh3 'Dieu', de preference a cly3'le TresHaut', soit present a la fin de la ligne 3, certainement comme sujet de
$bq mais aussi en parallele a un autre verbe.36 Pour comprendre le
passage, ne devrait-on pas s'inspirer du targum de Job 42.9 en
HQtgJob col. 38.2: w$mc 3lh3 bqlh dy 3ywb w$bq Ihwn hfyhwn bdylh
wtb 3lh313ywb brhmyn wyhb //i...'Et Dieu ecouta la priere de Job et il
leur pardonna leurs peches a cause de lui, et Dieu se tourna vers Job
dans (sa) misericorde et lui donna...'37 Au lieu de wslyt qdm ou mieux /lh33 fly3],3*8 on pourrait alors proposer tb ly 3lh3 brhmyn] w/zPy-./Dieu
se tourna vers moi dans (sa) misericorde] et ma/es faute(s) il pardonna',
ou mieux sans doute $mc 3lh3 bqly (ou bslty)] ] w/zfy...'Dieu entendit ma
priere] et ma/es faute(s) il pardonna' ,39 Dans ce cas, la coupure devrait
35. Voir Meyer, p. 24, qui introduit le nom de Dieu a la fin de la 1. 3 comme
sujet du verbe, Jongeling et a/., van der Woude (p. 124) et Grelot (1978), pp. 248s.
Milik et Beyer coupent apres whfyet evitent la difficulte mais en edulcorant le sens
du passage.
36. Voir Grelot (1978), pp. 488s. En effet, la restauration de la 1. 3 proposee par
Dupont-Sommer (1959), 'Mais je priai le Dieux Tres-Haut] êt...' reprise par
Jongeling et alii, van der Woude, Fitzmyer-Harrington mais avec Dieu comme sujet
de Sbq au lieu de gzr (Dupont-Sommer et d'autres) semble gauche, car le
complement d'un verbe devient le sujet du suivant sans autre precision. Aussi Grelot
) /et de V/.
a-t-il propose d'en faire le sujet a la fois de Swy (pacel)
37. J.P.M. van der Ploeg et A.S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte
XI de Qumrdn (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 86s. Noter que Job. 42.7-9 s'adresse a
Eliphaz de Teyman.
38. Propose d'abord par Dupont-Sommer, 'Remarques linguistiques', p. 49, et
assez souvent retenu par la suite, a 1'exception de Grelot et de Beyer.
39. La formule Smc bql- est tres frequente en ouest-semitique si bien que la
precision bslty en tete du recit n'est pas indispensable d'une part. D'autre part, est-il
indispensable que la fin de la ligne renferme 1'idee d'une supplication, wbcyt/wslyt
Mh3, cly}]] motivant le pardon-reponse de Dieu, voir Dan. 4.31? II est tout a fait
normal et attendu que le roi invoque son dieu, surtout dans un etat de detresse, cela
va sans dire, alors que la reponse divine n'est pas automatique et peut se faire
attendre, comparer les nombreuses steles qui se finissent par ky $mc qly/h, sans qu'il
ait etc auparavant explicitement question de priere au dieu.
218
se faire apres Ih, a comprendre comme pronom accusatif de rappel

reprenant le complement d'objet direct place en tete de la phrase.40
Cette solution parait bien preferable a celle qui ferait commencer une
proposition nominale par Ih gzr sans le verbe hwh,41 et a celle qui
corrigerait Ih en ly ou qui le comprendrait comme datif ethique ainsi
qu'on 1'a deja signale. A son encontre, on ne peut invoquer une
hypothetique interpretation de Faction du gzr qui depend avant tout de
presupposes et non du texte preserve. Dans ce cas, hfy serait a lire au
singulier comme le qere et probablement aussi le ketib en Dan. 4.24.
Ainsi la phrase suivante commence tout normalement avec gzr, en
construction parataxique comme a la 1. 2 [3nh nbny..., immediatement
suivie d'une incise, phrase nominale coordonnee precisant 1'identite du
gzr. L'incise ne fait pas de difficulte vu les paralleles en Dan. 2.25; 5.13
et 6.14,42 mais 1'espace des fragments n'autorise pas la restitution de gbr
entre whw3 et yhwdy. Le gentilice y remplace la construction genitivale
dy yhwd dans les trois exemples de Daniel, et le pronom whw3 doit
remplacer gbr dy de Dan. 2.25, dny}l dy de Dan. 6.14, et 5.13 renforce
encore la construction par 3nth (hw3)...43
Reste a preciser le sens de gzr que 1'editeur a rendu par 'devin', sens
qui a ete conteste pour celui d"exorciste'.44 Mais ou est-il question
d'exorcismes ou de guerison par 1'intermediate d'un tiers dans les mots
preserves du manuscrit? Ces lignes different considerablement du
passage parfois invoque de IQApGen. col. 20.28-29 ou Pharaon
demande a Abraham de prier pour lui et sa maison, ce que ce dernier fit
en lui imposant les mains et le mal fut ecarte et 1'esprit malin chasse. En
40. Ainsi que 1'a explique Grelot (1978), pp. 488-89, suivi par Cross (qui hesite
toutefois entre un casus pendens et le participe passif suivi du /-, quoique $bq puisse
difficilement etre analyse comme un participe passif Sbyq). Jongeling et al., p. 263 et
van der Woude (pp. 124-25) ne retiennent pas 1'explication par le datif ethique ni par
le pronom de rappel qui supposerait, selon eux, la forme Ihfy Sbq Ih, mais autant la
particule est necessaire pour le pronom de rappel, autant elle est facultative pour
1'accusatif place en tete.
41. Avec Grelot (1978, p. 489), malgre Jongeling et al. (p. 128) et van der
Woude (pp. 124-25).
42. Une lecture yhwdy b[3dyn (Beyer [p. 223]) est totalement exclue, le mem de
m[n est certain, tete et base.
43. C'est aussi la solution de Cross (p. 262), mais avec une autre explication.
44. Dupont-Sommer (1958-60; 1960), accepte en particulier par Carmignac,
Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez (1992 [pp. 125-26]), qui en font le sujet de
Sbq hty.
219
4QPrNab, il n'est nullement question de Tune ou 1'autre de ces interventions. II est simplement question de 'pardon du peche' de Nabonide,
certainement par Dieu. Enfin, dans les listes de Dan. 2.27; 4.4; 5.7 et 11
enumerant les sages (hkymy3), enchanteurs (3Spy3\ magiciens (hrtmy3),
chaldeens (ksdy3), les gzry* viennent toujours en dernier et le mot n'est
pas traduit en grec mais simplement translittere, yaapr|voi, que Ton
traduit habituellement et a juste litre par 'devin', 'un determineur de
sorts', celui qui donne son avis au roi.45 Ce sens premier convient
parfaitement au passage de 4QPrNab comme introduction a la 1. 5.
L'espace suggere de completer ainsi la phrase commencee par gzr - xx th3 cly w3mr] oul fl qdmy w3mr], 'un devinxxvint chez moi et dit]',
comparer Dan. 4.4: cllyn (absolu) NN, et 4.5: cl qdmy dny>l mais dans ce
dernier passage le roi a expressement donne 1'ordre de faire entrer les
sages...46
-1. 5: la principale difficulte de cette ligne reside dans 1'analyse des
formes des deux verbes coordonnes, hhwy wktb + infinitif: deux parfaits
a la 3e pers. ou deux imperatifs?47 La reconstruction proposee a opte
pour des imperatifs48 au lieu de parfaits.49 Le hafell de hwy signifie
'notifier, faire savoir' et, en parallele a wktb 'et ecris', signifie 'fais
savoir par ecrit'. Ces deux verbes suivis non d'une subordonnee mais
d'un infinitif pecal, lmcbd + accusatif + /- (substantif), litteralement au
sens de 'pour rendre, servir x a y', n'exigent plus d'etre suivis d'un
complement d'objet, ni d'un complement d'attribution designant les
personnes auxquelles le message s'adresserait et qui devraient executer
1'ordre royal.50 Le devin demande simplement au roi Nabonide de faire
45. Avec Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al, van der Woude, Grelot, Cross, Beyer.
Rien dans ce passage ne suggere qu'on ait affaire a des 'conjurateurs, exorcistes'. Le
sens 'exorciste' aurait etc connu du grec. La stele de Harran H 2 A III 1-2 connait les
baru-devin et Sa '//w-oniromancien.
46. Cette lecture de la 1. 4 ne permet pas de completer bbbl whw3 >mr ly] (Garcia
Martinez [1992], p. 126), ni meme bbbl }mr ly] un peu trop court. Par ailleurs, le
devin doit venir en presence du roi (comp. whw* >mr ly de van der Woude).
47. La lecture hhwy est certaine malgre Beyer qui lit hw[y]ny, nun est impossible
(tete de waw).
48. Avec Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338, Carmignac, Jongeling et al., van der
Woude, Grelot (1978), p. 490 (sans exclure 1'autre possibilite), FitzmyerHarrington, Cross, Garcia Martinez.
49. Milik, Meyer.
50. Ce genre de remarque a etc finement formule par Grelot([1978], p. 490),
mais il n'y a pas necessairement dans cette ligne un ordre royal que les sujets
220
connaitre par ecrit son salut pour la gloire et 1'honneur du nom du Dieu
qui en est 1'auteur.51 II s'agit done avant tout d'un recit des merveilles
de salut, du type des steles royales a la gloire d'un dieu auquel on doit
comparer le contenu de Dan. 3.32: 'les signes et les prodiges qu'a fait
pour moi le Dieu Tres-Haut, il m'a plu de les faire connaitre'.
Etant donne 1'espacement des fgg., la seule lecture possible est yqr
wrfbjw l$m 3[lh3,52 qu'on doit a peu pres certainement completer par
c
ly> dans la bouche du devin juif, cette fois probablement a identifier a
Daniel, comp. Dan. 5.18, ou bien lire 3[lh My3, comp. Dan. 2.37,44,...,
dont la signification serait identique.53 La fin de la ligne peut se
completer wkn ktbt kdy, 'et ainsi j'ecrivis lorsque]'54 ou}nh'...moi]\55
preferable a w3rw/ w3lw 3nh nbny] ou a h3 3nh nbny].566 On pourrait
proposer wkn ou (w)kdnh ktbt 3nh]...
-1. 6: la restauration b[3y$3] comble parfaitement la premiere lacune.57
devraient executer sans condition, comme 1'entendent plusieurs auteurs, Milik,
Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Grelot, Beyer.
51. Voir en ce sens Dupont-Sommer ([1959], p. 338), Carmignac, FitzmyerHarrington, Cross, Garcia Martinez.
52. Avec Cross. Mais la trace d'encre sur le fg. 2 a droite de ISm est celle d'un
triangle (= tete du waw), non celle d'un petit trait droit (pour tete de re$), confirmant
encore une fois 1'espacement propose. II est done exclu de lire yqr wr[bw(t) whdjr,
Milik, Meyer, Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338 (Carmignac: deux mots), Jongeling
et al., van der Woude, Grelot, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez (1992), en
s'inspirant de Dan. 5.18 qui contient 4 substantifs et dans 1'ordre suivant: mlkwt3
wrbwf \vyqr3 whdrh.
53. On ne peut lire ici 3[lh3 sans autre qualificatif comme le propose Beyer.
54. Avec Jongeling et al., van der Woude, Garcia Martinez.
55. Avec Cross. Fitzmyer-Harrington proposent wkn ktbt, certainement trop
court. Dupont-Sommer (1959), 'et j'ecrivis ceci' (wktbt dnh?), est aussi trop court.
La proposition de Grelot, w3nth kdy, trop courte, poursuit le discours du devin. La
restauration de Beyer est beaucoup trop courte.
56. En s'inspirant de 1'emploi des particules en Dan. 2.31; 4.7, 10; 7.8 (2x)
(w3lw); 7.2, 5, 6, 7, 13 (w3rw) ou 2.43; 3.25 (h3) qui ouvriraient trop rapidement le
discours direct.
57. Proposition de Milik avant la decouverte du petit fragment jointif au fg. 2, et
acceptee par Dupont-Sommer (1959), p. 338, qui s'en tient a ce seul mot pour la 1.6,
alors qu'il proposait une distance plus grande entre les fragments aux 11. 1-5. II y a l
une impossibilite qu'avait vue Carmignac (p. 294) proposant peut-etrewSryt...],
mais que n'ont pas remarquee Fitzmyer-Harrington. Les autres auteurs lisent wSryt
(Grelot, Garcia Martinez) mais ce mot est trop long pour 1'espace aux 11. 1-5, ou
laissent un espace non comble (Jongeling et al., van der Woude). Seuls Cross et
221
La fin de la ligne doit se completer [bptgm W c/y, ou 3lh $my>, voir 1.

2, mais cette fois avec le qualificatif exige par 1'intervention du devin juif
a la 1. 5.58 Un mot est encore necessaire pour completer la ligne,
probablement w3nh], au sens fort, 'et moi = alors que moi' reprenant
^/idelal. 5.59
-1. 7: la restauration de la fin de la ligne qui assure la largeur originelle
de la colonne est certaine,60 voir Dan. 5.23 wPlhy ksp3 wdhb3 nhP przP
x3 3 3
w bn et dans un ordre different, Dan. 5.4 Plhy dhb3 wksp3 nhS przP
X3 3
w bn3, chaque fois cependant sans hsp3 (voir 2.33 et 45) mais avec la
coordination dans w3bn3. La premiere lacune dont la dimension est
connue ne peut contenir qu'un seul mot, plus probablement qdm (Dan.
6.II), 6 1 preferable a I k l , redondant et tautologique devant une
enumeration.62
-1. 8: la restauration de la lacune ne peut etre que [ hwyt sb]r dans le
style des 11. 6-8.63
-1. 9: cette ligne dont il ne reste que des traces de lettres lues Jmyhwn
par Milik, porte une longue correction supralineaire qui va du fg. 1 et
court sur toute la largeur du fg. 3. Milik a propose de lire en 9a: 3w.[]
d..$lm[-]..[. Nous proposerions de lire 3wb[, puis sur le fg. 3 ]dbh
Beyer a sa fa9on ont tenu compte d'une distance fixe pour 1'ensemble des lignes du
fg.2.
58. La restitution de Dupont-Sommer (1959) '[et mon visage (?) n'etait plus
semblable a celui des fils d'homme (?)]' ne s'accorde pas avec la sequence mais elle
a etc en partie retenue par Fitzmyer-Harrington, et elle est aussi trop courte.
59. Jongeling et al., et van der Woude ne completent pas, Grelot supplee w'nth
selon la logique de la restauration de la 1. 5. Cross, suivi par Garcia Martinez, supplee
w'nh, qui semble preferable a (k)dy (Carmignac) qui laisserait supposer que
Nabonide n'aurait prie ses dieux que durant ces sept annees!
60. Malgre Beyer qui estime la ligne complete avec le fg. 3.
61. Avec Cross et Beyer, au lieu de qdm kl de Grelot et de Garcia Martinez.
62. Malgre Dupont-Sommer, suivi par Fitzmyer-Harrington, et cette fois encore
trop court pour 1'espace suppose aux 11. 1-5. C'est pourquoi Jongeling et al. et va
der Woude ont supplee wSbht Iplhy, d'apres Dan. 5.4 (et 23), mais Grelot a
justement fait remarquer qu'on peut difficilement mettre en parallele une conjugaison
periphrastique msl3 hwyt et un verbe au parfait wSbfit.
63. Avec Dupont-Sommer (?), Meyer (p. 27), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Cross,
Garcia Martinez (qui n'observe pas cette fois la grandeur de la lacune supposee aux
lignes precedentes), mais hwyt msb]r (Jongeling et al.} est trop long. Ayant choisi
une plus grande distance, Grelot y introduit [hwyt }nth sb]r en poursuivant le
discours du devin. La restauration de Beyer [}sb]r est trop courte et totalement
inadaptee aux ecarts retenus pour d'autres lignes.
222
$lm[?]qd[.M Ces restes peuvent se completer ainsi: >wb[d/lwIJdbh Sim

qdfmyhwn. L'espace entre les fragments suggere la presence d'un mot
assez court comme twryn 'des taureaux' ou plus difficilement 3mr 'un
agneau'. Dans ce cas on proposerait de completer les restes des 11. 8dy klhwn ou mieux dy bqly /bmsly hww 9$mcyn bc]yt[ rhjmyhwn [mn
qdmyhwn. Le mot rhmyn se construit normalement avec bch qui, lui,
regit la construction mn qdm + divinite, Dan. 2.18 avec rhmyn, voir qdm
+, 6.12, mn (kl) -, 6.8. En Dan. 5.23 11 est dit des divinites 'qu'elles ne
voient pas, n'entendent pas et ne comprennent pas'. Or nous avons deja
propose de lire $mf + divinite + b-qly/msly a la fin de la 1. 3. II pourrait y
avoir un rappel de cette formule soit en reprenant 1'ensemble des
divinites avec dy klhwn et $mc a 1'absolu ($mcyn)'qui tous
entend(r)aient', soit en lisant dy bqly/msly...'qui i ma priere
entend(r)aient'. Une restauration a 1'inaccompli yhwwn au lieu du parfait
hww ajouterait une nuance modale 'parce que je pensais qu'ils etaient
des dieux qui entendraient ma priere'. La correction supralineaire
semble faire allusion a des sacrifices offerts precisement a ces divinites
pour qu'elles entendent et exaucent la priere du roi pour sa 'guerison'.
On ne peut pas s'empecher de comparer Job 42.8 ou Dieu demande a
Eliphaz en holocauste 1'offrande de sept taureaux et de sept beliers! Le
verbe 3wb[dw devrait etre la forme hofal,construit avec /-, au sens de
'on a detruit (par le feu), ont ete immoles', comp. Dan. 5.11 (mais dans
ce cas pas en sacrifice) ou mieux 3wb[lw, 'on amefna', comparer Job
42.8 qhw lkm...wlkw... Le sacrifice dbh Sim, 'sacrifice de salut (par le
feu)', est bien connu des Semites de 1'ouest, en particulier de la religion
Israelite.65 La demande des faveurs divines suppose un culte au temple
royal de Teyman ou etaient deposees les statues des dieux.66 L'erreur du
64. Du bet on voit encore le trait a droite de la base. Sur le fg. 3, restes du bet
(haste assez courte) apres le dalet deja lu, et tete de het, espace, Sin probable avec
depart du trait courbe et du trait median, lamed, mem final, espacement apparemment
sans restes d'ecriture, partie de la tete de qofou samek et reste de trait droit ( (alef,
dalet, zairi).
65. Voir par exemple R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de I'Ancien Testament, II
(Paris: Cerf, 1967), pp. 294, 307, 324, ou Les sacrifices de I'Ancien Testament
(Cahiers de la RB, 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964), pp. 44-48. Au dire des historiens,
Nabonide serait d'origine ouest-semitique, honorant particulierement le dieu Sin de
Harran, y compris a Teyman, lieu de culte de ce dieu. L'emploi de dbh Sim au
singulier se lit en Amos 5.22, et est traduit acorripiov par les LXX.
66. II est certain que Nabonide a construit une residence palatiale et au moins un
223
copiste s'expliquerait par une faute du meme au meme, ici par

homeoteleuton avec qdmyhwn qui devrait done etre le dernier mot de la
correction supralineaire. On est ainsi assure de n'avoir affaire qu'a une
copie de la Priere de Nabonide.
La largeur ainsi obtenue pour la premiere colonne mesure environ 12
cm de marge a marge, avec de courts depassements a gauche, ce qui est
la dimension la plus frequente des colonnes dans les manuscrits
qumraniens. Cette solution qui tient compte des fragments et du contenu
devrait s'imposer.
Fragment 4. Par la qualite legerement differente du cuir, le fg. 4
appartiendrait a une autre feuille du rouleau, la deuxieme(?).67 II se place
dans la partie gauche d'une colonne (1. 1), vraisemblablement la partie
superieure (a la hauteur des lignes 7-8 ?) mais son appartenance au
rouleau ne peut etre mise en doute.
-1. 1: cette ligne comporte deux difficultes: le sens de 3hlmt et la
lecture du premier mot. Les auteurs suivent generalement 1'editeur,
7w/br.68 Mais sans parler des difficultes grammaticales, cette lecture est
peu assuree. Le cuir retreci par le haut a quelque peu deforme les lettres
(voir le sommet de la haste du lamed de la 1. 2) a lire en toute certitude
]mcbd, fam touchant la base du bet, restes du mem et dalet, comparer
lmcbd en col. 1. 5, la cassure est en biseau. Le sens de yhlmt depend du
contexte,69 mais dans les restes preserves, il n'est nulle part question de
'guerison', simplement degzr qui n'est pas un exorciste mais un 'devin',
interprete des songes, voir Dan. 4.4:... wgzry3 whim3 >mr, chapitre
parallele ou le songe et son interpretation tiennent une place centrale.
Sans doute, la col i 2-3 et 6 connait 1'expression bShn3 b3yS3 kty$ hwyt,
mais rien ne permet de 1'entrevoir dans ces lignes lacuneuses.70 Dans le
temple a Teyman pendant son long sejour de 10 ans, voir Gadd, 'The Harran
Inscriptions', p. 80.
67. Milik (p. 408), 'done a la col IV au moins', de meme van der Woude.
68. Ou lisent m]lbr, Jongeling et al, voir Grelot ([1978], p. 493), ou ]gbr,
Beyer, lecture totalement a exclure.
69. Soil 'avoir un songe' de him I (Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der
Woude, Grelot [?], soit 'etre raffermi' de him II (Dupont-Sommer [1959], p. 338,
Carmignac, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez [1992], p. 128) selon le sens que
Ton veut imposer a cette ligne.
70. IQApGen xx 16-25 connait 1'emploi de rwh mktS, rwh fry?, mais aussi
1'appel aux 'sages, magiciens et guerisseurs ('sy3) pour le guerir (I'sywth)' (11. 1920), vocabulaire absent des lignes preservees de 4QPrNab.
224
doute et sans la mention de 'guerisseur', n'est-il pas preferable d'opter

pour 'la consultation de I'interprete des songes', voir encore Jer. 29.8 et
targum?71 Avec la lecture ]mcbd, hmwn pourrait renvoyer aux dieux.
-1. 2: la lecture de 1'editeur Jmnh 3h[l]p Sim $l[wtya etc remise en
cause par Beyer mais sans appui paleographique.72 La lecture Jmnh
parait exclue, la sequence nh est precedee d'un taw certain et tres
probablement d'un mem medial allonge (comp. i 2). Puis nous preferons
de beaucoup lire 3h[l]k [?]$lm $l[wty. Le mot 3hlk etait-il suivi de [1]Sim,
comp. 1 Sam. 20.13; 2 Rois 5.19? Malgre le rapetissement de 1'espace
par la deformation du cuir, il ne semble pas qu'il y ait place pour un
lamed, a moins d'une lettre tres reduite. On a done affaire a un hafel l de
hlk. Nous completerions ainsi pour le sens et 1'espace 2[gzr hd yhwdy
mn bny glwf wbkjmtnh 3h[l]k Sim $l[wty, 'un devin, un juif d'entre les
membres de la deportation, et en comme] cadeau, il appo[r]ta le salut de
[ma] tranqui[llite.'
-1. 3: la lecture de 1'editeur ]..nw n'est pas assuree d'apres les
reproductions, seule la planche publiee par Meyer (face a la p. 16) laisse
voir la cassure entre le 'nun' et une haste de lettre. En fait, 1'etude des
photographies et de 1'original a la binoculaire demande de lire sade le
soi-distant 'nun', une partie de la tete a droite est encore visible. La
haste precedant la cassure porte sur la droite la trace d'un trait oblique
pres de la cassure du fragment et est encore visible le bas d'une haste a
quelque 4 mm a droite, soit J...sw, a lire surement Jw/yrsw,fal'ncertain
vu la hauteur du trait sur la haste d'un re$ (dalet ou het, lettre a tete a
gauche). La racine frs n'est pas encore attestee, a notre connaissance, en
arameen ancien, mais elle est connue en hebreu, syriaque et arabe, au
sens de 'trembler (de terreur, de peur)' en hebreu et en arabe, et au sens
de 'arriver inopinement ou meme violemment' en syriaque.73 Ce sens
71. II n'est pas ininteressant de noter la part que tient le 'reve' et son
interpretation dans les transmission et connaissance des ordres divins dans les recits
des steles de Nabonide, H 2 I 11, III 3 (Gadd, The Harran Inscriptions', pp. 57 et
63), tout comme en Dan. 4 qui lui est parallele.
72. Beyer lit et comprend ainsi: 3hlmt [w'mr ly h}] 3nth }rz \v[l]3lm Sl[m. Mais
aucune des nouvelles lectures n'est paleographiquement acceptable, en particulier les
sequences 3nt et ri w[l]c.
73. Voir R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus, II (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1901), col. 2996s., pe'al: accidit inopinato (traduit ETIIÊVtotal de Sir. 29.27),
advenit,..., parfois violenter (part, passif), d'ou en fran?ais 'survenir, arriver
subitement, a 1'improviste'.
225
convient parfaitement dans un passage, avec 'mes amis', rhmy, au lieu

de 'mes entrailles'.74
-1. 4: la lecture de 1'editeur ne fait pas de difficulte, sauf que nous
prefererions lire he dans lh[ a l.[ pour ld[nyl,15a 5comprendre 'lui' ou
'leur' (lh[mwn ?). Le singulier pourrait rappeler le sujet principal du reve
a quoi 1'interprete comparerait le roi, et le pluriel pourrait faire allusion a
d'autres realties.76
-1. 5: nous lisons ].l[?]..[, lamed sous Yalefdeee ynth.
La relation du fg. 4 a la col. i n'est pas claire, mais sur plusieurs
colonnes disparues devaient etre poursuivis le recit traitant de
1'impuissance des dieux adores par Nabonide, celui d'un songe du roi
qui 1'avait trouble, celui de la presence a Teyman et de la maladie, de
1'inefficacite des magiciens, de la convocation du devin juif et de
1'interpretation du songe, le recit de la 'guerison' par le Dieu Tres-Haut
et de la confession du Dieu unique. Le fragment 4 semble se situer au
niveau de la venue du devin juif et de 1'interpretation.
Le rapprochement de ces lignes avec le recit du songe de
Nabuchodonosor en Dan. 3.31-4.34 a ete souligne a bon droit avec le
changement du nom du roi. Le Nabonide historique de la chute de
Baby lone devient Nabuchodonosor de la chute de Jerusalem, le recit de
Texil' de sept ans et non de la presence de dix ans a Teyman se deroule
cette fois a Babylone ou sont exiles sous Nabuchodonosor les juifs parmi
lesquels se trouve le meilleur interprete des songes, Daniel. La maladie,
un ulcere malin rappelant une des plaies d'Egypte (Ex. 9.8-11) et une
espece de folie,77 est re"duite a une sorte de folie en Dan. 4, mais 1'une et
1'autre doivent amener a la confession du Dieu Tres-Haut et de sa toutepuissance.
74. Meyer explicitait 1'hypothese de Milik 'se sont remuees' en lisant >annu de
nn. Mais la lecture de Beyer est impensable ].[w]nw. Le choix entre 'mes amis' et
'mes entrailles' (Milik, Meyer, Jongeling et al., van der Woude) etait delicat dans la
lecture precedente.
75. Milik (p. 410), Dupont-Sommer ([1959], p. 338), Fitzmyer-Harrington,
Garcia Martinez ([1992], p. 132).
76. Voir Milik (p. 410, n. 7): des etres angeliques. Cf. Job 7.2.
77. La stele de Harran H 2 A I 21-22 et 30 rapporte que les sujets du roi furent
punis de leur impiete envers Sin par la fievre et la famine mais que les dieux avaient
veille sur la sante et la vie du roi a Teyman (lieu de culte de Sin) mais de la part du
parti des pretres de Marduk, retraite au desert et culte sont compris comme une folie
sacrilege du roi.
226
Malgre la proximite de presentation, le passage de Daniel depend ties

vraisemblablement de 4QPrNab.78 Une meme dependance semble
verifiee pour Dan. 2-6 comme 1'a justement souligne McNamara
etudiant la figure du Nabonide historique, 1'edification de la statue a son
dieu Sin et la figure de Nabuchodonosor dans le livre de Daniel.79 Mais
dans ce genre de recit a la fois edifiant et apologetique, la guerison
rapportee au dieu Sin dans les re"cit babyloniens est attribute a la
reconnaissance-confession du Dieu Tres-Haut qui a pardonne la faute du
roi, grace a 1'intervention d'un exile, undevin juif qui sert de 'revelateur'
de la toute-puissance du Dieu Unique. Dans 1'un et 1'autre cas, il s'agit
d'une transformation juive d'une meme source babylonienne. Mais
dans les passages preserves de 4QPrNab, il n'est nullement question
d'exorciste, ce que le sens du mot gzr ne favorise pas, et le contexte ne
1'exige pas davantage. II n'y a done pas la un trait de la doctrine
essenienne,80 alors que 1'ecrit presente toutes les caracteristiques d'un
ecrit pre-qumranien et meme pre-danielique.
Par sa critique de 1'idolatrie et la gloire a rendre au nom du Dieu TresHaut, cette 'Priere' rapporte avant tout une histoire de confession au
Dieu unique qui seul peut pardonner la faute du coupable, fut-il le 'roi
des quatres coins du monde'. Et 1'instruction de mise par ecrit de cette
confession royale avait pour but, dans 1'intention du devin juif, de
provoquer 1'adhesion des sujets du royaume. L'historiette favorable aux
Juifs a Teyman sous Nabonide est devenue avec Daniel une historiette
78. Comme 1'avait deja souligne Milik, suivi par Meyer (pp. 34ss.), Jongeling et
al., van der Woude, Grelot ([1978], p. 494), Beyer, malgre I'opinion contraire de
Dupont-Sommer ([1959]; [1960], pp. 260-61), ou celle en faveur d'une source
commune (Carmignac,. p. 339), Garcia Martinez ([1992],p. 290).
79. McNamara (p. 136) estime, avec d'autres, que la statue du dieu a ete
inauguree avant le sejour a Teyman et non apres. La presence de Juifs a Teyman qui
lui parait hautement probable ou celle des exiles en Babylonie aurait favorise ce genre
de recit favorable a Nabonide, recit plus tard attribue a Nabuchodonosor depeint sous
un jour lui aussi favorable et necessairement anterieur & 1'epoque maccabeenne et au
regne de 1'impie Antiochus IV Epiphane, de m6me Grelot ([1978], pp. 494-95).
80. Malgre Dupont-Sommer, Les ecrits esseniens, pp. 338-41, 'Exorcismes et
guerisons', pp. 260s. Cette histoire de confession theologique plus que de guerison
ne contribue en rien a renforcer la these de 1'origine essenienne de la litterature de
Qumran. A ce propos, on ne peut davantage s'appuyer sur une etymologic plus que
discutable du mot 'essenien' = guerisseur = therapeute, comme certains le proposent
encore a la suite de G. Vermes, voir par exemple Carmignac, Les textes de Qumran,
p. 291; Garcia Martinez, The Prayer of Nabonidus', p. 136.
227
favorable aux Juifs exiles a Babylone par Nabuchodonosor. Meme

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

IN TARGUMIC AND BIBLICAL STUDIES
7957
'De populi Aramaeorum primordiis',VerfoMm Domini 35 (1957), pp. 129-42.
1960 0
'Second Peter. A Reconsideration', Scripture 12 (1960), pp. 13-19.
7967
Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1961).
7962
'The Emmanuel Prophecy and its Context', Scripture 14 (1962), pp. 118-25.
1963 3
'The Emmanuel Prophecy and its Context', Scripture 15 (1963), pp. 19-23; 80-88.
7965
'Novum Testamentum et Targum palaestinense ad Pentateuchum', Verbum Domini
43 (1965), pp. 288-300.
7966
The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966).
'The Aramaic Translations: A Newly Recognised Aid for New Testament Study',
Scripture 18 (1966), pp. 47-56 (= Irish Ecclesiastical Record 109 [1968], pp.
158-65).
'The Jerusalem Bible', Doctrine and Life 16 (1966), pp. 689-91.
'Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch',
Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), pp. 1-15.
'Targumic Studies', CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 1-19.
7967
'The Ascension and the Exaltation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel', Scripture 19
(1967), pp. 65-73.
'Daniel, Book of, New Catholic Encyclopedia 4 (1967), pp. 633-36.
230
'Jewish Liturgy and the New Testament', The Bible Today 33 (1967), pp. 2324-32.
Targums' [sub Bible, IV, 11], New Catholic Encyclopedia 2 (1967), pp. 431-33.
1968
(with Michael Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1.
Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 1. Genesis

(Madrid/Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968).
'God's Living Word: The Infancy Narratives and Midrash', Doctrine and Life 18
(1968), pp. 701-705.
'Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 12:42)', The
Expository Times 79 (1968), pp. 115-17.
'Seventy Weeks of Years (Dan 9, 24-27)', New Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1968),
pp. 141-2.
'Susanna', New Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1968), pp. 825-6, 1 fig.
'Were the Magi Essenes?', Irish Ecclesiastical Record 110 (1968), pp. 305-28.
1969
'Daniel', in New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson, 1969),
pp. 650-75.
'Jeremiah', in New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson,
1969), pp. 601-24.
'The Liturgical Assemblies and Religious Worship of the Early Christians',
Concilium 2, no. 5 (1969), pp. 12-19.
1970
(with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1.
Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 2. Exodo (Madrid/
Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1970).
'Jewish Law and the Gospels', The Bible Today 47 (1970), pp. 3237-43.
'Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel', ITQ 37 (1970), pp. 131-49.
7977
(with M. Maher) English translation of Neofiti 1 in A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1.
Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 3. Levitico (Madrid/
Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1971).
7972
Targum and Testament. Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the
New Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1972).
7973
The Age of Transition (Dublin: Veritas, 1973).
'Some Considerations on the Form of Aramaic Spoken in New Testament Palestine
in the Light of Early Aramaic Evidence', ITQ 40 (1973), pp. 281-85.
231
1974
Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 4. Numeros
7976
'Targums', IDBSup (1976), pp. 856-61 (New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1976).
7977
'The Spoken Aramaic of First Century Palestine', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical
Association 2 (1977), pp. 95-138.
1978
I targum e il Nuovo Testamento (Studi Biblici; Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1978)
(= Italian translation of Targum and Testament [1972]).
The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (second printing,
with Supplement containing additions and corrections; AnBib, 27A; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978).
Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5. Deuteronomio
'to de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en te Arabia (Gal 4, 25a): Paul and Petra', Milltown
Studies 2 (1978), pp. 24-41.
7979
'Discernment Criteria in Israel. True and False Prophets', Concilium 119 (1979),
pp. 3-13.
'Half a Century of Targum Study', Irish Bible Studies 1 (1979), pp. 157-68.
Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns
of Religion (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), JSNT 5
(1979), pp. 67-73.
1981
'Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim', in R. Fabris (ed.), Problemi e prospettive di
Scienze Bibliche (Brescia: Queriniana, 1981), pp. 67-109.
'Some Recent Books on the Targums', Scripture Bulletin 12 (1981), pp. 68-70.
1982
'Some Recent Writings on Rabbinic Literature and the Targums', Milltown Studies 9
(1982), pp. 59-101 (= English text of 'Letteratura rabbinica e i targumim'
[1981]).
1983
Intertestamental Literature (Old Testament Message, 23; Wilmington, DE: Michael
Glazier, 1983).
232
Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier,
1983).
1984
'Review of Some Recent Targum Editions', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical
Association 8 (1984), pp. 39-48.
1986
Les ecrits de la periode intertestamentaire (Montreal: Fides, 1986) (= French
translation of Intertestamental Literature [1983]).
'On Englishing the Targums', in D. Munoz Leon (ed.), Salvacion en la Palabra.
Targum-Derash-Berith. En memoria del profesor Alejandro Diez Macho
(Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986), pp. 447-61.
1987
'Inspiration', in J.A. Komonehak, M. Collins and D. Lane (eds.), The New
Dictionary of Theology (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1987), pp. 522-26.
'Some Issues and Recent Writings on Judaism and the New Testament', Irish
Biblical Studies 9 (1987), pp. 131-50.
1988
'Midrash, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine: Some Facts in Quest of a
Terminology', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 11 (1988), pp. 6787.
7997
'Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) Numbers Chapter 21', Studien
zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Ser. A., 16 (1991), pp. 127-49.
7992
Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1992).
'The Language Situation in First Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek',
Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 15 (1992), pp. 7-36.
7993
'Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers Chapter 24',
Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 16 (1993), pp. 57-79.
7994
(Editor, with D.R.G. Beattie) The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their Historical
Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
(with R. Hayward) Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994).
233
(with R. Hay ward) Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus (The Aramaic Bible, 3; Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994).
'The Michael Glazier-Liturgical Press Aramaic Bible Project: Some Reflections in
the Aramaic Bible', in D.R.G. Beattie and M. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic
Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (1994), pp. 103-15.
7995
Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers (The Aramaic Bible, 4; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1995).
'Midrash, Apocrypha, Culture Medium and Development of Doctrine. Some Facts
in Quest of a Terminology', Apocrypha6 (1995), pp. 67-104.
INDEXES
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
1.2
1.28
2.2-3
2.7
2.8
2.17
2.21-22
2.23
2.25
3.1
3.2
3.6
3.14
3.17-19
3.20
3.34
4.1
4.10-14
4.17
4.21
4.22
4.23
5.3
5.28-29
6.3
6.8
7.11
8.2
8.4
8.21
9.21-24
9.24
9.25
9.26-27
32
35
33
33
34
198
197
34
35
35, 36
36
37
35, 36
196
36
197
36, 37,
195
195
38
39
39
38
37
39
32
40,53
32
32
40
40
70
70
70
70, 75
9.26
9.27
10.21
10.21 (V)
10.25
11.8
11.9
11.10-11
11.10
11.18-26
11.28
14.16
14.18-24
14.18
70
40,70
69
69
41
41
41
78
78
41
42
79
67
43, 67,
72
151
15.9-18
44
16.11
16.14
45
16.15
45,46
44
17.1-10
17.5
46, 47,
49,50
17.15
47
17.17
47,48
17.19
47,48
19.19(LXX) 53,59
19.20
48
19.22
48
19.37
49
49
19.38
47, 48
21.6
21.17
45,46
202
24.1-67
24.62
68
214
25.15
25.17
45
25.27
26.12
29.1-21
29.20
29.31
29.35
30.2
30.6
30.22
31.21
32.24-31
34.7
35.9-12
36.12
36.33
39.21
46.17
47.25 (V)
49
49.1
49.17-18
49.17
49.18
41
143
202
55
36
125
36
125
36
132
77
109
77
125, 130
109
52
123
54
126
126
137
125, 127
125, 127
Exodus
2.16-21
2.18
2.21
3.1
3.2
3.21
4.17
4.18
6.18
7.8-13
8.16-17
202
90
95
90
22
52
95
90
125, 130
95
95
235
Index of References
174
225
125, 132
95
148
95
52
22
52
125
96
22
125,
126, 133
22
18
90
18.1
22
18.4
129
19.2
129
19.20
33
20.8-11
22.27 (LXX) 59
33
23.12
169
28.30 (P)
33
31.12-17
129
34.2
56
34.6
34.6 (LXX) 59
125
40.10
9.3
9.8-11
9.20
9.23
10.4-5
10.13
11.3
12.8
12.36
13.17
14.21
15.1
17.16
Leviticus
3.1
4.3
4.5
4.10 (P).
4.16
6.16
26.22
26.26
26.31
169
172
172
172
172
172
149
144
142
Numbers
10.9
10.29
11.15 (LXX)
17.1-11
20.8
20.9
20.11
22
22.22
24
24.7
181
90
53
92
97
97
97
97
124
126
124, 135
24.17
27
27.1-11
27.8
36.1-12
126
105
102
102
102
2.15
4.11
9.7-20
9.45
174
90
24
150
1 Samuel
Deuteronomy
1.30
2.9
2.15
2.19
5.12-15
7.8
9.9
10.17
13.18 (LXX)
21.15-17
21.17
23.6
25.5-10
28.35
28.38-39
28.39
29,22
30.4
30.11-14
30.11
30.12
30.13
30.14
31.14
31.20-21
32
32.1
32.24
33
33.8 (P)
33.11
33.17
34.1-3
34.1
34.2
34.3
175
49
174
49
33
55
129
142
60
102
102
152
102
213
148
148
150
125
128
128
128
125, 128
129
125
127
127
125
149
126
169
124,
125, 136
125
131
125
125
125
44
147
170
Judges
1.17
2.35
2.35 (P)
2.36 (P)
10.8
12 (P)
12.2
12.7 (P)
12.14 (P)
12.15 (P)
12.16 (P)
12.24 (P)
13
13.4-15
13.7
13.9
13.11-12
13.14 (P)
13.20
14.16 (P)
16.6 (P)
16.7 (P)
20.13
20.19 (P)
24.13-14
25.28
27.7 (P)
28.4
28.5-6
28.6 (P)
29.3 (P)
31.1
31.8
36
36
170
170,
174
172
173
172,
168,
175
173
175
174
174
175,
175
170
170
170
168
170
171
39
167,
166,
166
224
167
174
173
165
170
170
169
165
170
170
2 Samuel
Joshua
10.1
10.11
19,18
1 Sam.
1.6
1.11
2.27-36
2.35-36 (P)
146
1.6
1.21
6.2 (P)
6.17-18
6.18 (P)
20.10-23
170
170
167
168
167
123
173
173
170
176
168
167
236
20.18-19
21.12
24.25
167
170
168
/ Kings
11.38
18.24
173
169
2 Kings
4.8
5.19
18
170
224
137
/ Chronicles
214
1.30
176
5.2
169
21.26
2 Chronicles
56
30.9
209
33.18-19
Ezra
16.9
16.10-11
16.10
16.12
16.13
199
200
199, 200
199
199
Nehemiah
5.19
8.8
9.7
13.31
181
41
47
181
Esther
2.9 (LXX)
2.15
2.15 (P)
2.17
3.2 (P)
5.2
5.2 (V)
60
52
59
52,58
59
52
54
Job
1.2-4
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.7
2.9 (LXX)
2.10
101
100
100
132
213
100
108, 109
3.10-11
6.19
7.2
10.18
14.1
15.14
2.10 (LXX)
22.9
24.3
24.21
25.4
29.13
31.1
31.9-12
31.9
39.6
42.7-9
42.8
42.9
42.15
Psalms
1 16
103.4 (LXX)
11 1.4 (LXX)
18
24.8
25.6
38.1
43.1 (P)
45.3 (P)
51
51.3
54
56
59
60
63
66.12
68.3
69.17
76.3
77.9-10
84.11 (LXX)
84.12 (P)
86.15
103.4
103.8
104.30
105.32-34
107.26
101
214
225
101
101
101
109
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
150
217
222
216, 217
101,
104, 107
60
59
16
142
56,58
181
60
53
16
56,58
16
16
16
16
16
170
149
56,58
72
58
59
53
56,58
56,58
56,58
32
148
32
107.35
110
110.4
111.4
112.4
114.3
115.12
142
145.17 (P)
145.8
201
44
67
56, 181
56
94
181
16
60
56, 58
Proverbs
5.19 (P)
10.7
11.16 (P)
13.15 (P)
17.8
22.1 (P)
53
180
53
53
52
53
Song of Songs
21
1-6
26
1.1-2.6
22
1.3-4
2.7-15
26
26
2.16-3.1 1
26
4-6
4.6
17
5.2
17
7-8
21, 23
24
8.1
8.5-14
26
26
7.1-9
7.10-8.4
26
Isaiah
1.21
5.10
9.5
10.21
11.10
13.19-22
21.14
30.30
34.11-17
34.11
40.1
42.6
43.2
49.6
51.8
54.7 (LXX)
55.1
44
143
142
142
201
149
214
147
149
32
40
201
170
201
149
60
201
237
Index of References
58.6
60.1
63.7
63.7 (LXX)
66.14
Jeremiah
16.5
4.23
5.6
8.17
13.26-27
16.5
17.6
18.11
25.23
26.18
26.24
29.8
31.1 (P)
34.18
49.35
50.39-40
216
32
56, 58
60
175
56
32
149
149
151
58
150
33
214
149
175
224
53
151
150
149
Lamentations
56,58
3.32
Etekiel
1 113
12.9
16.37-38
23.10
23.29
26.13
34.2
39.3
Daniel
1.9
2-6
2.18
2.25
2.27
2.31
2.33
2.37
2.44
111
151
151
151
148
116
151
56, 58
226
192, 222
218
219
220
221
220
220
2.45
3.26
3.31-4.34
3.32
4 224
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.10
4.13
4.20-22
4.20
4.21
4.22-33
4.22
4.24
4.29
4.31
5.4
5.7
5.11
5.13
5.18
5.21
5.23
6.8
6.11
6.12
6.14
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.13
7.25
8.11-12
9.26-27
11.31-39
Hosea
1.5
2.5
2.21
5.12
221
214
225
214, 220
214
219, 223
219
220
220
214
215
214
215
216
214
216, 218
214
217
221
219
219, 222
218
214, 220
214, 215
221, 222
222
221
222
218
213
220
220
220
220
220
220
215
200
200
200
150
151
56,58
149
8.14
9.6
13.7-8
149
150
149
Joel
2.13
56
Amos
1.4
1.7
5.21-22
5.22 (LXX)
9.1-4
149
149
142
222
149
Jonah
4.2
4.7
56
148
Micah
3.12
6.15
149
143
Nahum
1.14
2.14
3.4
3.5
3.13
3.15
145, 146
148
53
151
149
149
Zephaniah
2.9
2.13-15
3.17
150
149
142
Haggai
1.6
143
Zechariah
4.7 (P)
6.13
7.9
7.9.
9.9
12.10 (P)
53
173
58
56
199
53
238

APOCRYPHA
1 Esdras
5.12
5.13
4 Esdras
8.20
Tobit
1.22
213
213
5.9
13.4
13.10
155
155
155
209
13.13
14.6
156
155
Wisdom of Solomon
76
18..24
Ecclesiasticus
29.27
224
75
49.16
50.1
75
155
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
1.26.24
5.20-48
9.2
10.34
11.11
11.27
12.43-45
12.43
12.44
14.3-11
17.15
18.8
21.2
21.43
24.36
26.67
27.23
27.28
27.29
27.32
27.34
Mark
2.5-7
5.24-34
10.18
11.2
15.21
15.38
204
202
217
204
203
204
200
200
201
205
170
205
199
202
204
199
200
199
199
201
199
217
206
204
199
201
202
Luke
1.66
5.20
7.36-50
8.14
10.5
23.26
John
8.44
10.11
19.17
19.29
19.34
Acts
2 41
9.10
11.21
13.14
13.22
Romans
5.12-21
8.23-25
1-.6-8
16.25
175
217
206
154
206
201
37
204
201
200
197,
198, 200
160
175
171
171
196
198
129
192
2 Corinthians
22
2.15
Galatians
6.16
204
Ephesians
1.23
2.14
5.25-27
196
204
196
Colossians
1.20
2.14
204
195
Hebrews
4.1-11
7 44
7.1-3
7.2
7.4
33
67
73
79
James
5.14
5.16
216
216
Revelation
3.20
17
7.37
8.15-21
8.18
8.19
10.14
11.15
13.25-27
75
69
74
74, 76
69,74
78
79
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
Apocr. Gen.
13
22
44
44
Jub.
3.26-27
4.25-26
74
74
4.33
6.1-3
7.11
7.12
7.16
7.20
7.34
69,78
74
70
74
75
75
75
Index of References
19.27
21.7-10
32.1-17
45.16
75
74
77
74
Ps. Philo, Bib. Ant.

8.8
108
29.1-2
105
239
T. Job
1.6
25.10
26.6
46.1
47.3
Ps. Philo, LAB

19.11 1
96
106, 108
109
109
109
105
105
QUMRAN
llQtgJob
col. 38.2
IQApGen
xx 16-25
223
col. 20-28-29 218
IQapGen
22.13
73
4Q200
4.4
156
4Q306
1.13
154
4QPrNab
Frag. 1
1-3, 1.1
1-3
Frag. 2
Frag. 3
213
Frag. 4
211
6.12
6.13
216, 217
212
210,211
213
4QTob ar A
1.17
1.19
1.20
1.22 2
2.1
3.15
6.15
6.16
7.3
13.13
157
157,
158,
158
161
158,
157,
158
157
157
158,
4QTobarC
14.2
14.3
160
158
CDxiii
10
216
9.26
10.21
11.28
14.18
14.19
18.3
21.21
22.19
24.62
25.22
27.29
29.35
30.6
31.21
31.23
35.11
70
69
81
72
70,79
53
124
69,78
69,78
69, 78
97
125
125
125,132
132
77
6.15
6.18
7.1
160
160
158
160
4QTobarA,B
2.2
159
4QTobarB
5.21
6.11
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.9
8.21
13.13
161
157-59,
161
161
160
158,
160, 161
158, 160
157, 160
157
159
157
160
156
160
160
TARGUMIM
Targum Onqelos
Genesis
9.26
70
9.27
71
10.2121
69
14.18
72
14.20
79
34.7
110
43.14
55
43.30
55
Exodus
4.20
14.21
17.9
95
97
95
Leviticus
20.17-18
110
Numbers
10.9
181
Deuteronomy
13.14
55
13.18
55
Targum PseudoJonathan
Genesis
4.15
94,99
6.18
53
8.1
32
240
36.12
38.6
38.24
38.25
43.14
43.30
46.17
49.17
49.18
Exodus
1 88
1.15
1.17
1.18
2.5-10
2.18
2.21
4.20
6.18
7.11
9.20
12.36
13.17
14.21
15.25
17.9
17.16
28.30
33.4
33.6
40.10
Leviticus
4.3
Numbers
12.1
12.8
20.8-9
20.8
22.28
24
125, 130
73
73
125
55
55
123,
125, 130
125
125, 127
81
124
89
90
90
81,83,
84, 86,
90,
92-94,
97,99
92-95,
99
125, 137
124
125, 132
53
125
92, 93,
95, 97,
99
94
95
134, 135
94
93
93
125
137
87
87
96,99
94
91, 92,
99
135
24.7
24.22
25.13
31.8
Deuteronomy
9.19
13.14
30.4
31.14
32.1
33.11
124,
125, 135
125
137
94
33.17
34.1-3
34.1
34.2
34.3
34.4
34.12
94
55
125, 137
125
125
124, 125
136, 137
125
131
125
125
125
132
93,99
Daniel
1.6
125
Targum Neofiti
Genesis
8.1
32
9.26
70
9.27
71
10.21
69
14.18
72
14.19
79
14.20
79
15.2
103
24.62
78
25.22
68,78
25.27
79
38.25
125
39.21
57
43.14
56
43.30
56
49.17
125
49.18
125
Exodus
3.12
4.20
12.36
14.21
17.9
17.16
57
95
57
97
95
125, 133
33.4
33.6
Numbers
24.7
Deuteronomy
13.18
30.11-14
30.12
30.13
32.1
33.17
93
93
124, 125
135
56
129
129, 130
125, 130
125
125
Fragmentary Targums
Genesis
56
6.8
78
10.9
72
14.18
78
25.22
53
30.27
53
34.11
53
39.4
53
49.29
Exodus
12.36
14.21
33.6
53
97
93
Deuteronomy
30.12
129
30.13
129
Targum Jonathan
Judges
19.23
110
/ Samuel
2.25-36
173
2 Samuel
1.26
3.33.
13.12
13.15
55
110
110
55
7 Kings
8.50
55
241
Index of References
2 Chronicles
30.9
55
Job
1.2-3
1.3
2.9-11
2.9-10
2.10
42.8
101
101-104
107, 110
107
101
110
110
Psalms
45.3
79.8
84.12
106.46
55
54
55
55
Proverbs
3.4
5.19
7.10
10.7
11.16
17.8
20.6
28.23
31.10
31.30
53
55
109
180
53
53
60
53
53
55
Ecclesiastes
9.6
9.11
10.12
55
55
53, 55
Isaiah
9.16
22.20-24
22.21
22.22
22.24
25.12
32.5
47.6
63.5
Jeremiah
3.8
11.16
23.26
31.1
110
173
173
173
173
119
110
55
117
116
115
116
53, 55
Ezekiel
2.6
2.7
3.4
3.7
3.27
4.13
5.8
5.15
6.4
6.5
6.9
6.14
7.2
7.7
7.9
7.10
7.12
7.13
7.21
7.22
7.25
7.26
8.12
8.17
8.18
9.9
11.15
11.16
11.19
12.17
13.3
13.5
14.4-6
14.6
16
16.3
16.4-5
16.6
16.7
16.8-9
16.8
16.10
16.11
16.12-13
16.14
16.15-16
16.20-21
16.20
16.24-25
16.28-29
16.32
112
112
111
112
111
113
113
113
112
112
112
113
113
118
113
118
113
112
113
113
113
113
112
112
113
113
112
113
118
113
110
112,
112
112
113,
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
112,
114
114
112,
1 14
115
117
16.34
16.35
16.38
16.43
16.45
16.46-47
16.58
16.59
16.61
16.63
17
17.4
17.18
17.20
17.22-23
17.23
18.2
18.6
18.15
18.20
18.30
18.31-32
18.31
19
19.10-14
19.10-11
19.12-14
20
20.8
20.11
20.13
20.16
20.21
116
20.25
114
114
20.28
20.36-37
20.39
20.40-41
20.43
21
21.15-17
21.18
21.19-22
21.31-32
21.32
22.2
22.4
112 114,
115
114
114
115
115
114, 115
115
115
115
112, 115
115
119
111
115
119
119
119
117
117
117
117
112
117
118
115
115
115
115
115
1 15
116, 118
115
115
115,
116, 118
112,
115, 116
115
116
115
118
116, 118
116
116
112,
113, 116
116
116
112
117
120
242
Ezekiel (cont.)
120
22.12
117
22.24
117
22.25-28
117
22.30
116
23
120
23.25
113
23.27
117
24.5
24.6
112,
113,
117
24.8
117
24.11
117
24.12
117
24.14
117
24.25
118,
30.3
116
34
116
34.2-4
116
34.8
116
34.10
116
34.16
116
34.17
116
34.20
116
34.22
34.23-24
117,
118
34.25
117
34.26
34.28
117
111,
34.31
36
118
118
36.18-21
117
119
36.24-25
36.26
36.27
36.31
36.38
37
37.13
37.16
37.19
37.21
37.24
37.27
39.4
39.9
39.16
39.28-29
43.22
118
118
118
118
111, 118
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
111
111
119
119
117
Hosea
2.11-12
10.1
110
115
Zechariah
1.16
4.7
11.7
12.10
13.1
55
55
116
53, 55,
58
118
Others
Pal. Targ. Exod.
32.25
93
Targ. Esth. II Parma
32.35
58
Targ. Sheni
5.8
7.3
8.5
52,53,
58
52, 53,
58
52, 53,
58
Amos
119
117
9.1
115
Micah
5.14
115
Nahum
3.1
3.4
3.6
118
55
116
Targ. Sheni Est.

2.15
53
2.17
53
5.2
53
Targ. Tosefta Exod.
13-155
96
RABBINIC LITERATURE
Yad.
3,5
Mishnah
B. Bat.
8.1
102
102
103
102
15
72
Babylonian Talmud
b. B. Bat.
104
115b
106, 109
15b
103
50b-52a
104
51a
Sal.
71.1
32
b. Ker.
9a
Sot.
20c
106
b. Meg.
9b
8.2
8.5
9.1
Meg.
1.8
114
41,71,
72
b. Mes.
114.b
111
b. Ned.
32b
73,74
b. Pes.
54a
92
b. Sanh.
106a
38b
58b
69b
106
38
38
69
b. Taan.
2a
119
243
Index of References
b. Yarn.
9b
72
Palestinian Talmud
y. Meg.
1.9.10
72
1.11
73
y. Sot.
5.6
132
y. Sot.
20c
Midrashim
ARNA
41
132
91, 92
ARN B
37
91, 92
Ag. Ber.
42
73
Deut. R.
2.377
34
Deut. R.
We-zoth
ha-Berakah
40a
95
Deut. R., Ekeb

95
17a
Ejcod. /?.
1.26
1.31
5.6
8.3
27.3.
84
91
95
93,95
106
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.8
14.9
15.1
18.4
19.1
20.11
22.2-3
22.22
22.7
22.88
23.11
23.33
24.6
225.2
36.8
37.77
37.99
38.13
43.6
43.8
45.8
45.100
46.88
47.1
50.122
51.11
53.8
53.144
61.111
80.4
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
36
36
38
37
38
38
39
39
36
40
72
41
69
44
44, 72
79
45
45
47
47
49
50
48
46
49
108
Num. R.
Mek. Exod.
12.233
16.31
16.32
17.5
114
92
91
96
Yal.
Mek. SbY. Exod.

16.322
92
Gen R.
2.3
2.5
6.4
14.22
32, 33
32
41
34
Midr. Pss.
3
4
114.9
91
91
95
4.8
10.299
73
89
PRE
18
19
40
91
91
91, 98
R. Judah
b. Simon, Gen.
30.33
108
R. Judah
b. Simon, Prov.
108
27. 1
Sifre Deut.
157
355
132
92
Sifre Num.
64
97
Tanh. B, Tazri 'a

93
10
Tanh. Tazri' a
93
8
Tanh. Wa-Era
95
8
95
9
93
9
173
474
92, 94,
96,98
92, 98
94
Pirke Abot
5,6,9
91
168
244

PHILO
Congr.
93
99
79
79
Leg. All.
3.79
73,75
Quaest. in Exod.
19.6
77
Quaest. in Gen.
2.75-76
75
9.27
75, 76
Sobr.
51-67
51-55
56-58
62
75
75
76
76
63
65
66
67-68
76
76
77
77
Vit. Mos.
2.133-35
76
War
6.437
6.438
72
73,75
JOSEPHUS
2.238-53
Ant.
1.180
1.181
2.233-36
72, 73,
75
79
85
Apion
1.29-36
87
75
OTHER JEWISH AUTHORS
Naveh
24
30
32-33
46
58-60
181
181
181
182
181
62-63
64
65-66
70
181
182
181
181
On Stone Mosaic
75
181
76
181
102
182
103
182
104
182
105
181
CHRISTIAN AUTHORS
Ambrose
De Sacr.
IV.10
V.I
67
67
Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis
4.25
67
Cyprian
Ep.
63.4
67
II. 1
35
55
Eusebius
Praep. Evang.
9.18
87
9.23
87
9.27
87
Irenaeus
Adv. Haer.
3.5.3
St. Ephrem
Carmina Nisibena
39
192
Dem.
21
Epiphanius
Adv. Haer.
2.6
Jerome
Ep.
73
79
68
79
68
73.2
79
Quaest. Heb. in Gen.

9.27
72
14.18
79
Justin Martyr
Dial, with Trypho
139.2-3
70
Dialogue
19.4
67
70
70
Origen
Comm in Joh.
3
67
PL 4 Cols.
387-88
67
245
Index of References
Tertullian
Adv. Jud.
2
67
Hippolyus
Refut. Omn. Haer.
20
68
OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES
Aramaic
Hamath-Zakir
B. 15-18
142
Ashurnerari V with
Mati'ilu of Arpad
1.10-29
151
rev. IV. 16
146
Corpus
Inscriptionum
semiticarum II
1174
128
130
134
1373
1375
1378
1379
1479
1499
1570
1631
3200
3229
338
376
393bis
3973
408
4207
4208
443
493
494
636
750
785
178
179
179
179
178
178
178
178
179
177
178
177
178
178
179
178
178
183
178
183
183
179
178
178
180
178
178
Commentary on
Diatessaron
I.I
194
Commentary on
Diatessaron on
Virginity
12
191
191
20
Hymn
23, 13
194
Hymns on Paradise
5
191
202
I, 11
205
I, 13
204
I, 18-19
207
1,32
195
11,2
204
11,24
202
III, 17
203
IV, 4-15
207
IV, 8
207
IV, 11-12
203
IV, lib
IV, 12
205
196
IV, 14-15
196
IV, 15
IV, 20
206
204
IX, 14
203
IX, 16-17
204
V, 17
V, 23
207
VI, 18
205
203
VI, 5
VI, 7
203, 205
VI, 14
207
VI, 17
207
VI, 18
207
206
VI, 24
205
VI, 25
VII, 2
207
206
VII, 3-12
VII, 7
205, 207
VII, 10
205
VII, 12
207
VII, 16-17
207
VII, 18
205
VII, 19
207
VII, 21
VII, 22
VIII, 3-4
VIII, 6
VIII, 12
VIII, 14
X,2
X, 5-6
X,7
X, 8
X, 13
XI, 6
XI, 7-8
XI, 12
XI, 13
XII, 16
XIII, 2-3
XIII, 7
XIII, 90
XIV, 7
XIX, 1
XIX, 12
XIX, 13
XV, 9-11
XV, 12
XVII, 7
XVII, 13
XVIII, 1
XVIII, 15
XX, 1-7
XX, 4
XX, 8
XX, 9
XX, 11
XX, 12
XX, 18-19
XX, 20
XXI, 10
XXI, 11
XXI, 15
XXI, 25
207
207
206
207
207
204
203
204
207
206
207
201
201
203
207
205, 207
207
203
207
204
204
204
206
204
205
204
204
199
204
204
202
197
197
197
204
204
202
198
198
205
198
Esarhaddon
Accession treaty
rev.26-27
147
246
Succession treaty
line 418
152
line 443
147
line 487
152
line 570
148
lines 455-56 147
lines 599-600 147
line 608
149
lines 637-40 152
Treaty with Baal,
king of Tyre
rev.iv.18
150
Hadad (Zenjirli)
22
143
24
152
MSo.I.1,2
MS 9al
MSS9al
170
175, 176
176
NSI 140B
183
PRK Isa.
51.15
94
Panammu
6 144
9 144
Phoenecian Ahiram
line 2
152
Phoenician Kilamuwa I
line 15
142
lines 16-18
142
Sefire
II.A.4-5
I.A.21-24
I.A.21
I.A.23
I.A.26-27
I.A.27-29
I.A.27
I.A.29
I.A.30-33
I.A.35-36
146
143
144
144
147
143
147
148
148
149
I.A.36
I.A.38-39
I.A.39-40
I.A.40-41
I.C.18
I.C.19
I.C.21-25
II.A.2
II.A.9
II.C.2
II.C.4-5
II.C.6
II.C.9
150
150
151
151
141
152
152
144
149
141
142
141
141
Tell Fakhariyah
11-12
141
16-18
142
18-19
143
20-21
143
22
144, 145
23
147
23.37-38
147
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aberbach, M. 111-14, 118-20

Abou-Assaf, A. 141, 144, 145
Aggoula, B. 184, 185
Albright, W.F. 90
Alexander, P.S. 5, 23, 81, 124
Alon, G. 137
Amusin, J.D. 208, 214, 215
Aptowitzer, V. 104
Astell,A.W. 14
Attema, D.S. 208
Aufrecht, W.E. 91, 141
Aureoli, P. 25, 29
Barnard, L.W. 188
Baron, S.W. 105, 106
Barthelemy, D. 40
Baskin, J.R. 88, 106, 108, 133
Bauckham, R.J. 17
Baumgarten, J.M. 136
Beattie, D.R.G. 23, 100
Ben-Barak, Z. 105
Bernstein, M.J. 76
Beyer, K. 155, 156, 160, 181, 185,
209, 212-15, 218-21, 223, 224,
226
Bickel, G. 146
Blau, L. 94
Boccaccini, G. 121
Boer, P.A.H. de 165, 169
Bordreuil, P. 141
Bowker, J. 34, 37, 41
Braude, W.G. 32,91,94,95
Brightman, T. 16-20
Brock, S.P. 87, 187-89, 190-93, 202,
203
Bronner, L.L. 105
Brown, CA. 105
Buber, S. 95
Budge, E.A.W. 98
Camp, C.V. 107, 108

Carmignac, J. 208, 218-21, 226
Carmona, A.R. 73,74, 79, 119
Cathcart, K.J. 6, 107, 115, 116, 118,
140, 146, 148, 149, 151
Charles, R.H. 74, 75
Chester, A. 93, 122
Chiari, I, da 20
Chilton, B.D. 112, 173, 174
Churgin, P. 119
Clark, EA. 14
Clarke, E.G. 91, 124
Clines, D.J.A. 15, 101
Cocceius, J. 18
Cohen, J. 21
Collins, J.J. 87, 209
Cook, E.M. 6
Cooke, G.A. 177, 183
Cotton, J. 18
Cowley, A. 104
Cross, P.M. 209, 210, 212-15, 218-21
Dahl, NA. 37
Dalman, G. 212
Dan, J. 83
Davenport, J. 18
Davidson, M.J. 68
Degen R. 185
Delcor, M. 208
Dols, M.W. 206
Dommershausen, W. 208
Drijvers, H.J.W. 182, 183, 186
Driver, G.R. 148
Driver, S.R. 163, 164
Dupont-Sommer, A. 147, 208, 212,
215-17, 219-21, 223, 225
Eisenman, R. 155
Eisenstein, J.D. 82
Elbaum, J. 134
248
Elbaum, Y. 83
Elliger, K. 146
Emerton, J.A. 208
Engammare, M. 14, 20, 25
Englert, D.M.C. 166
Epstein, J.N. 92, 96
Euting, J. 177
Evans, G.R. 25
Fales, P.M. 141
Farr, G. 60
Fassberg, S. 155
Fensham, F.C. 148, 150
Fernandez, M.P. 91, 119, 128
Feuillet, A. 19
Finkelstein, L. 92
Fitzmyer, J.A. 44, 68, 141, 144,
146-49, 151, 152, 155, 209, 212,
215-18, 220, 221, 223, 225
Flusser, D. 82, 83, 85
Fodor, A. 94
Fohrer, G. 208
Freedman, D.N. 208
Frey, J.-B. 181
Friedlander, G. 37, 91, 92, 95, 98, 180
Gadd, CJ. 215, 223
Garrett, S.R. 109, 110
Gaster, M. 82
Geiger, ?.?. 136
Gelston, A. 167
Genot, J. 83
Gevarjahu, H.M.I. 208, 214, 215
Gevirtz, S. 140, 142
Gibson, J.C.L. 142, 143, 147, 149, 151
Ginsburg, C.D. 14, 18, 27
Ginzberg, L. 37, 41, 82, 91, 105, 108
Goldberg, A.M. 37
Goldin, J. 91
Goldschmidt, L. 83, 92, 93, 98
Goodspeed, E.J. 153
Gordon, R.P. 6, 16, 115, 116, 118, 150,
167, 170
Grant, R.M. 154
Greenfield, J.C. 141-45
Grelot, P. 209, 212, 214-20, 223, 226
Gropp, D.M. 141, 144, 147
Grossfeld, B. 5, 72, 87, 95, 96, 110
Griinbaum, M. 96
Gunkel, H. 146
Hadot, J. 34
Hailperin, H. 22
Hamilton, G.J. 141
Hammer, R. 92
Hanhart, R. 155
Harrington, D.J. 209, 212, 215-18,
220, 221, 223, 225
Hastings, J. 106
Hayward, R. 5, 95
Healey, J.F. 6, 101, 107, 179, 180
Heinemann, J. 123
Herde, R. 14
Herr, M.D. 83
Heunisch, C. 18
Hill, C. 18
Hillers, D.R. 140, 148, 149, 151
Hoftijzer, J. 177, 186
Homes, N. 18
Hoonacker, A. van 146
Horst, P.W. van der 109, 182
Horton, F.L. 73, 74, 78
Hiittenmeisetr, F. 182
Jacobson, H. 76
Jastrow, M. 103, 150, 180
Jaussen, A.J. 178, 179, 214
Jean, C.-F. 177
Jellinek, A. 84-86, 88, 92-94, 96
Jongeling, B. 209, 212, 214, 215,
217-21, 223, 225, 226
Jongeling, K. 186
Joosten, J. 166, 167
Josefo, F. 44, 45
Joiion, P. 19, 25, 29
Kafih, J. 23
Kamin, S. 26
Kapstein, I.J-. 94
Kaufman, S.A. 124, 141, 142, 144,
145, 152, 161
Kelper, T.S. 153
Kermode, F. 108
Kirschlager, W. 209, 212
Klein, M.L. 127, 129, 133
Knobel, P.S. 101
Komlos, Y. 96
Kraemer, R.S. 107
Kuhn, K.G. 111
Labuschagne, C.J. 209
Langdon, S. 213
Index of Authors
Lauterbach, J. 91, 92, 96
LeDeaut, R. 117, 131
Le Moyne, J. 104
Lehrman, S.M. 84,91,93,95
Leila, A.A. di 75
Leloir, L. 193
Levey, S.H. 131
Levine, E. I l l , 113, 116-20, 131
Levy, B.B. 71, 130
Levy, J. 103,214
Lewis, TJ. 141, 147
Lidzbarski, M. 177, 178
Lim, T.H. 76
Littledale, R.F. 14, 18,27
Littman, E. 177, 179
Loring, R.T. 19
Luria, D. 92, 95, 98
Lyra, N. de 20-25, 29
Macho, A.D. 7, 124, 133
Maher, M. 5, 68, 73, 79, 95, 97, 122,
124, 128, 131, 132
Maloney, E.G. 159
Mandelbaum, B. 94
Mangan, C. 103, 107, 108, 110
Mansour, T.B. 193
Marcus, I. 24
Marks, R.G. 128
Martinez, F.G. 119, 209, 210, 212,
214-16, 218-21, 223, 225, 226
Matter, E.A. 14, 27
Mazar, B. 90
McCarthy, C. 6, 194, 203
McCarthy, D.J. 151
McKane, W. 181
McNamara, M. 8, 23, 28, 67, 95, 96,
100, 103, 122, 124, 127, 129,
130, 134, 138, 152, 176, 177,
208, 209, 226
McVey, K. 191, 193
Melamed, E.Z. 92, 96
Merino, L.D. 5
Mertens, A. 209
Mesnil du Buisson, R. du 182-84, 186
Meyer, R. 208, 212, 215, 217, 219,
220, 223, 225, 226
Milik, J.T. 183, 186, 208, 209, 212,
215-17, 219, 220, 223, 225, 226
Millard, A.R. 141
Montgomery, J. 58
Moule, C.F.D. 154, 160
Miinster, S. 20, 29
Murray, R. 187, 188, 192-94, 196,

197, 199, 200
Naveh, J. 177
Negev, A. 178-80
Neyrand, L. 26, 28
Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 109
Noah, M.M. 83
Noth, M. 90
Noy, D. 181
O'Connor, D.J. 108
Ohly, F. 14
Parpola, S. 147-49, 151, 152
Pennacchietti, F.A. 185
Perez de Valencia, J. 20, 29
Peters, C. 165
Petersen, W.L. 189
Petuchowski, J.J. 74
Peuch, E. 6
Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 217
Pope, M.R. 14, 19, 29
Poznanski, S. 106
Puech, E. 142
Quasten, J. 21
Rabinowitz, J. 95
Rajak, T. 87
Reed, W.L. 58, 59
Reeg, G. 182
Ribera, J. 5, 112-15, 118, 119, 121
Riedlinger, H. 14
Robert, A. 19, 25, 29
Robert, J. 117, 131
Rosenthal, F. 152
Rosmarin, A. 93, 96
Sakenfeld, K.D. 59
Saldarini, A.J. 91
Saley, R.J. 166
Saltman, A. 26
Samely, A. 16
Sarfatti 41
Sasson, V. 143
Savignac, R. 178, 179, 214
Schafer, P. 122
Schaffer, A. 141-45
Schechter, S. 91
Schlumberger, D. 183, 184
Schmitt-Korte, K. 179
249
250
Schwartz, E. 164, 171

Segal, J.B. 206
Segert, S. 208
Shinan, A. 6, 68, 71, 81-89, 92-94, 96,
98, 122, 123, 131
Simon, M. 68
Skehan, P.W. 75
Smith, J.M.P. 145
Smith, R.P. 224
Smolar, L. I l l , 113, 114, 118-20
Sokoloff, M 124, 181
Spittler, R.P. 105
Stemberger, G. 82
Stoebe, H.J. 56
Strack, H.L. 82
Stuhlmueller, C. 8
Syren, R. 127, 136, 137
Teixidor, J. 183
Thackeray, H.St.J. 78
Theodore of Mopsuestia 20, 21, 24
Tiede, D.L. 99
Torrey, C.C. 153, 154, 158-60
Tournay, R. 19
Tov, E. 15
Towner, W.S. 91, 96
Toy, C.H. 181
Trachtenberg, J. 94
Urbach, E.E. 32, 37, 94

Ustinova, Y. 177
Vattioni, F. 184-86
Vaux, R. de 222
Vermes, G. 68, 81, 135
Vogt, E. 208, 212
Vregill, B. de 26, 28
Weitzman, M.P. 167
Wesselius, J.W. 143
Wise, M. 155, 156, 161
Wither, G. 18
Witherington, B. Ill 106, 107
Witte,J. 26,27
Woude, A.S. van der 209, 212, 217-21,
223, 225, 226
Yahalom, Y. 177
Yousif, P. 207
Zeron, A. 137
Ziegler, J. 166
Zunz, L. 83, 180
JOURNAL
FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLDTESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
86
87
88
89
G.W. Coats (ed.), Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in
Old Testament Literature
M.D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs
J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding the
Word: Essays in Honor ofBernhard W. Anderson
T.H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament
D. Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the
Hebrew Bible, II
E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry
B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of
the Jerusalem Cult
J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of
William McKane
G.C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment
S.J.L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms
A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic
Drama
E.G. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading
S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis
W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for
F.C. Fensham
J.D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A
Comparative Study
M. Noth, The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson with an
Introduction)
P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel
C.C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A FormCritical and Theological Study
R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study
J. Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in
Transition
T.L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: 1. The Literary
Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23
A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans.
W.G.E. Watson)
D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three
Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in
the University of Sheffield
R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis
R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
(trans. J.J. Scullion)
90
M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of

Ezekiel
91 F.H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the
Priestly Theology
92 Y.T. Radday & A. Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew
Bible
93 W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative
94 D.J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions
to the Old Testament
95 R.D. Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories
96 L.A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis
97 P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve
98 K.L. Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near
Eastern and Biblical History Writing
99 R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs
100 P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on
Jewish and Christian Literature and History
101 P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age
102 M. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter,
II
103 E.G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic
Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages
104 P.R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains
105 P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures
in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M.J. Smith)
106 P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World
107 C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law
108 P.M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and
Tradition in Ancient Society
109 D. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArchaeological Approach
110 N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the
Canaanites
111 J.G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence
for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel
112 L.G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job
113 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law
114 D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis
Jacobs
115 V. Hurowitz, / Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the
Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings
116 D.M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo
Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton)
117 P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic
Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (trans. I.E. Crowley)
D.J.A. Clines & T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An
Experiment in Comparative Interpretation
R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah
D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah
L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire
E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead
B. Halpern & D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel
G.A. Anderson & S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel
J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An
Intellectual Biography
D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past
T.P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in
Proverbs 10-29
Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic
M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah
L. Holden, Forms of Deformity
M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American
Perspective
R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the
Patriarchal Narratives
G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua
G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2
P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical,
Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden
137
H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical

Themes and their Influence
138 R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson
139 J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative
140 W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in
Biblical Law
141 G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East
142 F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment:
A Socio-Historical Investigation
143 D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the
Hebrew Bible
144 P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the
Prophetic Writings
145 C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis
146 G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic
Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by
G.O. Rollefson)
147 T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
148 P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel'
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets
and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple
Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp
I.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8
J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community
A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of
George Wishart Anderson
D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for
Psalm 18
M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other
Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday
J.A. Eager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew
Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge
J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of
Choral Music in Chronicles
G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible
M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of
Numbers
J.C. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter
W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation
of History
G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition
H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom
of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth
Birthday
J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Subversions of Biblical
Narratives
L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7
E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Israel: From Joshua to the Mishnah
D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in
their Historical Context
R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School
R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs
B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in
Biblical Prophecy and Story
W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse
H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and
Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature
V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation:
Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes
J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach
T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple
and Community in the Persian Period
176
111
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea
Scrolls
D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew
M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in
the I-Psalms
J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy
R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets
B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law:
Revision, Interpolation and Development
S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions:
The Heritage of Martin Noth
J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of The Semites (Second and Third
Series) by William Robertson Smith
J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of
Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew
Mythologyy
L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther
C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity
R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of
Isaiah
W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment
S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial
Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom
M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old
Testament
192
193
194
195
H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of
Paradigms, 1850-1914
B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic
History of the Restoration
E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of
Hosea
J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts

Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
196 J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible
197 W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to
Exegete in the Second Temple Period
198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary
Comparison
199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the
Commentators
200 M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human
Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son
201 J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of
F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
221
228
229
230
N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible

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

Cathcart-Maher, Targumic - and - Cognate - Studies - InHonourMcNamara

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cathcart-Maher, Targumic - and - Cognate - Studies - InHonourMcNamara

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Targumic and Cognate

and Michael Maher

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 1996 Sheffield Academic Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

LUIS DIEZ MERINO

Onomastica y Toponimia: Targum, Midras y Antiguo Testamento

Tin ]H ^n - 'Finding Favor in Someone's Eyes': The Treatment

The Image of Israel according to the Targum of Ezekiel

Targumic and Cognate Studies

A Bibliography of the Works of Martin McNamara

This collection of essays by a group of international scholars is intended

Targumic and Cognate Studies

centres of scholarship to the Irish capital. As a member of the Royal

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Philip S. Alexander is Professor of Postbiblical Jewish Literature at the

This page intentionally left blank

THE SONG OF SONGS AS HISTORICAL ALLEGORY:

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

Targumic and Cognate Studies

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

verse of the 4. chapter. As also, as it was Evangelicall unto the Second

Brightman underscored his view of Canticles as predictive prophecy by

Brightman's 'Propheticall Exposition' of Canticles first appeared in

5. Brightman's Commentary on the Canticles appeared twice in English in

Targumic and Cognate Studies

published (posthumously) in Basel in 1614.6 He is the oldest of the

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

up by Lowth, Percy and other leading biblical scholars in the following

Targumic and Cognate Studies

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

middle ages. It proved a convenient bench-mark for an absolutely literal

Targumic and Cognate Studies

A small sample, from Cant. 1.3-4, will suffice to illustrate how

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

Targumic and Cognate Studies

exactly that his commentary can be seen not only as a commentary on

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

in Song of Songs must not be taken simply in their primary lexical

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Somewhat earlier is the Expositio hystorica Cantici Canticorum

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

Targumic and Cognate Studies

coincide at any point. The conclusion seems unavoidable: both Apponius

ALEXANDER The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory

allegorists drew, directly or indirectly, on Jewish sources, particularly

Luis Diez Merino

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

La historia no se detiene: los documentos literarios posteriores

1. Las abreviaturas mas habituales son: TH (Texto Hebreo), Tg. (Targum), TO

Targumic and Cognate Studies

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

Targumic and Cognate Studies

7. J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

Targumic and Cognate Studies

Midras: Esta relacion de Gen. 3.1 con Gen. 3.14 se establece en el

MERINO Onomdstica y Toponimia

Yahweh'" (TN). 'Adam conocio a Eva, su mujer, que estaba encinta de